Sort of! Marxism sees systems through the lens of Dialectical Materialism, the Dialectical aspect acknowledges that close to no system can be seen as “pure.” For example, by the time Capitalism was sprouting from Feudalism, Marx considered many countries that still had feudal modes of production over the majority of their economy to be Capitalist. Not a mixed economy, but Capitalist. The Marxist notion for what a system is, is determined by which Mode of Production is dominant, and which way it is moving towards. To imagine Socialism as a “pure” phase in development is to treat it as “special,” unique from the rest of history, which is a Utopian error.
Looking at the PRC, not only is the largest economic sector the Public Sector, but the PRC expresses strong central planning over even the Private and Cooperative sectors. Capital in the Private Sector increases in State control with the degree to which it has developed, which is very much in line with Marx and Engels. From Principles of Communism:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
Marx and Engels saw everything as a process. The revolution is still necessary to wrest absolute control from the Bourgeoisie, an act that can be seen as rather short-term, but the process of building towards Communism through Socialism is one done through degree, not decree. You cannot “will” developed markets that have centralized and made themselves ripe for central planning into existence, and Markets are a useful tool for doing so when combined with clear direction.
Again, from Marx, this time Manifesto of the Communist Party:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Does this all make sense with you? Do you agree, or disagree?
Why do you say China is becoming “more Capitalist and less Socialist?” The PRC is gradually increasing control of the Private Sector as it develops and folds it into the Public Sector. That could have been true in the 90s, but we are almost in 2025 and have seen decades of the opposite of what you describe.
Source for increasing control of the private sector? Is there a study of share of gdp public vs private or something? Because I’m seeing the opposite trend.
Disparity is rising, as are real wages. The Private Sector is seeing larger stratirication of overall wealth, but the purchasing power and real wages of workers is rising at a much higher rate. Eventually this will need to be combatted, yes, but the trends are very positive for the working class, which is the overall goal of Socialism.
The overall goal of Socialism is the liberation and improvement in the lives of the Proletariat. The central belief of Socialists is that at higher stages in development, Public Property is more efficient at that than Private Property, but that at different phases in development each form of property is more or less efficient.
I doubt you actually read the data I linked in that short of a time period, moreover I don’t know why you want to compare Public to Private with respect to Value.
I skimmed it and didn’t see a private vs public means of production graph over time. It looked more like just a list of articles that agree with you than data.
If you want to compare just the number of means of production controlled by private vs public, that’s fine, but it’d be much more easily skewed by small industries. So weighting by value would help get an overall picture. But just by number is fine.
The way in which the PRC handles Public vs Private property is along the basis of “don’t” privatize xyz sectors as a fundamental, such as banks, energy, the steel industry, etc. The growth of the Privtate Sector does not imply a shrinking Public Sector or a shift towards privatization, but that the Private Sector has succeeded in high growth, as is its purpose in these underdeveloped industries.
Sort of! Marxism sees systems through the lens of Dialectical Materialism, the Dialectical aspect acknowledges that close to no system can be seen as “pure.” For example, by the time Capitalism was sprouting from Feudalism, Marx considered many countries that still had feudal modes of production over the majority of their economy to be Capitalist. Not a mixed economy, but Capitalist. The Marxist notion for what a system is, is determined by which Mode of Production is dominant, and which way it is moving towards. To imagine Socialism as a “pure” phase in development is to treat it as “special,” unique from the rest of history, which is a Utopian error.
Looking at the PRC, not only is the largest economic sector the Public Sector, but the PRC expresses strong central planning over even the Private and Cooperative sectors. Capital in the Private Sector increases in State control with the degree to which it has developed, which is very much in line with Marx and Engels. From Principles of Communism:
Marx and Engels saw everything as a process. The revolution is still necessary to wrest absolute control from the Bourgeoisie, an act that can be seen as rather short-term, but the process of building towards Communism through Socialism is one done through degree, not decree. You cannot “will” developed markets that have centralized and made themselves ripe for central planning into existence, and Markets are a useful tool for doing so when combined with clear direction.
Again, from Marx, this time Manifesto of the Communist Party:
Does this all make sense with you? Do you agree, or disagree?
China is becoming more capitalist and less socialist over time, that undermines the argument that capitalism is transitional on the way to socialism.
Why do you say China is becoming “more Capitalist and less Socialist?” The PRC is gradually increasing control of the Private Sector as it develops and folds it into the Public Sector. That could have been true in the 90s, but we are almost in 2025 and have seen decades of the opposite of what you describe.
Source for increasing control of the private sector? Is there a study of share of gdp public vs private or something? Because I’m seeing the opposite trend.
https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-wealth-private-property-and-income-inequality-china
https://www.statista.com/chart/25194/private-sector-contribution-to-economy-in-china/
You’re confusing wealth with percentage of production. The Private Sector is profit driven, which naturally trends towards more wealth production. Regardless, here is data going over the trends in production in the PRC and why it is Socialist, rather than Capitalist.
Inequality is also growing
Trends in China’s income inequality: 1978–2015
Disparity is rising, as are real wages. The Private Sector is seeing larger stratirication of overall wealth, but the purchasing power and real wages of workers is rising at a much higher rate. Eventually this will need to be combatted, yes, but the trends are very positive for the working class, which is the overall goal of Socialism.
What is the overall goal of socialism? To increase our purchasing power and real wages of workers? Because I’m incredulous of that.
The overall goal of Socialism is the liberation and improvement in the lives of the Proletariat. The central belief of Socialists is that at higher stages in development, Public Property is more efficient at that than Private Property, but that at different phases in development each form of property is more or less efficient.
Do you have a graph of percentage of production over time? Maybe weighted by value?
I doubt you actually read the data I linked in that short of a time period, moreover I don’t know why you want to compare Public to Private with respect to Value.
I skimmed it and didn’t see a private vs public means of production graph over time. It looked more like just a list of articles that agree with you than data.
If you want to compare just the number of means of production controlled by private vs public, that’s fine, but it’d be much more easily skewed by small industries. So weighting by value would help get an overall picture. But just by number is fine.
The way in which the PRC handles Public vs Private property is along the basis of “don’t” privatize xyz sectors as a fundamental, such as banks, energy, the steel industry, etc. The growth of the Privtate Sector does not imply a shrinking Public Sector or a shift towards privatization, but that the Private Sector has succeeded in high growth, as is its purpose in these underdeveloped industries.
Further, here’s a work on the control of the economy and its trends over time (paywalled, unfortunately). Here’s a non-paywalled scholarly article on the growth of State control over the Private Sector.