If we continue to see the private sector as our savior from climate catastrophe, we'll continue to fail.

And the IEA, for its part, expects China to continue to be the sole meaningful over-achiever. It recently revised upwards by 728 GW its forecast for total global renewables capacity additions in the period 2023–27. China’s share of this upward revision? Almost 90 percent. While China surges ahead, the rest of the world remains stuck.

  • P1r4nha@feddit.de
    1610·
    9 months ago

    Let’s not call China socialist when a single party dictates larger economic trends in an otherwise competitive global market. It’s just not “free” as in free market capitalism.

    Otherwise I completely agree with the weaknesses of the western capitalist systems.

    • Alsephina@lemmy.mlEnglish
      183·
      9 months ago

      in an otherwise competitive global market

      Global market. China itself is socialist (not as far along as the USSR’s fully planned economy, but even the USSR used a state-driven market economy for its first 20 years with Lenin’s NEP), i.e. the state uses the market for the good of the people, including when that goes against capitalists’ interests. You’re commenting on a post with an article talking about just that.

      We’ve also been seeing this the last few months with how they’re tackling the real estate “crisis” by letting real estate developers go bankrupt and refusing to bail them out like capitalist countries do.

      • P1r4nha@feddit.de
        3·
        9 months ago

        But isn’t the means of production still mostly controlled by capital owners? Sure, some industries are influenced by the government, but that is also the case in the West. The plan is certainly more detailed for China, but to me Socialism always meant labor is controlling the means of production. How’s that the case when an elitist single-party government influences the capital owners?

    • Pascal@lemdro.idEnglish
      63·
      9 months ago

      a single party dictates larger economic trends

      You’re describing socialism.

      Well, so long as that party directs it in the interests of the people rather than capitalists, as is the case for China.

      • P1r4nha@feddit.de
        44·
        9 months ago

        Really? I’m not convinced the Chinese government acts in the interests of its people at all. That’s probably the biggest reason I can’t call it Socialism. Just because government influence is stronger than in the West, the economic system isn’t completely different.

      • P1r4nha@feddit.de
        4·
        9 months ago

        Enlighten me then. Means of production doesn’t seem to be controled by the party alone. Most of China’s economy still follows capitalist principles. Rich Chinese and owners of businesses are still private citizens. Sure, some influenced by the government, some industries very heavily regulated, but China still follows capitalist principles in most cases.

        I always thought Socialism means that means of production is controlled by labor directly, not capital owners or an elists single-party government.

        • naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
          13·
          9 months ago

          Just like how capitalism is a spectrum (in that, y’know, the US does not have purely free market capitalism but is still widely considered a capitalist state), socialism is also a spectrum. Marx and Engel’s writings do touch on this, but it was expanded on by the works of Lenin and Deng Xiaoping (among others). If you’re actually willing to learn, I’d recommend asking on hexbear.net because they’re much more familiar with the literature than me.