China succeeded not by escaping socialism, but by perfecting it.
https://x.com/nxt888/status/1997670196648014102
The problem with your argument is not that it is wrong.
It is that it is a Western myth that collapses the moment you look at what China actually did rather than what Western economists told you it did.
Let us start with the core illusion:
China did not abandon socialism. It refined it.
China did not privatize land.
It did not privatize its banks.
It did not privatize its energy grid.
It did not privatize its natural resources.
It did not privatize its strategic industries.
It did not privatize its currency.
It did not privatize its capital controls.
China introduced markets the same way a surgeon introduces tools: useful, but never allowed to run the operating room.
If China had "embraced capitalism," as you claim, it would have dismantled state ownership, opened its currency, removed capital controls, and surrendered strategic sectors.
It did none of these things.
Instead it created a model capitalism cannot explain and cannot replicate:
A market system where the state owns the commanding heights and directs capital toward national priorities instead of shareholder profit.
China’s rise began with the socialist foundations laid before 1978.
The West loves to pretend China began in 1978 as a blank slate rescued by capitalism.
Reality disagrees.
Before 1978, China had already achieved:
Mass literacy.
Complete land redistribution.
Universal primary education.
Huge expansions in rural healthcare.
Eradication of landlordism.
Industrial base development.
Life expectancy rising from ~35 to ~65.
Infant mortality collapsing.
These were the socialist preconditions that made post-1978 growth possible.
Capitalism did not build the Chinese worker.
Socialism did.
It was not markets that made China rise. It was a state that never surrendered control.
China grew because the state:
Controlled investment.
Controlled land.
Controlled currency flows.
Controlled capital.
Controlled the banking system.
Controlled foreign firms.
Controlled market access.
Controlled strategic industries.
Controlled macroeconomic policy.
This is not capitalism.
It is state-led development with market tools, the same formula Japan, Korea, and Singapore used.
The difference?
China never surrendered sovereignty to Western capital.
The West calls China capitalist because it cannot accept what China proved.
China's success is the single greatest ideological threat the West has ever faced.
If China succeeded as a socialist state, then the West must confront the unthinkable:
That capitalism is not the only path and may not even be the superior one.
So the West rewrites the story and pretends China "joined capitalism."
But China never allowed capitalism to rule the state.
The real divide is simple: who rules whom?
Capitalism lets markets rule the state.
Socialism lets the state rule the markets.
China chose the second, and the results speak for themselves.
That is why Western elites hate the phrase:
"Socialism with Chinese characteristics."
Because it names the truth:
China succeeded not by escaping socialism, but by perfecting it.
Capitalism survives only when you refuse to apply your own logic to it.
If capitalism gets credit for China's rise, then capitalism must get blame for India's stagnation, Africa's underdevelopment, and Latin America's repeated failures.
But you never apply that symmetry.
Which is why this always ends in the same conclusion:
Socialism works where it is allowed to develop.
Capitalism works only when socialism builds the foundation and cleans up the wreckage.
You are not fooling me, Antonio.
You are repeating the Western fairy tale that tries to claim China's victory because it cannot survive the possibility that China proved the West wrong.
posted by Satish Sharma at
01:31
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home