Unthinking Majority wrote:So in 1978 and through the 90's to today, China opened up it's economy to increasingly capitalist reforms and it's economy has flourished spectacularly unlike anything seen since the industrial revolution. There's a reason why it continues to embrace the tenets of capitalism, why the vast majority of its GDP comes from private enterprise, and does not return to more communism. I guess if it were up to you or other communists, you'd have denied hundreds of millions of Chinese being lifted out of terrible poverty. If you don't believe me, ask the Chinese gov why they embrace capitalism.
Maoism never reached Communism and China remains Socialist today FYI. Mismanagement and poor decision making by sending the farmer to the factory rather than the field is hardly a high five moment for you because this point has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics. Although Mao is highly regarded in China so perhaps he wasn't all bad according to them.
Although it does need to be said that every nation today uses currency. And not all are rich or affluent, some even suffer from drought and all have poverty. Why? Because for there to be profit there must also be debt - and drought is usually down to the climate and not economics btw. Plus Capitalism is not a zero sum game. There are losers in Capitalism. The problem of course is the losers do not understand why they are losing as the ones who are winning also hold the power and dicate the rules.
Take away capital and replace it with communal and humans will adapt to the new system. Education progress and development doesn't need capital. It needs time skills and resources.
Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty over the last few decades because of reliance of profit. This helps fund & improve education, healthcare, sanitation, technology, communications, infrastructure etc. Sounds like progress to me.
Industrialisation has made China and took people out of poverty. Why is capital a requirement to build a factory to you? Does the beaver pay to build the dam?
[When such concepts didn't exist humans lived in largely terrible poverty in mainly subsistence economies. Animals live in extreme subsistence poverty where famines are common.
Well we are here so not everyone was in extreme poverty (malnourished) and the same can be applied to animals I guess. Although the term poverty is related to wealth FYI and doesn't really mean much in the state of nature.
If capital had no meaning and we lost it tomorrow humans wouldn't die off and would still progress. Why? Because capital is a human concept that we abide by and development is a function that can be applied into any economic model - even Communism.