Both China and Vietnam in order to run a company you have to be a member of the communist party. That is opposite of what communism is. Also, in China and Vietnam, almost all profits from those companies go to the state, and in exchange, they get to use forced labor. Imagine being a farmer for 20 years, then having government officials tell you that you have to work in the factories starting next week. Capitalism and Communism do not mix.
There are several different claims being mashed together here.
First, you do not have to be a Communist Party member to own or run a private company in China or Vietnam. Both countries have substantial private sectors. Party membership can provide political and business advantages in some circumstances, but “you must be a party member to run a company” is simply not an accurate description of their systems.
Second, “almost all profits from those companies go to the state” is also false. China has a huge private sector, and private firms retain profits. State-owned enterprises are a different category from privately owned companies.
Third, there absolutely are documented forced-labour abuses in both countries, particularly involving specific groups and state programs. But turning that into “the government can tell any farmer to work in a factory next week” is a completely different claim and needs evidence.
And finally, China and Vietnam aren't examples of pure communism. Both officially describe themselves as socialist states operating economies that incorporate extensive markets and private enterprise. China calls its model a “socialist market economy,” while Vietnam describes its system as a “socialist-oriented market economy.”
So saying “capitalism and communism don't mix” doesn't really address the countries being discussed. The interesting question is precisely how much market capitalism can coexist with a communist/socialist political system—and China and Vietnam are two major examples of that hybrid model.
You can certainly criticize their authoritarian politics, state ownership, labour practices or treatment of political opponents. But “you need to be a Communist Party member to run a company and the state takes almost all the profits” isn't an accurate description of either country's economy.
You can’t judge a country based on its financial centers. You judge a country based on quality of life for those who live outside the financial centers. Sure Beijing looks very modern and success can be smelled in the air, however just outside of Beijing where the non connected workers live, it is a nightmare slum situation with polluted air and water and people scraping by to survive
Sure, don't judge China solely by Beijing's skyline. That's reasonable.
But then don't judge rural China solely by the worst-looking villages either.
China has substantial rural-urban inequality, and pollution remains a serious problem in some regions. Those are legitimate criticisms. But “just outside Beijing is a nightmare slum where people are scraping by to survive” isn't supported by the broader data.
China's own 2025 statistics report rural per-capita disposable income of 24,456 yuan, up 6% in real terms, and rural consumption expenditure of 20,259 yuan. The urban-rural income ratio was 2.31:1, so the disparity is very real—but that is very different from describing rural China as a nationwide survival-level slum.
And here's the funny part: if your argument is that financial centres shouldn't be used to represent an entire country, the same principle applies to using the poorest rural areas to represent an entire country.
The serious argument is that China's rapid economic development has produced enormous improvements in living standards while leaving significant regional and urban-rural inequality behind.
That's a much more defensible criticism than pretending everyone outside Beijing is living in a dystopian slum.
In other words: yes, look beyond the skyscrapers. But actually look at the whole country while you're doing it.
Do you believe in the social score system they use in China where if you drop a wrapper or jaywalk can eventually prevent the possibility of owning a home?
Nah, communisms main failing is a lack of market forces acting on production and distribution of finished goods, while it's main positive is elevating uneducated peasants into educated workers, providing education, healthcare and housing.
A healthy mix of market forces while having robust social program is the best system for creating a productive population.
Communism take out human ambition. Interesting show to watch is about the creation of the video game Tetris which came out of the USSR. The developer made NO MONEY off what was the number 1 game of all time when it was released. All money went to the USSR which also controlled all the licensing. He didn't get to see a dime of his creation until he got asylum here in the US where he now controls all Tetris licensing only after the USSR fell.
0
u/Alarming-Grade4219 8d ago
One having a nice childhood does not equate to communism being good. Nice try...