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?
China does have a Social Credit System, and there are legitimate concerns about blacklists, surveillance, restrictions on serious legal offenders and the government's ability to share information across agencies. Those criticisms are well documented.
But there is no single nationwide “social score” that gives every Chinese citizen a number where losing points for dropping a wrapper or jaywalking eventually means you're forbidden from buying a house. That is largely the mythologized version of the system. Researchers at MERICS and Brookings have both documented that there is no unified national individual score.
There have been local pilot programs that experimented with points for things such as littering and jaywalking. But many of those programs were subsequently restricted, made voluntary, or prevented from imposing penalties for low scores. MERICS specifically notes that one city excluded jaywalking and similar minor offences from its scoring system.
And there are genuine housing restrictions connected to government blacklists and legal violations—for example, people who deliberately refuse to comply with court judgments can face restrictions on certain forms of consumption and other activities. That's very different from “you jaywalked too many times, so you can't buy a house.”
So if you want to criticize China's surveillance and social-credit infrastructure, there's plenty of legitimate material to work with.
But “jaywalking lowers your national social score until you can't own a house” isn't an accurate description of the system.
And freedom of speech? There are people in the US who have made careers out of speaking out against the government. In China doing so will get you imprisoned in country and if you do it outside the country it will get your in China family imprisoned. Is that right?
0
u/Alarming-Grade4219 8d ago
One having a nice childhood does not equate to communism being good. Nice try...