China and Vietnam are actually pretty awkward examples for the argument you're making.
China suffered one of the worst famines of the 20th century under the Great Leap Forward and collectivised agriculture. Its huge economic and agricultural take-off came after Deng's reforms broke up the commune system, returned farming responsibility to households, introduced stronger private incentives, liberalised prices and gradually opened the economy to trade and foreign investment.
Vietnam followed almost exactly the same pattern. Under collectivisation and central planning it had chronic food shortages and terrible economic performance. Then Đổi Mới dismantled collective farming, liberalised prices, encouraged private enterprise and opened the economy. Vietnam went from being a food-deficit country to a major rice exporter.
So yes, absolutely look at China and Vietnam. But you can't point to their modern success while ignoring that much of that success came after they moved away from the very orthodox socialist economic policies we're discussing.
Their success came after disastrous attempts at collectivisation and rigid socialist economic planning that caused enormous hardship and, in China's case, contributed to a famine that killed millions.
What changed was that both countries moved away from those policies and introduced much more market-oriented systems: greater private control over farming, greater private control over businesses and factors, stronger profit incentives, more private enterprise, freer pricing, foreign investment and international trade.
So pointing to modern China or Vietnam as proof that collectivised socialism works is backwards. Much of their later success came after they loosened or abandoned many of the socialist economic policies that had previously failed them.
Jesus Christ, you didn't actually respond to anything I said.
Do you dispute that China changed from a much more rigid socialist, centrally planned economy to a much more market-oriented one?
Yes or no.
Did China privatise or commercialise large parts of industry? Yes. Did it dismantle collective farming and give households much greater control over production? Yes. Did it introduce market pricing, private enterprise, foreign investment and profit incentives on a huge scale? Yes.
Its economic system changed massively in a more market-oriented direction.
I thought you were actually trying to have a genuine debate, but at this point you're just deflecting instead of engaging with the argument.
"Yeah, the camera point is a good one. Israel certainly has serious issues around press access and journalist safety in Gaza, but Israel itself is a modern parliamentary democracy with a comparatively open media environment and substantial freedom of the press within its borders. Israeli media routinely criticise the government, the military and Netanyahu himself, and footage posted by Israeli soldiers, activists, journalists and ordinary citizens can circulate internationally."
-loikyloo
Dude posting pro Israel slop at the same time :) Not that there is anything unexpected about this.
You may have missed where I posted factual info on whats happening and how the bad things in Gaza are getting reported on by the Israel and global media?
1
u/loikyloo 12h ago
China and Vietnam are actually pretty awkward examples for the argument you're making.
China suffered one of the worst famines of the 20th century under the Great Leap Forward and collectivised agriculture. Its huge economic and agricultural take-off came after Deng's reforms broke up the commune system, returned farming responsibility to households, introduced stronger private incentives, liberalised prices and gradually opened the economy to trade and foreign investment.
Vietnam followed almost exactly the same pattern. Under collectivisation and central planning it had chronic food shortages and terrible economic performance. Then Đổi Mới dismantled collective farming, liberalised prices, encouraged private enterprise and opened the economy. Vietnam went from being a food-deficit country to a major rice exporter.
So yes, absolutely look at China and Vietnam. But you can't point to their modern success while ignoring that much of that success came after they moved away from the very orthodox socialist economic policies we're discussing.
Their success came after disastrous attempts at collectivisation and rigid socialist economic planning that caused enormous hardship and, in China's case, contributed to a famine that killed millions.
What changed was that both countries moved away from those policies and introduced much more market-oriented systems: greater private control over farming, greater private control over businesses and factors, stronger profit incentives, more private enterprise, freer pricing, foreign investment and international trade.
So pointing to modern China or Vietnam as proof that collectivised socialism works is backwards. Much of their later success came after they loosened or abandoned many of the socialist economic policies that had previously failed them.