It's a hybrid system in which the state still retains control over the means of production and in which there exist no enforcable property rights. In this sense, it is still a communist system. On the other hand, the Chinese state explicitly allows market activity to boost production and wealth, with all the usual byproducts like soaring inequality and corruption. The decisive point imho is that all the capitalism and "free" market activity in China is still conditional on state approval, only allowed to go to the point where the government can still control it. In this sense, I consider it misleading and factually wrong to call China's system capitalistic.




Which ones? Note that socialism is not the same social democracy.




Liberal socialists believe humans have certain rights. But they dont, for example, hold freedom of speech and property rights in particularly high regard. And they tend to also believe in social engineering and legislated equality, which once again lends itself to authoritarianism in the end.

Human rights are the delineating factor that separates liberal democracies from authoritarian regimes. (The term 'Liberal' here meaning classical liberalism, not generic leftism as in contemporary American English...)

Socialism can theoretically exist within both democracies and authoritarian systems, but throughout history, most socialist systems ended up on the authoritarian side of things.

I'm not going to debate you as long as you dictate that common terms are defined in your narrow view.

Nty I'm good on that.

Liberalism is the source of all rights within the social contract. If you want to do some philosophy I'm game but I'm good on word games.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 16 2020 01:37pm

The dividing line between capitalism and socialism is who owns the means of production: is it private ownership, or is it social ownership?
In social democracy, you still have private ownership and thus a capitalistic system, just with the capitalist economy being kept in check by tight regulations and a high amount of redistribution.

Those are the standard and widely accepted definitions of the terms. Same for the meaning of the 'liberal'-part in 'liberal democracy'. I really dont understand why you accuse me of defining these common terms in narrow or unorthodox fashion...
When it comes to China, there is (to the best of my knowledge) no consensus in the scientific community on how exactly to characterize or call their system. You can call it "state capitalism" if you want.


When it comes to liberalism and the social contract: there were already certain rights in the social contracts before the Age of Enlightenment, so claiming that liberalism is the source of all rights within the social contract is a very limited, eurocentric view. Of course, contemporary China operates under a different social contract altogether, one which does not include a lot of human or civil rights.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 16 2020 02:25pm

Tell me what rights existed before the Magna Carta or any Constitution plz, Aside from the basic right of might that is nature.

All I can think of is the divine right of kings which was a product of social contract.

A right is an expectation to be treated a certain way And create duties in others....this is the accepted definition on political philosophy as part of positive law.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 16 2020 02:52pm

Does any body here believe any rights except the right of might exist in nature?

What exactly do you mean with "in nature"? Do you mean "among animals or among cavemen"? If so, then I'd say the answer is no.

Imho, rights are a human invention, and they are only relevant if there'is someone there to enforce them (be it police, military, judiciary, or social control). Human and civic rights are what separates modern, enlightened and free societies from pre-modern theocracies and authoritarian regimes.

A sovereign to enforce them. A greatest, necessary evil, says Hobbes.

What about post-modern authoritarian regimes?

Also it seems like you think that history is a progression with some sort of goal or something.

The Original question was me wondering if you believed in natural rights.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 17 2020 05:07pm

Life is a struggle against material problems and setbacks. This limits a lot of the "freedom" we can actually have.

The best a society can do is allow people to float at their own natural level of ability. Any other right promised is a fairly tale with costs higher than the benefit itself.

In some cases that means living with assistance at an asylum. In some cases that means having a lot more prosperity than anyone else around you.

Property (including self/speech/religion) and non-aggression are the only two rights that pop up from that arrangement.

Capitalism is the least egoistic and most godly way of enforcing that playing field. Redistribution schemes have humans playing God and it never works. Those arrangements can only grant less rights.

China is currently so corrupt that it functions as an aristocracy right now. Moderate standard of living but no political freedom and massive predation on a scale we don't see here. The people have no control over their local or national government. Part of this is the culture. A large portion of Chinese citizens still support abominations like the 1 child policy and just willingly go along to get along. The state has the power to destroy you there and thus it owns you.

"The best a society can do" from someone who hate humanity.

Redistribution to a certain degree keeps heads off spikes every couple hundred years, not that you would ever have to be worried about being in that segment of the population