You need to take the whole statement that you quoted in combination instead of just this one part. And other nations followed socialism/Marxism/communism in some combination and failed; China is clearly different from them.
That's not the only part of the whole sentence that you quoted; the combination is what makes China great, not any one part.
Figure it out from watching the world and watching the market, trial and error and logical reasoning. That's how people usually figure things out.
They knew those were the pillars of energy and economy bloodlines. If something goes wrong and they go belly up, the country is paralyzed. Keep your control on the things you cannot afford to go wrong.
CCP is unique and they developed their own system; they did not choose to follow imperial China or Capitalist America.
Marx said you can let go of all your SOEs and allow them to become private but you need to hold onto your oil and and banking sectors??
Absolutely they did not follow capitalist theory but taking taxes from your more developed places in order to develop your impoverished places is common sense, is it not? If I were a ruler, that's how I'd develop my kingdom to reach its potential rather than letting the poor places rot from neglect without reading anything about Marx or socialism. It's how you turn half a great country into a whole great country, double your power with horizontal growth.
If you wanted to start a side-business based on your interest and you had a strong primary income, you would obviously use your primary income to fund that start-up of your side business rather than try to start it with no money, make one product from scraps, sell it and try to make your second product from the profit of your first, right? That's common sense; you don't need to read that from anywhere to know this is the way to go, right?
Common sense? Poor regions = untapped potential.
Did Marx say you need to preserve the diversity and cultures of your minorities? Where's this coming from? I just assume it's because China's a softie and wants to give advantages to the weak, which is in Chinese culture.
That's quite frankly effed up. And "I just assume it's because China's a softie and wants to give advantages to the weak, which is in Chinese culture."
The reasons are explained above. They know by taking the real time feedback on whether the goals are met and decide whether to continue a policy.
There are also instances that China clearly does not follow Marx's ideals, at least not anymore. One of Marx's core themes is that if you produce an item to sell rather than to use, and you use other's labor to produce it at less than the price you sell it for, you are exploiting these workers. I could barely believe this nonsense when I first read it. Without this theme, the economy would be non-existent and limited to what each man could do for himself. Nobody would open a business to employ workers paying them the same profit that you earn; there's no such reason to start this business for the employer and without it, all the employees would be jobless, which they can still choose to be regardless of whether or not this business existed. If China believed this and followed suit to stop the "exploitation," China would have no economy. Instead, Chinese workers labor harder than almost any other part of the world for bosses to become billionaires starting globally-competitive companies. China's obviously correct disregard for the core Marxist principle shows that it cannot be considered Marxist or socialist even if other details can line up simply due to common sense or commonality of all maturing economies.
Basically, I boil our conversation down to this:
You: That guy is a boxer. He's adherent to the philosophy of boxing.
Me: I don't think so. He punches, but he also just kicked a guy's face in and then rolled him onto the ground for full mount into key lock breaking his elbow. Those are from Muay Thai, Taekwondo, Boxing, Karate, and BJJ. The guy's an MMA fighter.
You: No, he's sticking to the core principles of boxing. He strikes, be blocks, he dodges, and be bobs his head. If he weren't a boxer, how would he do all these boxing things?
Me: Those movements are common to many forms. Boxing specifically doesn't use legs or ground game and he's doing both like an expert. You cannot say that he's a boxer just because he's doing some things that boxing has in common with other forms even though he's violating the core principles of boxing, which is no throws/ground game and no kicks. He has some boxing strikes but he's not a boxer.
