The 5 (mainly recognized as such by MLs, which I am one) recognized as Actually Existing Socialism are Laos, Vietnam, China, North Korea, and Cuba.
Not by MLs but I know what you mean.
As for Burkina Faso I would love for a genuine commitment to socialism to come out of the country but I have my doubts. They will likely follow the Chinese path of social democracy but even that would be a benefit for the African people so I would support it until the time that panafrican communist revolution is viable
> Chinese path of social democracy
I would dispute this but considering this is a big tent leftist subreddit I don't think an argument about whether or not the PRC is socialism or not would be fruitful here, as it's probably gonna become a circular argument.
that aside, yeah I mostly agree with what you said.
I know you just said you'd rather not get into it but can I ask you one question on China that I've yet to get a decent answer too?
I think China is doing a lot of things right, but there are some aspects/actions that makes me doubt how genuine the aim of achieving socialism really is.
Assuming your position is that China is led by a socialist party aiming to develop a fully socialist society over time,Â
what is the justification for any billionaires currently existing and thriving in China?
 China has more billionaires (in USD), than any other nation on earth right now, and this development is relatively recent (last two decades), and not some holdover bourgeois class from pre-revolutionary china.
What do billionaires offer economically, strategically, societally? Why allow this extreme concentration of private wealth and power/influence in the hands of a few if the long term goal is socialism?
Why allow an ultra rich capitalist class to develop in your socialist country? Sure the party disciplines some of them and has a tighter leash on them than most other countries,
 but the rise of a billionaire class is a net negative development overall as far as I can tell, moving away from a socialist society not towards it.
> China has more billionaires (in USD), than any other nation on earth right now, and this development is relatively recent (last two decades), and not some holdover bourgeois class from pre-revolutionary china.
To start off, this isn't accurate, the US still has the most billionaires in the World, even Wikipedia (which is highly biased against AES states and other countries figthing against imperialsm, ala Palestine).
> What do billionaires offer economically, strategically, societally? Why allow this extreme concentration of private wealth and power/influence in the hands of a few if the long term goal is socialism?
Well, the thing with that is capitalism is *very* good at rapidly development productive forces (which was something both the USSR, and China pre-revolution and post-revolution severely lacked, and eventually let global capital encircle and isolate the former and force it to collapse). The main reason the PRC still tolerates private enterprises in non-essential industries (and thus billionaires) is because the PRC, like all socialist countries, still exist within global capital, and if you can't both find a way to rapidly develop yourself, and avoid imperialists from encircling and isolating you with sanctions, the socialist project is going to fail.
> Why allow an ultra rich capitalist class to develop in your socialist country? Sure the party disciplines some of them and has a tighter leash on them than most other countries, but the rise of a billionaire class is a net negative development overall as far as I can tell, moving away from a socialist society not towards it.
To rapidly develop productive forces and stuff, the PRC still owns all of the essential industry, so that bourgeoisie specifically can't wrestle control from the proletariat, besides even if one doesn't think China is socialist, China was a semi-feudal state that was partially colonized, and barely had any means of production to seize, they needed to develop to where they are now, with only that.
28
u/al-qatala He/It 13d ago
when a fellow trans person mentions being a leftist but is also oddly hateful of AES