Talk:Socialist market economy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Socialist market economy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Initial Comment

Seriously, the article needs higher quality. With rhetoric questions and personal comments, it sounds more like a speech than something that provides concrete and precise information.

I am talking with a Chinese friend about our perceptions of China's economy, and the last paragraph, if not other parts of it, would lead to outright dismissal of the article by most Chinese readers. If the official viewpoint is absolutely indefensible, we at least need some explanation why: perhaps some abortive official doublespeak, or something to that effect, to indicate that the botched arguments ascribed to the PRC government really originate there. I do not feel competent to find all these things myself, but I wish someone would. Vivacissamamente 30 June 2005 10:58 (UTC)

How should we clean this up? Please provide some justification. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph seems sloppy though. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the whole article is too opinionative, it criticizes the idea too much, instead of giving it a more unbiased view. Second of all, the quote by Deng, about 5 billion people, has to be wrong...

I don't know.... it seems pretty good to me. Maybe some headings and a bit of expansion would help, but I think the information presented in the article is good.

The entire article is simply too opinionated, not presenting an unbiased look at all. It needs to be rewritten as to stop endorsing opinion. 24.10.139.96 18:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well by all means, Be Bold! It beats flappin' yer gums about what oughta be, especially in view of the fact that you can change the article however you wish at any time (excluding, of course, the very small amount of time Wikipedia spends in database lockdown *cough*). --Ryanaxp 04:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

The article may have a slightly opinionated tone, but overall it provides a clear, encompassing view on Chinese political reform. It deffinitally helped my understanding.

00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)213.78.248.168 00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this an extremely poorly written body of writing.

its shockingly repetetive! the same paragraph must be in there about 4 times. it's very short and one-sided and has very few sources.

much much more needs to be said about what was kept under state control. i recently read an article by a chinese student on the bbc news website supporting the communist party's system by pointing out that in britain people die on nhs waiting lists. apparently this isn't the case in the chinese health service.

i question the neutrality of this article and its shoddy presentation.

px

I also question the neutrality of this artical. It was obveously written by someone who is strongly opinionated about the issue. It is also repetitive, as others have mentioned. And I'd like to see a direct reference to that quote from the Kissenger meeting -- which sounds alot like hearsay to me.

Tristan Chambers -- Sun Sep 11 10:23:53 EDT 2005

I put in the reference to Kissinger. I read it in the media (newspaper, Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report .. can't say where I read it) at the time it occured (WAY before the internet). I wish I had a reference but I don't. WAS 4.250 06:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People are complaining about older revisions lacking neutrality, but I don't really see that. In Marxist theory, the PRC today is a bourgeois capitalist state and the old article was simply putting out how hypocritical the PRC's government is being when they call themselves "socialist" and "communist" rather than "capitalist". Thunk 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The article states "The most important was that with pricing reform in the late 1980s, most state owned enterprises became highly unprofitable and the government decided to close or sell them off." Can someone please explain to me why the enterprises suddenly become profitable in private hands as opposed to state owned? Does it have something to do with the increase of cheap labour and overcharging of resources to the population? Could someone please expand on this. - unsigned

It is not appropriate to deal with it in the article as the information you are asking for is both well known and applies to all cases of sovereign (ie government) verses nongovernment control of assets and boils down to the concepts of bankruptcy and profit center. A good illustration is the extreme example of government owned soviet shops that had nothing in them to sell, yet did not close. Governments could require local government entities to compete with one another and change management when they couldn't generate funds to pay their salary and rent, but laws governing government employees versus private employees make it easier to sell or rent or contract out government assets/services in many cases. See privatization. WAS 4.250 21:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what happened in China. Roadrunner 22:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the reasons were obvious, but anyway, it mainly came down to the lack of competition providing no incentive to cut costs. State-owned shops were notorious for over-employment - a typical state-owned convenience shop in the 70's may have 10 sales a day, 10 employees, of whom 5 will be playing cards, 3 will be knitting, and 2 will actually be doing useful work - at a snail's pace and being rude to the customers of course. How can this outfit hope to compete with 7/11? C xong (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV template

Have added POV template to reflect bias concerns expressed above. Snooo 13:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify "expressed above". Cut and paste if you like. The article has changed a lot and some of the concerns "expressed above" no longer apply. What change to the article would make it unbiased in your opinion? What sources support that change? WAS 4.250 15:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article consists of 90% quotes with almost no explanation, and besides a short introduction the only non-quote part consists of two tiny paragraphs of criticisms! In addition, one of these quotes comes directly from a website called "Dissident Voice", which calls itself a "Radical Newsletter in the Struggle for Peace and Social Justice" - not an invalid, source, of course, but als surely not NPOV.

Also, I highly doubt supporters of "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" would agree with the formulation that the Chinese "redefine" Marxist terms. Certainly, in official party literature talk of development, not change. To be honest, I really think it is POV, the POV being that the current government of China is not socialist (they NEVER claim to be communist, communism being only the ultimate goal, which also says something about the quoted "death of communism"), so I added the NPOV sign back. Of course, anyone who disagrees is free to remove it again ;). I did this "on my own" simply because the above is a quite old post.

However, apart from this general things that really are only based on feeling, I'm afraid I lack the the specific knowledge to really improve the article. I only removed the blatant falsehood that the offical ideology of the CPC is that the revolution was a development from FEUDAL to socialist society - it is from CAPITALISTIC to socialist society (the Republic of China being the capitalists, although the beginnings are sometimes dated as far back as the Song dynasty!) 89.217.183.48 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profit is the Problem

At least as it is now, I find this a well composed and enlightening article. Obviously the resolution of any concrete issues is far outside the scope of Wikipedia. FWIW though I note the fundamental problem is with the reintroduction of the profit principle which is inevitably in conflict with Marxism as the fundamental principle thereof is that the extraction of profit, i.e. surplus value, is the essence of what capitalism is about and what Marxism is supposed to be against. Thus to the extent that Socialism With Chinese Characteristics restores profit seeking with all that it entails as the fundamental principle underlying production it is as complete a repudiation of Marxism as for example occured in the former Soviet Union, albeit without even the pretense of democracy found in the present day Russian oligarchy. Lycurgus 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that marxism predicted that feudalism evolved into capitalism which evolved into communism (perhaps by way of socialism says lenin) and that attempts to bypass capitalism were merely excuses for dictatorship. WAS 4.250 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are perhaps confusing the dictatorship of the proletariat, the concept of a deformed workers state, as well as some oversimplifications on the nature of Marxist theory. There was a considerable controversy in the first wave of socialism over whether all of the stages of history must be transited before socialism could be reached. In particular whether Russia 90 years ago was in fact a capitalist society or a feudal one and similar arguments applied to China. The only thing that Marxism predicts as such is the inevitable rise to power of the working class, i.e. the inevitability of socialism, leaving aside for the moment whether or not Marxism is a coherent body of theory which could make predictions at all in the manner in which, for example, chemistry or physics do. This issue has pretty much been superceeded by the facts of the revolutions in Russia, China, and elsewhere and the culprit is held to be not the failure to transit all the stages of historical development in order but rather the notion of socialism in one country espoused by Stalin and the Chinese Stalinists. It is this which leads in effect to the aggravation of class struggle under socialism as the nationalistic parties degenerate into ruling elites. You can see how well this fits because it is precisely by having the revolution occur on a global basis that the issue of differential stages of development in different nation-states is overcome. Lycurgus 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty striking how you're both criticising (by criticising his own "socialism in one country" theory) and defending Stalin here (by employing his own "aggravation" theory that justified the repression of assumed bourgeois elements), which comes off rather curious: you're arguing as both "anti-Stalinist" and "Stalinist". Ultimately both SIOC and market socialism are pragmatic reactions to real-world difficulties, SIOC to the difficulty of global revolution (though many suspect that a revolution in the imperial core, the USA, would enable global revolution in the short term), and market socialism to the difficulty of repressing bourgeois elements, with the Chinese strategy being to integrate but control them, at least as a middle-term solution.

Even the "aggravation" theory can be analysed as a pragmatic reaction to the genuinely difficult situation that the USSR found itself in especially in the 1930s, and the Communists concluded that hostile bourgeois elements such as spies were everywhere and had to be fought, as well as fascist sympathisers, for example, and with the rise of Italian Fascism in the 1920s and especially the Nazi régime in 1933, the dire situation was only intensified that had the Bolsheviks reasonably anticipate a large-scale attack, especially considering that an intent to invade the USSR was published as early as 1925 in Mein Kampf. Yes, this could all have been avoided by exporting the Revolution, but this export had to be successful or it would have backfired even worse because it would have been viewed as a declaration of war. Ultimately the key event was probably the failure of the November Revolution along with the bloody crushing of the Spartacist Uprising in 1919, which made Communists wary of revolution export.

In fact, Socialism in one country § Background itself explains this historical context, and points out that SIOC wasn't Stalin alone, but also notably Bukharin, and already Lenin had started to move in that direction. Yes, world revolution would be ideal for Marxists, but it's just not on the horizon, still today. In fact, it looks more remote than ever before. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't really an article

So far this is basically a collection of official quotes about the subject. An actual article should cover the extensive debate, both within and outside of China, over what exactly "socialism with Chinese characteristics" consists of; whether it's actually socialism in a meaningful sense; what its relationship is with Maoism and Marxism-Leninism; and what its relationship is with capitalism. --Delirium (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, how is that a NPOV concern? Second, the article states it is about the term saying "This article is about the term itself and its relationships. For its implementation and effects see Economy of the People's Republic of China and Chinese economic reform." Have you looked at those articles? Seems to me you haven't thought this through. On the other hand, it would be nice if you choose to add sourced data about this term (rather than about the economic changes themselves which are covered elsewhere). The term itself appears to me to be a way of calling a mixed economy socialism, just as American right wingers like to call America's mixed economy "capitalism". But such statements and analysis must be properly sourced so they do not violate WP:NOR. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, c'est l'article. Wirklich. Lycurgus (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence removed from Lede

"The Chinese state routinely micromanages prices set by state enterprises, however."

Probably meant that the party sets prices in some sector(s) in which it dominates or owns all production. "Micromanage" is judgmental and inappropriate,since except in a true command economy, regardless of the variant of the "market economy", the owners of an enterprise set its price policy. Also seems to imply that prices have a natural non-human origin which is being artificially interfered with when in fact market makers are the actual determiners of prices although they do do so with demand as a factor in mind in so-called free markets. Lycurgus (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CPC claiming China to be socialist

According to the interpretation of this by the Communist Party of China, the revolution of 1949 was an irreversible change from capitalism to socialism and that therefore China is still socialist.

However, CPC has never claimed that Chinese economy became socialist after 1949 revolution. And now, the official point is that China is developing its society to the stage of common welfare state and only after this point the transition to the socialism may begin. (And, just to add, that this society is generally acheived in several provinces)

According to Marx, economic socialism is determined by the property on the means of production. Which means that if you use these means, you own them, and if you work with complicated means, like factory, you own it with all the workers collectively. (!NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE STATE PROPERTY!) 80.251.126.6 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The PRC government maintains that it has not abandoned Marxism, but has simply developed many of the terms and concepts of Marxist theory to accommodate its new economic system. The ruling Communist Party of China argues that socialism is compatible with these economic policies. In current Chinese Communist thinking, the PRC is in the primary stage of socialism, and this redefinition allows the PRC to undertake whatever economic policies are needed to develop into an industrialized nation."

The same here.

CPC doesn't claim that socialism is present in China, vice versa, they claim that it can be achieved only by the passing through all the other necessary stages of development. 80.251.126.6 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were you guys talking about Socialism in general, or some sort of Marxist ideal of socialism? If the government takes ownership of land and business and criminalizes "free enterprise", that would seem to fit the general definition. It would satisfy free market advocates and anti-Communists, anyway.

Often Marxists will reject labels like "socialist" or "communist" for a country, on various grounds like not fulfilling some standard of ideological purity. From the Western standpoint, however, if the government forbids certain kinds of economic transactions (which two parties voluntary wish to perform) then it's considered socialism. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Private sector

Again, TeenInvestor is making inaccurate claims, citing the source "China has socialist market economy in place (People's Daily Online, 2005)" (http://english.people.com.cn/200507/13/eng20050713_195876.html) to say the private sector in the socialist market economy produces "70%" of GDP. This article makes no mention of the size of the private sector in terms of GDP, the only source I can find regarding this figure is "over 50%" by the OECD (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/3/36174313.pdf). Furthermore, TeenInvestor lauded the privatized healthcare services in China, while failing to acknowledge that the Chinese government is on the verge of implementing a universal healthcare scheme. (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890306,00.html) TeenInvestor has also removed any phrase referring to the presence of macroeconomic, state-directed indicative planning (not to be confused with centralized economic planning) which exists in China today. (http://www.adb.org/Documents/Events/2004/PRC_Planning_System_Reform/chow1.pdf) I have corrected these errors. So please refrain from modifying and generating inaccurate figures in order to promote your ideology, (talk) User:Battlecry (talk) 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have edited this article to include many more sources and added a section titled "controversy" regarding the socialist classification of this economic model. I have edited the biased attempts by Teeninvestor to portray this economic system as capitalism, and have moved his sentence and source regarding that subject to the "controversy" section, as well as adding Marxist critiques of the socialist market economy in there. I have also provided sources indicating much of the means of production are still under state ownership, and the socialist market economy can still be considered socialist by that definition. Also, I removed the inappropriate placement on the top of the page about the socialist market economy being considered "capitalism" by TeenInvestor, and moved that to an appropriate subcategory. User:Battlecry (talk) 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged with Social market economy and then deleted.Rocator (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF anyone?

I added some materials to the article, and I was bombarded with attacks by User:Battlecry, who changed the entire tone of the article and removed much useful and cited material, as well as engaging in some minor WP:OR(ownership of a few industries cannot be used to represent state ownership of the "means of production"), while overlooking other facts already in the article, e.g., 70%+ of GDP is produced by Private sector, a number bigger than most western countries.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look. If public sector produces 30% of GDP, 70% of GDP is going to come from the private sector, cause there are only two sectors.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WP:AGF anyone?

The sources you provided, "People's Daily Online" states that by the end of 2004, the "booming private sector provided four-fifths of new job opportunities and generated one-third of GDP" (http://english.people.com.cn/200507/13/eng20050713_195876.html) 1/3 of GDP for the private sector is a far cry from your 70% figure. The 30% figure applies to the 50% of state enterprises that have been converted to join-stock companies. Read the article before you make inaccurate claims, please. The other source (OECD) states the private sector GDP is "over 50%", which was more recent so I went with that figure. And by the way, there are more than simply public and private sectors in an economy; there is also a social/nonprofit sector, and in China there is a cooperative/communal sector comprised of township village enterprises and municipal enterprises.

And no, I did not remove any sources provided by User:TeenInvestor, I simply corrected the heavy bias in his tone and provided additional sources for accurate figures. If you look through previous revisions, you will see User:TeenInvestor removed any source citation of the Chinese government practicing macro-economic planning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlecry (talk • contribs) 00:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in any case http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948478.htm this source proves over 70% of China's GDP comes from the private sector(more if you consider the "chengbao system").Teeninvestor (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look through the top 30 steel producers shows all the Chinese producers in that category are state-owned enterprises (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_steel_producers). As for the GDP figure, since both articles are from similar dates, it would be better to post both figures, perhaps in the "Controversy" section. I would imagine the People's Daily Online would under-report private sector performance, while a pro-business magazine such as Businessweek would inflate and over-glorify private sector output. This is clearly a controversial issue if different sources are reporting vastly different figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlecry (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a few big steel producers are still state owned enterprises, but China's steel industry is huge; its output is some four times that of the United States(check wikipedia's list of countries by steel production). The share of the industry by private producers is much larger than state owned firms. It is similar in many other industries when private companies take most of the share. And besides, many state owned firms are embarked for privatization and "contracting". In fact, recently, China rolled back universal health care reforms to allow Private contractors to operate hospitals again, somethign that Wen banned at the beginning of his "reforms". I would think that the private sector is well over 70% because documenting of GDP services in China is not that great; for example, if I purchase medicine at a private clinic that is unlicensed, it would not be recorded as "GDP". Teeninvestor (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that a socialist would call me ideological when socialism, with its demagogues spewing insults against "Captialists, orthodox and exploiters" is the most ideological doctrine around, a doctrine that relies on faith not reason. A pitiful contrast with the great economic minds of the nineteenth century and the free market Austrian econoists. But, of course, they are wrong because they are "bourgeois" and only the great bureaucrats of central planning will know what resources need to be allocated, despite the protests of the entire population.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that a classical liberal/economic liberal would call me ideological when free-market capitalists and economic liberals alike, with their demagogues spewing insults against "big government", workers and the "lazy poor" is the most ideological doctrine around, a doctrine that relies on faith not reason. A pitiful contrast with the great economic minds of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But, of course, they are wrong because they are "socialist" (Austrian economists use this to refer to any economic system that involves the state or the "evil oppressive government" aside from enforcing property rights) and only the great businessmen, entrepreneurs or shareholders, of business and corporations will know what resources need to be allocated, despite the protests of the population. But I suppose freedom for the businesses means absolute freedom and liberty for everyone else, right? I mean, that is the goal of society ... to facilitate business activity. Because the demands of the dumbed-down, un-intellectual consumerist and economically individualistic culture of capitalism and the great businesspeople and owners of capital should control society, without that organization that represents ordered and rational society: the evil state which is nothing but violence, doing anything but facilitating business, right? Battlecry (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny above to see that Battlecry has copied my arguments and repeated them, without creating any originality. I suppose the "organization that represents ordered and rational society", the almighty godlike state, can plan and know how resources should be allocated better than hundreds of millions of free men acting in concurance? And it's funny that Battlecry mentioned that economic liberals are angry at "workers" and the "lazy poor" when in fact no anger occurs. Economic liberalism is a doctrine that benefits the poor as well as the population in general; it has never discriminated against any particular social group(unlike almighty socialists, who of course know who is to die and who is not to, right...). And it has never been arrogant enough to prescribe to consumers what they want, unlike our "almighty socialists" above. I suppose that the individual, a cog of the state in socialism, will definitely become more "intelelcutal" then the free society of capitalism. And it's a shame, the socialists' hatred of business, who incidentally are the engine of progress of society that provide employment for the poor(when statist policies tend to deny).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My above post was meant to be ironic by substituting a few terms and turning your whole rant around. You commit a logical fallacy by equating all socialists, and all forms of socialism, to one specific subset within that body of thought, specifically dogmatic Marxism, which is more than just a socialist ideology. I never indicated what type of socialist I was, making your initial post ignorant and insulting. It's as illogical as claiming something along the lines of, "Advocates of capitalism support neoliberalism. Therefore, all economic liberals and advocates of capitalism must support the IMF and World Bank". It's also a strawman when you prop up a conception of "socialism", a broad term that encompasses a diverse set of political, economic and social theories, as only being a dogmatic form of Marxism. On the other hand, most Marxists I know don't advocate "bureaucrats" running everything in a centralized fashion. Most advocate worker cooperatives, which might be owned by the state (this usually only applies to a few large industries). As for business being being the engine of progress, that is a joke. Most major inventions were made by individuals, bot businesses, who made inventions out of genuine interest in their work, not because they were motivated by profit. Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein are some examples here. Furthermore, most of the biggest innovations of the 20th century were either done by states or funded by governments. The internet, semiconductor, computers, to name a very few. Let us not forget how the private firm, IBM, refused to finance development of the internet in the 1970s because it did not have any promise of turning a profit in the immediate future. But I digress, this is not the appropriate place for this discussion, so I suggest we leave it at this.--Battlecry (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilization of current version

I believe the version that we are under as of writing, August 26, 2009, is the most satisfactory one and has incorporated both our (very different) viewpoints. Therefore I will not change this page any more. I hope the current version can be maintained as I will be working on other articles in the future.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World bank source may be out of date

I checked the world bank source, which was published in 2001, 8 years ago! With the rate of change China has been through, the statistics there are surely out of date. The Chinese privatization programme was at its most intense from 1998 to 2002, and throughout that era many enterprises were privatized. In fact, the Chinese government openly endorsed privatization. Statements such as "State enterprises still produce half of exports, 46% of industrial output, and most urban employment" is surely out of date. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed liberalization, guaranteed nationalized industries

The sources indicating that liberalization was halted under the current leadership in China were published in 2009 ^[1] and 2010^[2], and the sectors guaranteed public ownership under law is from 2006 ^[3], not 2001. The part about reversed and halted liberalization is significant and deserves to be mentioned at least in the history section. I also noticed you removed the reference to the Tienanmen Square protests, which deserve to be mentioned in the controversy or history section of the article (as they were largely sparked by the implementation of the socialist market). If you feel the need to remove those references, please give a reason why in the discussion page. If you have any issue with the re-organization of the description by sector, let me know and we can reverse that. (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I thought it was just a reinsertion of old material. I do realize that some of the liberalization in the health and other sectors have been reversed. In thsi case, I have no problem for the changes. In fact, right now I am quite pleased with the article, as it does describe the way things are going (the current Chinese leadership is anti-reformist). Though the heritage article was quite amusing in that a "conservative" institute would adopt keynesianism (not like there was any use for those neocons anyway). Teeninvestor (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Merge proposal

Socialist market economy and Socialism with Chinese characteristics largely overlap. The former even says that socialist market economy "is also referred to as socialism with Chinese characteristics". The only reason I could see for keeping them separate would be if Socialist market economy were more general and Socialism with Chinese characteristics were more specifically about China. That, however, is currently not the case; almost all of the article on Socialist market economy is about the Chinese economy; the only mention of the Vietnamese economy is in stating its name; most of the text is written as if the article were in fact about the Chinese economy.

So I think either the articles should be merged, or the one on Socialist market economy should be rewritten to describe this form of economy in general, and all information specifically about the Chinese economy should go in the article on socialism with Chinese characteristics.

I support the merge. But the other article has almost no good info. I support moving the info of this article to the other one, and then redirecting.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who executed the article merger, but it's more like 'article murder'. This last version prior to the redirect being put in place has virtually no content duplication with what's currently in the article. Huge chunks of material have been left behind in the so called merge. Furthermore, this last version went nowhere to explain in what manner 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' differs from 'socialism' that the article might just be redirected to 'mixed economy'. It's still pretty inadequate in that department. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the merge happened, I oppose the merge. In addition, I oppose the use of phrase of "is also referred to as socialism with Chinese characteristics". Socialist market economy is of economy while Socialism with Chinese characteristics is of a new socialism for which the Socialist market economy is only part of it.

While at initial phase of Socialism with Chinese characteristics, it mainly concerns the market economy, it includes following fundamental elements lately:

1. CPC has reconsolidated with the unique permanent governing power by Constitution Amendments 2004. 2. CPC has turned into an elite interest group, signified by Three Represents. 3. As such, the Socialism with Chinese characteristics is no longer socialism with traditional meaning, but is de facto third pole, a position with similarity of Third Position.

For the scope of Socialism with Chinese characteristics, I suggested two entries be separated. Actually, in Wikipedia in Chinese, these are two entries. Dayten (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal 2

Socialist market economy is a branch of Socialist economy, but it is necessary to exist a independent article. 1. It is unique, not all the socialist economy is market economy, moreover, with Chinese characteristics. 2. Socialist market economy is still on the go, not like the defuncted others. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 06:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the current economic system in the People's Republic of China. It's not a general article about an economic system found in multiple countries. So I suggest a move to Socialist market economy of China. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be merged with Market socialism because the Chinese system is markedly different in theory than market socialism, and generally refers to the practice of state capitalism in China and Vietnam today. Socialist market economy is based on the political ideology of Deng Xiaoping, and in theory is a third-way or transitional phase between capitalism and socialism. This is very different from market socialism, which is not a third-way but an independent, general equilibrium-based system. Furthermore, market socialists generally favor genuine social ownership in the form of cooperatives or distributing the surplus of public enterprises via a social dividend, whereas in China's socialist market economy, there exist capitalist firms (corporations) that are partially or wholly owned by the government, which is a far cry from genuine market socialism and is closer to capitalism as practiced in Singapore or the United Arab Emirates.Battlecry (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the same, the socialist-oriented market economy is the official economic system of Vietnam, the socialist market economy is the official system of the People's Republic of China... Secondly, the Vietnamese don't consider their economy to be socialist, they consider there economy to be "socialist-oriented", socialist and socialist-oriented are not the same... These articles can't be merge because they are about two different economic systems. --TIAYN (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Communist Party of Vietnam#Socialist-oriented market economy (yes, the section is referenced). --TIAYN (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Socialist market economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081122062701/http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5798/ to http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5798/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Socialist market economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Socialist market economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jiang Zemin originally come up with the term "socialist market economy"?

Greetings,

I had recently finished reading Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China by Ezra Vogel. In it on page 682, the book says: "...Jiang packaged these ideas under a term he expected Deng to welcome: a 'socialist market economy.' On June 12, three days after this major address, Jiang Zemin, the hopeful young leader, asked [Deng Xiaoping] if he approved of the term 'socialist market economy,' which was clearly intended to replace Chen Yun's 'planned socialist market economy.' Deng, to Jiang's relief, said he liked Jiang's speech, adding, 'Actually, Shenzhen has a socialist market economy.'"

So, did Jiang Zemin actually come up with the term? Based on this, it certainly seems like the case. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/05/Liberalization-in-Reverse

[2] ttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/10-China-Myths-for-the-New-Decade

[3] ttp://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-12/19/content_762056.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]