Hong Kong II - Ragnarök

[Propheticum]

You do not speak for the citizens of hong kong.

The folks i know in hong kong, the folks I know with family in hong kong, are all fairly uniform in their opinions of the current situation there, and it is a lot closer to mr. Bombidil's than yours. If you prefer mainland policies go to Guangzhou plenty of oppertunity without those pesky cries of freedom you so abhor.

If that is the case, there would be more than 1 million people on the streets (out of a total of 7.5 million people).

You do know some folks just don't want to go out and protest. Even if the protests do end, Faith in Beijing is lost. The Pro-Dems will vote out the Autocrats, Better Dead than Red.

[Heloin]

There were in June, but you would only realize that if you stopped blindly following your indoctrination programme created by Beijing.

I don't follow any indoctrination program. I simply choose to be loyal to my own government.

You're still a Canadian citizen aren't you?

[Infected Mushroom]

If that is the case, there would be more than 1 million people on the streets (out of a total of 7.5 million people).

Funny how that line of logic doesn't apply to the turnout of pro-police and anti-"violence" assemblies.

Hmm, by his choice of words, it appears he lives in Hong Kong? Am I right? If I’m right, perhaps he is concern about his safety....

Given IM has shown their ignorance about everything from happenings and laws of Hong Kong to how football teams work, I'm not even sure if they come from the same planet as us Hongkongers.

because the best way to support non-violence and law and order is to not protest and continue to contribute to the economy; which is what the majority of HKers are doing

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Unfortunately for you, your arguments are simply factually inaccurate, given that a majority of HK citizens do support the protesters' demands, and if neccessary, radical tactics:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ho ... 58061.html

Your source is from October in the buildup to the Polyu battle, this was when the movement was still on the rise

And it still is, given the sheer scale of the pro-democratic camp (Which wholeheartedly supported the protest movement and their demands)'s victory in the recent elections, and that combined with the increased turnout in the December protests shows that it isn't at risk of dying out anytime soon, even after the Polytechnic University uprisings. No matter how hard you try to spin it, there is no "silent majority" that supports the pro-Beijing xamp and wants to "crack down on them rioters" like you've claimed.

[Beire]

You cant side with both. You need to pick one side or the other. The democracy candidates winning the local elections by landslides shows what the people of HK think, and they are on the side of the 5 demands team. This is a mass middle class movement, not a radical fringe.

Tankies going to tank. Just look at the absurdly edgy signature. You are not going to make any headway against that much doublethink.

I'm sorry my different opinions offend you.

It's a good thing I'm not a Maoist then. I am critical of certain aspects of China's reforms, but ultimately they remain on a socialist path.

They remain on a socialist path how, exactly? Their labour conditions are quite frankly abhorrent, there are widespread disparities of income, especially between regions, their healthcare system has been gradually privatized, worker control over the means of production is nonexistent, and foreign corporations can look forward to one of the cheapest labour forces in the world, in addition to China having more billionaires than the United States of America, the homeland of capitalism. And the consensus is clear that China is a state capitalist economy:

Current forms in the 21st century
"State capitalism is distinguished from capitalist mixed economies where the state intervenes in markets to correct market failures or to establish social regulation or social welfare provisions in the following way: the state operates businesses for the purpose of accumulating capital and directing investment in the framework of either a free market or a mixed-market economy. In such a system, governmental functions and public services are often organized as corporations, companies or business enterprises.

Mainland China
Many analysts assert that China is one of the main examples of state capitalism in the 21st century.[65][66][67] In his book, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, political scientist Ian Bremmer describes China as the primary driver for the rise of state capitalism as a challenge to the free market economies of the developed world, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007–2008.[68] Bremmer draws a broad definition of state capitalism as such:[69]

"In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors.

They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain."

Following on Bremmer, Aligica, and Tarko[70] further develop the theory that state capitalism in countries like modern day China and Russia is an example of a rent-seeking society. They argue that following the realization that the centrally planned socialist systems could not effectively compete with capitalist economies, formerly Communist Party political elites are trying to engineer a limited form of economic liberalization that increases efficiency while still allowing them to maintain political control and power.

In his article "We're All State Capitalists Now", British historian and Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University Niall Ferguson warns against "an unhelpful oversimplification to divide the world into 'market capitalist' and 'state capitalist' camps. The reality is that most countries are arranged along a spectrum where both the intent and the extent of state intervention in the economy vary".[69] He then notes:[69]

"The real contest of our time is not between a state-capitalist China and a market-capitalist America, with Europe somewhere in the middle. It is a contest that goes on within all three regions as we all struggle to strike the right balance between the economic institutions that generate wealth and the political institutions that regulate and redistribute it."

In the common program set up by the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in 1949, in effect the country’s interim constitution, state capitalism meant an economic system of corporatism. It provided that:[71]

"Whenever necessary and possible, private capital shall be encouraged to develop in the direction of state capitalism."

Analysis of the "Chinese model" by the economists Julan Du and Chenggang Xu finds that the contemporary economic system of the People's Republic of China represents a state capitalist system as opposed to a market socialist system. The reason for this categorization is the existence of financial markets in the Chinese economic system, which are absent in the market socialist literature and in the classic models of market socialism; and that state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being equitably distributed among the population in a basic income/social dividend or similar scheme, which are major features in the market socialist literature. They conclude that China is neither a form of market socialism nor a stable form of capitalism.[72]

I don't know whether it's worth me arguing about this, considering how most internet debates always lead to nothing.

China follows a market socialist model. This ideology of China stipulates that China is currently in the primary stage of socialism, and the main focus of this stage is building up its productive forces. Instead of relying upon the flawed analyses of centre and right-wing sources as your Wikipedia copy-paste does (which is why the 'consensus' is that China is state capitalist), let's have a look at the intent behind China's ideology. Deng Xiapoing, the architect behind Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, argued that 'This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces', as China suffered from low material wealth during the time he came to the fore.' China has focused on eliminating poverty during this transitional stage; it is simply idealist and foolish to jump straight into socialism, especially when one considers the fate that befell the Soviet Union. In addition, other prominent communists such as Fidel Castro and socialist states such as the DPRK maintain(ed) good relations with China, commending China's progress in constructing a socialist society.

In China, it isn't slipping money into a bureaucrat's pocket that gets you far as it is in practically every capitalist state. It is the only country that regularly executes or imprisons billionaires for stepping too far out of line. Although there is a wealth disparity that 1) already existed and 2) continued to exist under the reforms, the quality of life for the impoverished has been improving drastically. We are talking about a country that, by the time the PRC was established, consisted mostly of peasants and possessed a meagre amount of material wealth.

China's labour conditions have been improving drastically as well. http://www.trotskyistplatform.com/workp ... australia/ This Trotskyist source claims that the workplace conditions in China are better than those in Australia.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

There were in June, but you would only realize that if you stopped blindly following your indoctrination programme created by Beijing.

I don't follow any indoctrination program. I simply choose to be loyal to my own government.

Being loyal to your government even as it rapes and defiles your body from every orifice is the very definition of indoctrination.

[Heloin]

I don't know whether it's worth me arguing about this, considering how most internet debates always lead to nothing.

Then why are you here?

[Beire]

I should clarify that in the event of the crackdown, I will stand with the people of Hong Kong as well, the ones who are going about their daily lives when rioters are not setting them on fire, even if they disagree with the Chinese government.

The people of Hong Kong support the protesters. You can either stand with Hong Kong or Stand with Beijing, not both.

I don't think you read my reply correctly.

I don't know whether it's worth me arguing about this, considering how most internet debates always lead to nothing.

Then why are you here?

I have the right to an opinion and I have the right to voice it as long as it complies with the rules of the forum.

[Ethel mermania]

You do not speak for the citizens of hong kong.

The folks i know in hong kong, the folks I know with family in hong kong, are all fairly uniform in their opinions of the current situation there, and it is a lot closer to mr. Bombidil's than yours. If you prefer mainland policies go to Guangzhou plenty of oppertunity without those pesky cries of freedom you so abhor.

If that is the case, there would be more than 1 million people on the streets (out of a total of 7.5 million people).

That simply is not true, I would like a source for that claim. Not everyone who agrees with a protest goes out to protest.

[Ethel mermania]

I don't know whether it's worth me arguing about this, considering how most internet debates always lead to nothing.

Then why are you here?

Social credit.

[Heloin]

The people of Hong Kong support the protesters. You can either stand with Hong Kong or Stand with Beijing, not both.

I don't think you read my reply correctly.

You don't support the people of Hong Kong if you support Beijing. You cannot stand with the people of Hong Kong if you support a crackdown.

[Heloin]

Then why are you here?

Social credit.

Yummy.

[Infected Mushroom]

Your source is from October in the buildup to the Polyu battle, this was when the movement was still on the rise

And it still is, given the sheer scale of the pro-democratic camp (Which wholeheartedly supported the protest movement and their demands)'s victory in the recent elections, and that combined with the increased turnout in the December protests shows that it isn't at risk of dying out anytime soon, even after the Polytechnic University uprisings. No matter how hard you try to spin it, there is no "silent majority" that supports the pro-Beijing xamp and wants to "crack down on them rioters" like you've claimed.

The December protests have a markedly decreased turnout.

Compare the three months:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... g_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N ... g_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D ... g_protests

It is clear to me after analysing all three that December is a relatively quiet month with decreased incidence of protest and protestor attendance. This is consistent with my observations (I've been following the news online) that the weekdays now are silent (compared to before) and the weekends are nowhere near as disrupted.

As I've said before, the pro Dem electoral win result must be treated with a degree of caution given the unusual HK political system (where elections are symbolic and it is cost-less to send a vote of disapproval since the opposition cannot take power).

[Beire]

I don't think you read my reply correctly.

You don't support the people of Hong Kong if you support Beijing. You cannot stand with the people of Hong Kong if you support a crackdown.

I said I do not wish for there to be a crackdown. In the event that there is, I will stand by the People's Republic of China's decision, even if I do not agree with the crackdown.

In addition I will stand with the people who will be affected by such an event as there will be many who will be impacted, many of whom who just want to go about their daily lives without politics interfering.

Then why are you here?

Social credit.

I hope so. It'll come in handy when I hopefully travel to China in the future.

[Heloin]

You don't support the people of Hong Kong if you support Beijing. You cannot stand with the people of Hong Kong if you support a crackdown.

I said I do not wish for there to be a crackdown. In the event that there is, I will stand by the People's Republic of China's decision, even if I do not agree with the crackdown.

In addition I will stand with the people who will be affected by such an event as there will be many who will be impacted, many of whom who just want to go about their daily lives without politics interfering.

Then you don't support Hong Kong or it's people.

[Infected Mushroom]

Tankies going to tank. Just look at the absurdly edgy signature. You are not going to make any headway against that much doublethink.

I'm sorry my different opinions offend you.

They remain on a socialist path how, exactly? Their labour conditions are quite frankly abhorrent, there are widespread disparities of income, especially between regions, their healthcare system has been gradually privatized, worker control over the means of production is nonexistent, and foreign corporations can look forward to one of the cheapest labour forces in the world, in addition to China having more billionaires than the United States of America, the homeland of capitalism. And the consensus is clear that China is a state capitalist economy:

Current forms in the 21st century
"State capitalism is distinguished from capitalist mixed economies where the state intervenes in markets to correct market failures or to establish social regulation or social welfare provisions in the following way: the state operates businesses for the purpose of accumulating capital and directing investment in the framework of either a free market or a mixed-market economy. In such a system, governmental functions and public services are often organized as corporations, companies or business enterprises.

Mainland China
Many analysts assert that China is one of the main examples of state capitalism in the 21st century.[65][66][67] In his book, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, political scientist Ian Bremmer describes China as the primary driver for the rise of state capitalism as a challenge to the free market economies of the developed world, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007–2008.[68] Bremmer draws a broad definition of state capitalism as such:[69]

"In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors.

They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain."

Following on Bremmer, Aligica, and Tarko[70] further develop the theory that state capitalism in countries like modern day China and Russia is an example of a rent-seeking society. They argue that following the realization that the centrally planned socialist systems could not effectively compete with capitalist economies, formerly Communist Party political elites are trying to engineer a limited form of economic liberalization that increases efficiency while still allowing them to maintain political control and power.

In his article "We're All State Capitalists Now", British historian and Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University Niall Ferguson warns against "an unhelpful oversimplification to divide the world into 'market capitalist' and 'state capitalist' camps. The reality is that most countries are arranged along a spectrum where both the intent and the extent of state intervention in the economy vary".[69] He then notes:[69]

"The real contest of our time is not between a state-capitalist China and a market-capitalist America, with Europe somewhere in the middle. It is a contest that goes on within all three regions as we all struggle to strike the right balance between the economic institutions that generate wealth and the political institutions that regulate and redistribute it."

In the common program set up by the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in 1949, in effect the country’s interim constitution, state capitalism meant an economic system of corporatism. It provided that:[71]

"Whenever necessary and possible, private capital shall be encouraged to develop in the direction of state capitalism."

Analysis of the "Chinese model" by the economists Julan Du and Chenggang Xu finds that the contemporary economic system of the People's Republic of China represents a state capitalist system as opposed to a market socialist system. The reason for this categorization is the existence of financial markets in the Chinese economic system, which are absent in the market socialist literature and in the classic models of market socialism; and that state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being equitably distributed among the population in a basic income/social dividend or similar scheme, which are major features in the market socialist literature. They conclude that China is neither a form of market socialism nor a stable form of capitalism.[72]

I don't know whether it's worth me arguing about this, considering how most internet debates always lead to nothing.

China follows a market socialist model. This ideology of China stipulates that China is currently in the primary stage of socialism, and the main focus of this stage is building up its productive forces. Instead of relying upon the flawed analyses of centre and right-wing sources as your Wikipedia copy-paste does (which is why the 'consensus' is that China is state capitalist), let's have a look at the intent behind China's ideology. Deng Xiapoing, the architect behind Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, argued that 'This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces', as China suffered from low material wealth during the time he came to the fore.' China has focused on eliminating poverty during this transitional stage; it is simply idealist and foolish to jump straight into socialism, especially when one considers the fate that befell the Soviet Union. In addition, other prominent communists such as Fidel Castro and socialist states such as the DPRK maintain(ed) good relations with China, commending China's progress in constructing a socialist society.

In China, it isn't slipping money into a bureaucrat's pocket that gets you far as it is in practically every capitalist state. It is the only country that regularly executes or imprisons billionaires for stepping too far out of line. Although there is a wealth disparity that 1) already existed and 2) continued to exist under the reforms, the quality of life for the impoverished has been improving drastically. We are talking about a country that, by the time the PRC was established, consisted mostly of peasants and possessed a meagre amount of material wealth.

China's labour conditions have been improving drastically as well. http://www.trotskyistplatform.com/workp ... australia/ This Trotskyist source claims that the workplace conditions in China are better than those in Australia.

^

I would like to say that this is brilliant, carefully crafted, very elegantly written summation of the true spirit of the Chinese state and their struggle to achieve Communism.

You've said it better than I ever could.

[Beire]

I said I do not wish for there to be a crackdown. In the event that there is, I will stand by the People's Republic of China's decision, even if I do not agree with the crackdown.

In addition I will stand with the people who will be affected by such an event as there will be many who will be impacted, many of whom who just want to go about their daily lives without politics interfering.

Then you don't support Hong Kong or it's people.

Whatever you say. I'm not going to repeat myself again if you're not going to acknowledge it.

I'm sorry my different opinions offend you.



I don't know whether it's worth me arguing about this, considering how most internet debates always lead to nothing.

China follows a market socialist model. This ideology of China stipulates that China is currently in the primary stage of socialism, and the main focus of this stage is building up its productive forces. Instead of relying upon the flawed analyses of centre and right-wing sources as your Wikipedia copy-paste does (which is why the 'consensus' is that China is state capitalist), let's have a look at the intent behind China's ideology. Deng Xiapoing, the architect behind Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, argued that 'This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces', as China suffered from low material wealth during the time he came to the fore.' China has focused on eliminating poverty during this transitional stage; it is simply idealist and foolish to jump straight into socialism, especially when one considers the fate that befell the Soviet Union. In addition, other prominent communists such as Fidel Castro and socialist states such as the DPRK maintain(ed) good relations with China, commending China's progress in constructing a socialist society.

In China, it isn't slipping money into a bureaucrat's pocket that gets you far as it is in practically every capitalist state. It is the only country that regularly executes or imprisons billionaires for stepping too far out of line. Although there is a wealth disparity that 1) already existed and 2) continued to exist under the reforms, the quality of life for the impoverished has been improving drastically. We are talking about a country that, by the time the PRC was established, consisted mostly of peasants and possessed a meagre amount of material wealth.

China's labour conditions have been improving drastically as well. http://www.trotskyistplatform.com/workp ... australia/ This Trotskyist source claims that the workplace conditions in China are better than those in Australia.

^

I would like to say that this is brilliant, carefully crafted, very elegantly written summation of the true spirit of the Chinese state and their struggle to achieve Communism.

You've said it better than I ever could.

Thank you! I appreciate that.

[Infected Mushroom]

I said I do not wish for there to be a crackdown. In the event that there is, I will stand by the People's Republic of China's decision, even if I do not agree with the crackdown.

In addition I will stand with the people who will be affected by such an event as there will be many who will be impacted, many of whom who just want to go about their daily lives without politics interfering.

Then you don't support Hong Kong or it's people.

Hong Kong and its people are part of a greater whole (the Chinese state)

[Heloin]

And it still is, given the sheer scale of the pro-democratic camp (Which wholeheartedly supported the protest movement and their demands)'s victory in the recent elections, and that combined with the increased turnout in the December protests shows that it isn't at risk of dying out anytime soon, even after the Polytechnic University uprisings. No matter how hard you try to spin it, there is no "silent majority" that supports the pro-Beijing xamp and wants to "crack down on them rioters" like you've claimed.

The December protests have a markedly decreased turnout.

Compare the three months:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... g_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N ... g_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D ... g_protests

It is clear to me after analysing all three that December is a relatively quiet month with decreased incidence of protest and protestor attendance. This is consistent with my observations (I've been following the news online) that the weekdays now are silent (compared to before) and the weekends are nowhere near as disrupted.

As I've said before, the pro Dem electoral win result must be treated with a degree of caution given the unusual HK political system (where elections are symbolic and it is cost-less to send a vote of disapproval since the opposition cannot take power).

You know this lie of a silent majority who don't support the protests is getting really fucking old.

[Heloin]

Then you don't support Hong Kong or it's people.

Hong Kong and its people are part of a greater whole (the Chinese state)

You've actively called for China to kill Hong Kong and it's people.

[Saturna1ia]

I have the right to an opinion and I have the right to voice it as long as it complies with the rules of the forum.

If only you took your own words to heart and applied them to more than just an online forum, you would not be seen as such a sad human being.

[Beire]

Hong Kong and its people are part of a greater whole (the Chinese state)

You've actively called for China to kill Hong Kong and it's people.

Please provide a citation of where I did this.

I have the right to an opinion and I have the right to voice it as long as it complies with the rules of the forum.

If only you took your own words to heart and applied them to more than just an online forum, you would not be seen as such a sad human being.

It takes one to know one.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Tankies going to tank. Just look at the absurdly edgy signature. You are not going to make any headway against that much doublethink.

I'm sorry my different opinions offend you.

They remain on a socialist path how, exactly? Their labour conditions are quite frankly abhorrent, there are widespread disparities of income, especially between regions, their healthcare system has been gradually privatized, worker control over the means of production is nonexistent, and foreign corporations can look forward to one of the cheapest labour forces in the world, in addition to China having more billionaires than the United States of America, the homeland of capitalism. And the consensus is clear that China is a state capitalist economy:

Current forms in the 21st century
"State capitalism is distinguished from capitalist mixed economies where the state intervenes in markets to correct market failures or to establish social regulation or social welfare provisions in the following way: the state operates businesses for the purpose of accumulating capital and directing investment in the framework of either a free market or a mixed-market economy. In such a system, governmental functions and public services are often organized as corporations, companies or business enterprises.

Mainland China
Many analysts assert that China is one of the main examples of state capitalism in the 21st century.[65][66][67] In his book, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, political scientist Ian Bremmer describes China as the primary driver for the rise of state capitalism as a challenge to the free market economies of the developed world, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007–2008.[68] Bremmer draws a broad definition of state capitalism as such:[69]

"In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors.

They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain."

Following on Bremmer, Aligica, and Tarko[70] further develop the theory that state capitalism in countries like modern day China and Russia is an example of a rent-seeking society. They argue that following the realization that the centrally planned socialist systems could not effectively compete with capitalist economies, formerly Communist Party political elites are trying to engineer a limited form of economic liberalization that increases efficiency while still allowing them to maintain political control and power.

In his article "We're All State Capitalists Now", British historian and Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University Niall Ferguson warns against "an unhelpful oversimplification to divide the world into 'market capitalist' and 'state capitalist' camps. The reality is that most countries are arranged along a spectrum where both the intent and the extent of state intervention in the economy vary".[69] He then notes:[69]

"The real contest of our time is not between a state-capitalist China and a market-capitalist America, with Europe somewhere in the middle. It is a contest that goes on within all three regions as we all struggle to strike the right balance between the economic institutions that generate wealth and the political institutions that regulate and redistribute it."

In the common program set up by the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in 1949, in effect the country’s interim constitution, state capitalism meant an economic system of corporatism. It provided that:[71]

"Whenever necessary and possible, private capital shall be encouraged to develop in the direction of state capitalism."

Analysis of the "Chinese model" by the economists Julan Du and Chenggang Xu finds that the contemporary economic system of the People's Republic of China represents a state capitalist system as opposed to a market socialist system. The reason for this categorization is the existence of financial markets in the Chinese economic system, which are absent in the market socialist literature and in the classic models of market socialism; and that state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being equitably distributed among the population in a basic income/social dividend or similar scheme, which are major features in the market socialist literature. They conclude that China is neither a form of market socialism nor a stable form of capitalism.[72]

I don't know whether it's worth me arguing about this, considering how most internet debates always lead to nothing.

China follows a market socialist model. This ideology of China stipulates that China is currently in the primary stage of socialism, and the main focus of this stage is building up its productive forces. Instead of relying upon the flawed analyses of centre and right-wing sources as your Wikipedia copy-paste does (which is why the 'consensus' is that China is state capitalist), let's have a look at the intent behind China's ideology. Deng Xiapoing, the architect behind Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, argued that 'This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces', as China suffered from low material wealth during the time he came to the fore.' China has focused on eliminating poverty during this transitional stage; it is simply idealist and foolish to jump straight into socialism, especially when one considers the fate that befell the Soviet Union. In addition, other prominent communists such as Fidel Castro and socialist states such as the DPRK maintain(ed) good relations with China, commending China's progress in constructing a socialist society.

In China, it isn't slipping money into a bureaucrat's pocket that gets you far as it is in practically every capitalist state. It is the only country that regularly executes or imprisons billionaires for stepping too far out of line. Although there is a wealth disparity that 1) already existed and 2) continued to exist under the reforms, the quality of life for the impoverished has been improving drastically. We are talking about a country that, by the time the PRC was established, consisted mostly of peasants and possessed a meagre amount of material wealth.

China's labour conditions have been improving drastically as well. http://www.trotskyistplatform.com/workp ... australia/ This Trotskyist source claims that the workplace conditions in China are better than those in Australia.

Intent is one thing. Actual actions and policy is another, and the fact remains that China cannot be classified as a "socialist" economy by any reasonable metric. If the workers do not own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange, then it by definition isn't socialist, no matter how hard you try to spin it. China's current economic policy can be best summed up as "Sure, you can go conduct capitalist business here, as long as it serves the interests of our nation", which bears a striking resemblance to fascist corporatism. And comparing China's reforms to Lenin's NEP is a hot take given that the NEP was quickly abandoned within several years after being passed, while China has shown no signs of abandoning state capitalism anytime soon, and considering its close relationship with a coalition that is entirely composed of rightwing capitalists and oligarchs in Hong Kong, I wouldn't hold my breath.
And working conditions still remain poor in China, as this report shows:
http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/report/138

[Heloin]

You've actively called for China to kill Hong Kong and it's people.

Please provide a citation of where I did this.

You're not Infected Mushroom.

[The New California Republic]

You've actively called for China to kill Hong Kong and it's people.

Please provide a citation of where I did this.

Heloin never said you did. Pay attention.