the problem is the argument seems to devolve into socialism versus capitalism which is ridiculous because most economies are mixed. is a mixed economy socialist? or capitalist? capitalism could look pretty awful as well. If you can buy anything murder for hire etc. Then I would argue against that.
My understanding is that socialism is primarily about public rather than private ownership. And that centralization of market planning varies in different regimes.
It may be a sufficient condition but it is not a necessary one.
China seems to manage largely-decentralized decision-making in a socialist society.
There are exceptions, of course, as Jack Ma is finding out, but then, there seems to be more exceptions in the USA right now, as oligarchs are leveraging their wealth in obscene ways.
> China seems to manage largely-decentralized decision-making in a socialist society.
Is this the same China where the CCP issues 5 year plans that dictate what the entire country is going to work towards, and the state owned enterprises that control most of the economy execute on those plans?
China is socialism but allows a certain amount of private enterprise. They still have 5 year plans as pointed out, still have state-controlled enterprises and still maintain a large degree of control over private business.
It would probably be more accurate to label China as a fascist or corporatist state. There are elements of socialism (as well as capitalism) but it isn't the primary policy focus. Look at their actions rather than words.
That's not required for socialism, right?