Does the Chinese Constitution allow for Capitalism?

[Jacobtm]

I decided to read the Chinese Constitution to see what legal framework the country had to deal with.

Here is one of the articles of the Constitution:

"Article 6. Socialist supremacy

The basis of the socialist economic system of the People's Republic of China is socialist public ownership of the means of production, namely, ownership by the whole people and collective ownership by the working people. The system of socialist public ownership supersedes the system of exploitation of man by man; it applies the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work'.[/i][/b]

During the primary stage of socialism, the State adheres to the basic economic system with the public ownership remaining dominant and diverse sectors of the economy developing side by side, and to the distribution system with the distribution according to work remaining dominant and the coexistence of a variety of modes of distribution."

What really sticks out is the underlined/bold/italics part. I know they say lots of stuff about Socialism and public ownership, but that particular part seems blaringly Capitalistic.

Wasn't the original Lenin quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? That would be Socialism, to give everyone whatever they needed. But to give people things based on how much work they do, that's Capitalism.

[Gabu]

It sort of actually sounds like a combination of capitalism and communism.  It still includes the "from each according to his ability" bit, which would imply that the output of people's efforts would go into one large pool, but then the "to each according to his work" would imply that people get things not by needing them, but by working for them.

It sort of sounds like a system where people earn wages, but where the government sets the wages instead of private employers.

[phk]

I'd urge you to read this book, "Chinese Road to Socialism". Very informative.

[ag]

The Chinese are actually orthodox on this. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work" is the classic definition of socialism in that religion. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" is communism - the two have to be different, don't they? Trust me, I grew up with these definitions, remember them since nursery school. Of course, socialism is just a "transitional stage" en route to the final victory of communism. And, you know, nobody promised there will be food en route.

And an old Soviet joke about the future:

Communism. At the entrance to a store there is a large sign: "Today there is no need in butter".