Oh please. The Chinese Maoists only allow "private property" because:Totalitarian yes, communist no.1) they can take it or the "owner" any time they want
2) they know by observing us that they can seize more from a larger output than a larger share of a smaller output
The Chinese leaders have sold themselves further into corruption. They want a bigger economic pie so they can skim more for their personal benefit. Twas ever thus when the form of government is totalitarian/authoritarian.
Authoritarian yes, communist no.
Fascist yes, communist no.
Corrupt yes, communist no.
As Rush is fond of saying, words have meaning.
If the standard definition of communism--forceful abolition of private property--is tossed aside, then any government can be called communist in economic matters.
definition is ALL private property. Under that definition even the Soviet Union was not communist, only socialist.
Totalitarianism is a form of government, not an economic system. Communism describes an economic system. The Soviet Union had a totalitarian government with a communistic economy (altho even they allowed small, private plots of land to peasants, as did Mao after a while)
I agree 100% - words do have meaning and the meaning should matter, but it's really hard to lump the Chinese socialists and the German socialist systems into the same category, since the Chinese (and the former Soviet) take bodies along with the property when the State wants its way, while the Germans just take the property. Under the definition of pure communism, I guess only North Korea matches.