As an American, I was under the belief a Chinese national can't purchase land in China only lease it. Hence the overseas purchases as investments. Is that understanding no longer accurate?
In short, through the state land is collectively owned, and parceled out in leases to private citizens, ensuring as many people as possible are housed. As for pro-China posts, it's a combination of the fact that Lemmy has a ton of communists (most of which you cannot see from Lemmy.world), and China is gaining massively in public view as they continue to rise and the US Empire continues to fall.
I just want to start by saying I think you are coming at this in good faith.
I disagree that it is as cut and dry as "private citizens cannot [own land]" from the link you posted a private citizen cab get a land grant for 70 years to do with the property what they will. Now sure it might be said that this isn't technically owning the land but it is nearly indistinguishable from a normal American with a house.
And if we want to get real pedantic the fact that the USA can eminent domain your land kind of shows that you are just leasing it as well. This is a bit of an exaggeration since most land has not and likely will not be taken, but the point is it CAN.
I'm not super familiar with how inheritance works in China but if you can will your property to a relative and then they get a fresh 70 year grant then this is basically indefinite. Now maybe that's where the difference is if you can't do that, but that's not what I think of when I'm thinking of "ownership"
China is doing pretty well for more of its citizens than ever. But, this is obviously an embellishment that is far from reality.
Even if 90% is true, owning a home implies personal democratic freedoms. That's not how housing works in China. Unless you're wealthy you're not leaving the town or city you were born in, not without losing your welfare benefits, so you better have a decent job offer if you try.
owning a home implies personal democratic freedoms.
No? Democracy and "democratic freedoms" has nothing to do with home ownership. And even if it did odds are we have better democratic freedoms than you. There's a reason we rank at the top of the democratic perception index and that even according to Harvard our government satisfaction rate is over 80% whereas most Western countries struggle to break 50% outside of massively exceptional circumstances like Bush hitting 90% due to 9/11.
Unless you’re wealthy you’re not leaving the town or city you were born in, not without losing your welfare benefits, so you better have a decent job offer if you try.
I'm assuming you're referencing the hukou system here. This interpretation hasn't been accurate for a while now. Cities under 3 million population have essentially removed settlement barriers, and even megacities are piloting residence-based public service access.
The hukou system was also an unfortunate necessity when it was originally put in place. Go to Mumbai. Look at Dharavi. One point seven five square kilometers holding over a million people in informal settlements with no basic infrastructure. That is what happens when capital accumulates without a mechanism to regulate the pace of urban absorption (the original reason for implementation of the hukou system). The hukou system, however imperfect, prevented that outcome. The hukou system functioned as a valve. It allowed industrialization to proceed at a speed that absorbed labor without collapsing urban systems.
It’s also important to look at the positives of the system as it remains despite its many shortcomings. Every rural hukou holder retains rights to a homestead plot and contracted land. This is the basis for China’s near-elimination of absolute homelessness. When a rural worker in a city faces unemployment or illness, there is a place to return to. This safety net reduced the fiscal burden on early-stage industrial capital, yes, but it also prevented the formation of a permanently dispossessed urban underclass.
As a mumbai native, I have to say, foreigners obsess about Dharavi too much. It is just the largest slum we have and it's not even that bad for Indian standards. There are multi-crore businesses being run from there. We have smaller slums in much worse conditions all over urban India. Dharavi has become like the privileged brand ambassador for Indian slums.
Its more about the neglect. One thing I know about people is they find a way to live and thrive. Also gtfo with that foreigner bullshit. It's the first thing you see when you land into Mumbai, no Indian is proud about a slum, except you for some reason. So nuff with the cope. Even if there are multi-crore businesses there. The question is should people live like that, underserved and neglected. To me. No.
As an American, I was under the belief a Chinese national can't purchase land in China only lease it. Hence the overseas purchases as investments. Is that understanding no longer accurate?
And I'll note, a lot of pro Chinese posts lately.
In short, through the state land is collectively owned, and parceled out in leases to private citizens, ensuring as many people as possible are housed. As for pro-China posts, it's a combination of the fact that Lemmy has a ton of communists (most of which you cannot see from Lemmy.world), and China is gaining massively in public view as they continue to rise and the US Empire continues to fall.
Yes Wikipedia supports my understanding. Collectives and the state can own land. Private citizens cannot.
I'm not arguing the states method is better as it's caused so many problems but the image is inaccurate at best.
Take my downvote
Property law in China - Wikipedia https://share.google/2lDZZ50YnuNUfTtK4
I just want to start by saying I think you are coming at this in good faith.
I disagree that it is as cut and dry as "private citizens cannot [own land]" from the link you posted a private citizen cab get a land grant for 70 years to do with the property what they will. Now sure it might be said that this isn't technically owning the land but it is nearly indistinguishable from a normal American with a house.
And if we want to get real pedantic the fact that the USA can eminent domain your land kind of shows that you are just leasing it as well. This is a bit of an exaggeration since most land has not and likely will not be taken, but the point is it CAN.
I'm not super familiar with how inheritance works in China but if you can will your property to a relative and then they get a fresh 70 year grant then this is basically indefinite. Now maybe that's where the difference is if you can't do that, but that's not what I think of when I'm thinking of "ownership"
100% of people in America own their houses because if they couldn’t afford it, it wouldn’t be their house. Checkmate commies
/s
China is doing pretty well for more of its citizens than ever. But, this is obviously an embellishment that is far from reality.
Even if 90% is true, owning a home implies personal democratic freedoms. That's not how housing works in China. Unless you're wealthy you're not leaving the town or city you were born in, not without losing your welfare benefits, so you better have a decent job offer if you try.
No? Democracy and "democratic freedoms" has nothing to do with home ownership. And even if it did odds are we have better democratic freedoms than you. There's a reason we rank at the top of the democratic perception index and that even according to Harvard our government satisfaction rate is over 80% whereas most Western countries struggle to break 50% outside of massively exceptional circumstances like Bush hitting 90% due to 9/11.
I'm assuming you're referencing the hukou system here. This interpretation hasn't been accurate for a while now. Cities under 3 million population have essentially removed settlement barriers, and even megacities are piloting residence-based public service access.
The hukou system was also an unfortunate necessity when it was originally put in place. Go to Mumbai. Look at Dharavi. One point seven five square kilometers holding over a million people in informal settlements with no basic infrastructure. That is what happens when capital accumulates without a mechanism to regulate the pace of urban absorption (the original reason for implementation of the hukou system). The hukou system, however imperfect, prevented that outcome. The hukou system functioned as a valve. It allowed industrialization to proceed at a speed that absorbed labor without collapsing urban systems.
It’s also important to look at the positives of the system as it remains despite its many shortcomings. Every rural hukou holder retains rights to a homestead plot and contracted land. This is the basis for China’s near-elimination of absolute homelessness. When a rural worker in a city faces unemployment or illness, there is a place to return to. This safety net reduced the fiscal burden on early-stage industrial capital, yes, but it also prevented the formation of a permanently dispossessed urban underclass.
Dharavi is such a failure of the system. It is truely depressing.
As a mumbai native, I have to say, foreigners obsess about Dharavi too much. It is just the largest slum we have and it's not even that bad for Indian standards. There are multi-crore businesses being run from there. We have smaller slums in much worse conditions all over urban India. Dharavi has become like the privileged brand ambassador for Indian slums.
Its more about the neglect. One thing I know about people is they find a way to live and thrive. Also gtfo with that foreigner bullshit. It's the first thing you see when you land into Mumbai, no Indian is proud about a slum, except you for some reason. So nuff with the cope. Even if there are multi-crore businesses there. The question is should people live like that, underserved and neglected. To me. No.