You must log in or # to comment.
100% of people in America own their houses because if they couldn’t afford it, it wouldn’t be their house. Checkmate commies
/s
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”
edit: also, wtf with using google to share a wikipedia link?
bro keeps fighting over some legalese because property doesnt work the same way in the west. no shit sherlock, that’s exactly why chinese people are living in fucking houses while you gringos are more and more living in fucking tents in zombie neighborhoods.
Article 8 Rural collective economic organizations shall practice a two-tiered system of both unified and separate operations with household contract management as its basis. Rural economic cooperatives — producer, supply and marketing, credit and consumer cooperatives — are part of the socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people. Working people who belong to rural collective economic organizations shall have the right, within the scope prescribed by law, to farm cropland and hillsides allotted to them for their private use, engage in household sideline production, and raise privately owned livestock.
The various forms of cooperative economic activities in cities and towns, such as those in the handicraft, industrial, building, transport, commercial and service trades, shall all be part of the socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people.
The state shall protect the lawful rights and interests of urban and rural collective economic organizations and shall encourage, guide and assist the growth of the collective sector of the economy.
Article 9 All mineral resources, waters, forests, mountains, grasslands, unreclaimed land, mudflats and other natural resources are owned by the state, that is, by the whole people, except for the forests, mountains, grasslands, unreclaimed land and mudflats that are owned by collectives as prescribed by law.
The state shall ensure the rational use of natural resources and protect rare animals and plants. It is prohibited for any organization or individual to seize or damage natural resources by any means.
Article 10 Land in cities is owned by the state.
Land in rural and suburban areas is owned by collectives except for that which belongs to the state as prescribed by law; housing sites and cropland and hillsides allotted for private use are also owned by collectives.
The state may, in order to meet the demands of the public interest and in accordance with the provisions of law, expropriate or requisition land and furnish compensation.
No organization or individual shall unlawfully transfer land through seizure, sale and purchase, or in any other form. Land-use rights may be transferred in accordance with the provisions of law.
All organizations and individuals using land must use it in an appropriate manner.
Article 11 Non-public economic sectors that are within the scope prescribed by law, such as individually owned and private businesses, are an important component of the socialist market economy.
The state shall protect the lawful rights and interests of non-public economic sectors such as individually owned and private businesses. The state shall encourage, support and guide the development of non-public economic sectors and exercise oversight and regulation over non-public economic sectors in accordance with law.
Article 12 Socialist public property is sacred and inviolable.
The state shall protect socialist public property. It is prohibited for any organization or individual to seize or damage state or collective property by any means.
Article 13 Citizens’ lawful private property is inviolable.
The state shall protect the right of citizens to own and inherit private property in accordance with the provisions of law.
The state may, in order to meet the demands of the public interest and in accordance with the provisions of law, expropriate or requisition citizens’ private property and furnish compensation.
as an American
take my downvote
Bro do you even Reddit
Removed by mod
thanks for schooling me, i have learned that using the chinese constitution as a source for how land ownership works in china is bootlicking. i have learned my error and converted to anarcho-ego-communist-proto-individualist-echological-anti-authoritaritanistic.
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.
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.
