One is a regular person taking out a person of huge authority, balancing power.
The other is the biggest authority taking out a smaller one to consolidate power.
Please show your work. What is the proof that it was done to consolidate power?
This isn’t to mention that your use of the word authority is strange. How exactly do you determine who has more authority between a US house representative vs. a CEO?
Consolidate ? he’s the leader of a 90 million strong party and been at the reins for more than 14 years lmao. I stg libs’ understanding of politics can be directly mapped to Harry Potter.
Greed is never satisfied?
You think I’m a lib?
Hahahahaha
If you’re not a Marxist, you’re a lib
All that says is that you’re a Marxist (which I’m not saying is a bad thing).
Bet, it’s just been like a hundred comments of the same three talking points from liberals in .world. The reason it’s not just bad because it’s a “bigger authority” is because of the class character of the state, as well as the subject of the oppression. Lenin dedicated an entire book to the subject, State and Revolution. As to how it applies to China and why popular support among a revolutionary government despite capital and billionaires being allowed to exist, one of the best pieces I’ve ever read on the subject is this https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
It’s good that there’s a bigger authority than capital, the party rules through popular consent, and they chose Xi Jinping as well as the people that do the actual legwork of the anti corruption drive to be the executors of that will. If the US had a popular mandate that prevented corporate abuses, Luigi Mangione wouldn’t have needed to be incarcerated, he would have already gotten his surgery.
He’s going around calling everyone that especially when it doesn’t fit because he just learned it’s an insult.
Wow this one really brought out the votes, both kinds 😂
Putting the agitation in agitprop
The former acted because he was personally affected by a person supporting exploitation within a liberal system, the latter leads an authoritarian regime that allowed their CEOs to do what they do until they got annoying for whatever reasons.
So if you want to talk objective results here, sure, one of them got a higher kill count. However, who has the moral high ground here is not even up to debate IMO
Luigi acted out of emotional response to individual trauma of a horribly cruel system, but very little will fundamentally change. The PRC punishes billionaires guilty of massive crimes, such as massive corruption. Which one does have the moral high ground, the one executing of his own volition in a manner that won’t change anything, or the justice system of another country repeatedly working in favor of the people?
I’d say neither, if you start framing it in terms of morals and not material improvements for the working class you accept that Luigi didn’t change anything, just did what we all want to do. I’m against the.death penalty either way but I’d rather the working class be empowered overall.
if by “annoying” you mean exploitative in ways that are tolerated in liberal systems but not in a sane, well-planned system that actually represents its people, sure
One has a 95% approval rate, which amounts to some 900 million working age adults alone, and is the leader of a party of over 93 million. His actions also don’t stop there, but rather continue in the monumental BRI uplifting hundreds of millions in Africa and Central Asia, as well as the total eradication of poverty in China and the development of twice as much green energy than the rest of the world combined.
I liked Brian Thompson getting his due, absolutely, but let’s fucking pipe down lmao. The point was if y’all want to really stick it to CEOs, you better start organizing so y’all can get em in a way the pigs would be helpless to stop.
allowed their CEOs to do what they do until they got annoying for whatever reasons.
Again, libs just going by vibes and absolutely zero investigation, let alone evidence.
The one which has the high approval rate has a very good working relationship with billionaires which kisses the government’s feet, the type of government we will be seeing in the USA for the next four years.
So if the government is run by a party people greatly approve of and said party dominates billionaires, who otherwise run rampant in countries like the US, this is a good thing and the people love it. However, you also expect a Communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years? What on Earth kind of fanfiction is this? How on Earth is Trump going to wrangle billionaires under him when the entire US state apparatus is designed from the ground up to represent billionaire interests?
who otherwise run rampant in countries like the US, this is a good thing
Billionaires are not fine in any of the cases, neither when they run rampant or when they are subdued by the government to support their agenda and narrative. You can not take two bad cases A and B and then say B is not A therefore it is good. That is a logical fallacy.
you also expect a Communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years?
I don’t expect a communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years, all I am saying is that I expect them to subdue billionaires into obedience like China does. That is not communism to me. Whatever the overall arching goal of China and USA is for subduing millionaires, I think they meet in the common denominator: wanting have absolute control everything and I think there is a word for that kind of state.
How on Earth is Trump going to wrangle billionaires under him when the entire US state apparatus is designed from the ground up to represent billionaire interests?
Whether or not Trump will be able to achieve it we will see. But he can still do it in a way that represents billionaire interests: all he has to do is convince the billionaires that it is in their interest to support him. It will likely through mixtures of bribery and intimidation attempts. Of course billionaires might get threatened by him and try to burn him to the ground as well.
-
How do you get rid of Billionaires while remaining interlocked in a global economy and not suffer from Capital Flight and Brain Drain? Decouple and go the same way as the USSR? Ultraleftists like yourself reject Marx and let right take priority over what’s possible at the present moment, and risk the entire Socialist project.
-
What has given you the impression that the US government can subdue Billionaires, let alone will? The last time Trump was in power the opposite was the case, and that has consistently been true for every presidency.
-
This is silly. Trump is in this to get rich, his interests are in billionaires getting richer. He isn’t going to “subdue” anyone for those aims.
1
Interlocked in a global economy is an understatement for a country in which millions of its citizens work for US based multinational enterprises owned by billionaires. They are at this state organic extensions of each other, cut one out and the other likely dies. Very similar to clothing sector in India, Bangladesh etc but for other sectors (like electronics I suppose).
The question you asked is a difficult one I will give you that. I have no dreams (well I mean sometimes I do but don’t believe the practicality of it) of getting rid of all billionaires all at once. It is a bit like cancer I guess which must operated on surgically. Going to a billionaire free society is one of the many possible pathways that can lead from subduing billionaires. But at this point all you are presenting me with is the possible good-will of Chinese government. A more simplest explanation is that it simply is a very authoritarian government.
2
Can? I don’t know. I believe Trump will try. And he will try precisely because of the reasons you have presented. US is run by billionaires, if you subdue billionaires then you are the most powerful man in US. I think Trump is deluded enough to try this given that Elon likely also shares the same goal with him, perhaps even more enthusiastic than Trump about it. As I said above, there may be many reasons why a government tries to subdue billionaires, getting rid of them is just one of many such reasons.
3
Well after you subdue the billionaires, it is entirely up to you to decide how to use that power. Trump will %100 sure use it to get more powerful himself, might even try to change things so that he can be a president the next term as well. In the simplest cases, he will make forced deals that will immensely benefit the businesses he owns (well now his sons “own” them if you believe that).
-
You are correct that the PRC’s economy is tied with the rest of the world. This is by design. The PRC witnessed the fall of the USSR in real time, and decided to take the opposite approach while still working towards Socialism: make themselves the producers of the world so the US can’t directly oppose them. This has paid off in spades. Further, what is “authoritarian?” What mechanically gives rise to that, why does it exist, and why is it bad? Is there an arbitrary level where democracy turns to authoritarianism?
-
I would love to see any proof behind this other than vibes. Until then, the logical conclusion is likely the correct one.
-
Same as 2, I would love to see any proof that isn’t just vibes.
-
-
Removed by mod
Copying my comment over here, as it’s highly relevant:
It’s more that liberals like yourself directly ignore facts and statistics while blindly repeating vague and unsourced claims of “China Bad,” because it lets you remain comfortable in your pre-existing worldview. Communists do not have such luxury, which is why they seemingly always have endless sources on hand. In your comment here, as an example, you discredit the CPC’s approval with no source. However, if we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
You are directly decieving yourself because you license yourself to. If you actually looked at real sources and didn’t reject them reflexively, instead of accepting bourgeois media at face value, you’d sit much closer to where I do. You should read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Both are excellent examples of why people don’t change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn’t mean Communists don’t do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these “licenses” to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.
The authoritarian Harvard and Pew polls which reported such a number? Lmao yall are so stubbornly committed to chauvinism even if a million Chinese came up to you to tell you you’d be unconvinced. There’s literally dozens of western polls which confirm it, it’s not up for debate, denying it is as ridiculous as denying the existence of the moon.
Being incredibly adept at mental gymnastics isn’t critical thinking. What part of parroting the headlines you get from corporate media says “critical thinking” to you? I feel super bad for my American comrades trying to organize and make things better when half the country is somehow even dumber than this.
stormfront.world users downvoting facts when they don’t fit their racist vibes smh
you hate to see it
I wonder if it has anything to do with PRC’s punishment towards citizens who have been critical of their government. Who knows man.
I wonder that too. Do you have proof that it does?
I have shared some links further in the thread, here you go.
Thank you for your comment. From my skimming of the articles you sent, they seem to argue that the state has a track record of cracking down on dissent and protests.
I’m not sure this proves your initial claim though (that CEO executions were done to combat government criticism), unless there’s a detail in these articles that I missed by skimming too fast. Please let me know if I missed it.
While your claim is plausible, it is also equally plausible that they are acting within the defines of their state ideology, and we would need more evidence to prove it is one or the other.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the articles and did not attempt to verify the evidence they present, as it didn’t seem that they are addressing your initial claims.
I think you’ve misread my comment.
“Xi doesn’t get the solidarity like Luigi, because his government has a track record of punishing citizens when they show dissent” was the point of my original comment.
I believe this context is important if we’re to discuss the likability of a country’s leader based on their actions. Additionally, “acting within the defines of state ideology” would permit a national head to practically do anything since they are the ones defining the state ideology.
With due respect, that’s quite different than the claim you explained in the comment I replied to, so I hope you will edit it to clarify that.edit: I seem to have misunderstood the original comment.As to the point you stated in quotes in this comment (edit: which is what OP originally intended), I don’t see how they’re related. Criticizing China’s crackdown on dissent must not mean you should deny their credit on executing CEOs.
That wasn’t his point and he doesn’t need to edit his comment because you misunderstood it.
Upon rereading, it looks like I misunderstood it due to conflating it with some other comments, so you’re right. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will edit my comment accordingly.
The people of the PRC approve of Beijing to a far greater degree than western countries, with an over 90% approval rate. If we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
Again, unfalsifiable nonsense, both A and the opposite of A are proof that China bad, no need for evidence.
What’s more, why do they have to be critical? What are they missing from their lives? Their government actually works lmao. More than 700 million pulled out of poverty, corrupt officials at all levels get jailed or executed, most young people own their house, everyone has a job and very cheap food and cultural activities, as well as the best public transit in the world and well maintained infrastructure, not to mention billionaires keep their fucking mouths shut unless it is to pay lip service to the people’s government.
You know who punishes their citizens, verifiably often and viciously? Say it with me: the USA. The Ferguson protesters were murdered one by one in the following months with no investigation, the occupy wall street organizers were detained by Homeland security, the black panther party was infiltrated and their leaders murdered by police whether openly or covertly, the Gaza protests had students beaten, arrested and tried en masse and the US passes new surveillance and protest crackdown laws every other day it seems.
And, on the opposite side, what good does “being allowed to be critical” do, in and of itself? About 30% of Americans approve of the government at any given time, corrupt officials are openly insider trading, passing laws for bribes that they don’t even have to hide, and big business is allowed to KILL YOU FOR PROFIT.
You liberals are delusional, you buy that you live in the best country ever and shit is almost impossible to change for the better and assume the rest of us must have it so much worse, facts be damned.
There are people upset enough with Chinese imperialism and rule that they light themselves on fire in the neighboring country as a way to try and get attention and assistance.
That doesn’t come from nowhere even if it’s not a majority.Multiple things can be true such as different governments can be each doing their own form of abuse. It doesn’t excuse one to admit to the other and there can be positives to all relationships.
Be upset with what you have and what’s around you but don’t use that to imagine a fantasy of greener grass on the other side of the fence. Do it to will a better existence around you.
Chinese imperialism
lmao, libs co opting revolutionary language without understanding a single fucking thing about it will never not be funny to me
Yeah not a liberal and what would you call predatory loans to Africa and export systems of raw goods, or the annexation of Tibet, or the threatened annexation of Taiwan, or the skirmishes in the late 80s for the “South China Sea” which mainly cover reefs that have now been over fished, or even Russian, Tajikistan and Vietnamese land as recently as 2009?
A word you think belonging to you doesn’t make it wrong to be used just because you don’t like it. It’s not even revolutionary just a Latin root word of ruling used for Napoleon using military to gain other counties support, and has been used in lots of ways by lots of people since.
A red lib or a blue lib is still a lib. Even Bloomberg doesn’t buy the debt trap idiocy lmao. Washington mouthpiece The Atlantic doesn’t either. You want predatory loans? Look at the IMF. China regularly does no-strings-attached loans and regularly forgives hundreds of millions in loans that were interest free in the first place. China has NEVER seized an asset from a debtor. Poor way to do predatory loans, they should ask the US for advice if that’s the endgame.
Most debt in Africa is held by western banks and the IMF, who demand you strip your economy for parts like the mafia (who probably got the idea from them). In Sri Lanka, the most quoted example, more than 90 percent of debt is owed to Western countries.
Still not a liberal.
And alright. I understand that other countries are more directly responsible for the economic woes of the world as that is the whole point of them and China is the manufacturer so their issues will be more worker treatment related than economic policy.
You move on to whatever to protect your point of view. You are on a conquest to be self righteous rather than right.
My point is don’t seek for other, seek for better. It’s not a golden paradise, just another reality that isn’t perfect, because it’s top busy being a reality.
Still not a liberal
Conservatism is a form of liberalism.
I base my opinion on multiple people I personally know who moved from China to SG, because they were unhappy with the kind of control government maintained over any public criticism. I won’t pretend that I remember all the instances they’ve mentioned, but I know better than to reject the claims of the countries citizen when they have some concerns. I won’t pretend that I know better than the people living in the damned country.
We all know Chinese people, dude, there’s 1.4 billion of them lmao. That doesn’t make you an authority on their opinion and the sample size is negligible to say the least. 95 percent of them, according to Harvard, are happy with the government.
I never claimed to be an authority, and there’s a reason I mentioned it was my opinion.
And again, it’s not like there could be selection biases in a Harvard study. That absolutely never happens.
And again, it’s not like there could be selection biases in a Harvard study. That absolutely never happens.
Jesus dude, just admit that nothing could ever be enough to change your mind.
I have shared some articles on China’s crackdown on dissent here. Will you will change your mind after reading them?
Change my mind that the vast majority of Chinese are happy with their government? Why would your articles cause me to do that?
The only biases that Harvard could pull would be AGAINST the interests of the CPC, that’s the point. You wouldn’t accept a Chinese poll because of racism/chauvinism so I provide overwhelming proof even on your terms and the answer is “em, uh, nu uh”.
My friend, you’re the one who’s actively denying the opinions of the Chinese people I know, while pushing a Harvard study on my face. And then calling me racist/chauvinistic. I am not sure how that helps your case, but I guess just spouting random nonsense is your idea of a conversation.
To help you out, I have taken some time to find some of the articles from the time I was in SG, and cases I discussed. These are the articles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-64592333
https://www.economist.com/china/what-peng-shuai-reveals-about-one-party-rule/21806441
Most of the people I talked to related with these incidents, and acknowledged that while they may not the be the norm, they’re certainly not anomalies. And a lot of people dont come out because the government reacts in such dracnonian ways.
The people I talked to were not representative of all of China, it would be ridiculous to consider that. However, ignoring multiple unrelated people sharing similar stories would be an asinine thing.
If your response is going to be a an aggregate study about economic development, and ask me why would people be unhappy with that, then you need some sort of help to understand that economic freedom is not the only freedom in the world.
He specifically doesn’t want to hear anything that doesn’t confirm his world view and in being loud about it it’s getting him likes from his in-group which he thinks is all he needs and makes him superior.
You can see it in the way he responds to everyone with either the idea they fully agree with him or are deserving of indignation.
Wait till he finds out even his echo chamber doesn’t pass the purity test and God forbid he ever fail it himself.
Also I swear the amount of small business owners I know in Singapore who agree they live there for a better life is wild if you know anything about the authoritarian lean of Singapore. Grass is always greener and all that.
All this comment section proves is that if the only thing that changed was that Thompson was a Chinese healthcare CEO called Zhao Qiang and got clapped by the government libs would be calling him a working class hero and a martyr like the fucking NYT.
I have not seen a single Marxist make this claim. Deng wasn’t pro-billionaire, but wished to return to a Marxist analysis of the PRC’s economy. It had taken on an ultraleft character and was unstable, they had socialized more than they should have with their level of productive forces, and have consistently been working their way back to that level of socialization now that the Socialist Market Economy has proven wildly successful. Without doing so, extreme poverty could not have been eradicated like it has been.
great thread OP
It really hit the right balance, it prompted discussion in what is (hopefully) a productive manner by highlighting mass support for violence against billionaires compared to the actions of AES states. Hopefully people start reading Marx after this.
One isn’t a corrupt dictator killing or imprisoning anyone who complains about him. If you think the little guy isn’t getting hurt in China I want the drugs you’re on.
There’s 1.4 billion Chinese citizens. Do y’all think this is Star Wars and you can just jail tens of millions with nobody noticing or complaining? Terminally unserious.
Removed by mod
Yeah, because unlike Israel, Neon 🇮🇱, China has not and is not ethnically cleansing anyone.
Israeli flag in name
Removed by mod
Do you have any source on the PRC killing or imprisoning anyone who complains about it? Moreover, what do you think about 95%+ Chinese citizens supporting the CPC? If we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
What are you on about
Working class rebel vs Elite class looking for more control
This is your brain on a lack of class analysis
What the heck is an “elite class?” Where did Marx talk about it?
Believe it or not, things can exist independently of Marx having described them.
When everyone is using Class in a specific manner, the addition of a “class” that doesn’t actually exist just for a quip is really odd. You have to make the argument that it even exists in the first place first.
So which non-Marxist political economy or sociology defines this elite class? Usually class politics is attributed to Marx
Please show your work. What is the proof that it was done for more control?
Are you asking for proof of Occupied China being a planned economy or that the party controls it?
The comment I replied to says:
Working class rebel vs Elite class looking for more control
Notice the part highlighted in bold. I am asking for proof of this. In other words, proof that the Chinese government executed CEOs only because they sought “more control”. Surely we are not expected to blindly trust this claim, right?
Surely we are not expected to blindly trust this claim
Why not? They did when the CIA told it [to the journalists that repeated it] to them.
So it’s planned economy that you’re disputing
I really can’t think of any proof that you would believe if you’re disputing that
So it’s planned economy that you’re disputing
No.
My question is very clear, why can’t you address it without pretending I asked something else?
Again, you made the claim that CEO executions were made for the reason of seeking more control. Please provide proof that they were done for this reason and not any other reason. I have not asked for planned economy proof or anything else.
If your next comment does not answer my question, then you are being intentionally misleading
If it’s a planned economy then the government controls it
You’re just saying the same thing
How do you twist yourself up in knots to not even get in the general vicinity of an evidence-based position and not wonder "damn, do I really not know shit about the stuff I’m so loud about "?
This is good agitation. Im not a blanket supporter but its been a good thread with a lot of decent links worthy of critical support. Lemmy world needed this lmao
When you see them seethe through the entire script and react to articles like you showed a cross to nosferatu you know they’re learning without their consent
Many of the chronically online social media poster (read: western professional class) are closer to the CEO than they are to any other group. The temporarily embarrassed millionaires as they’re also known.
Statistically a not insignificant number of them are millionaires by net worth. Especially when we consider demographics where it’s mainly tech workers. But of course that doesn’t count because of some indeterminate line between evil CEO and average Joe who worked hard.
The cognitive dissonance is that they’re all part of the same system. Climbing the same ladder. In any other context these people are bragging about being executive of some random startup or whatever.
They’re not, they just think they are. They’re every bit as oppressed and the sharing of the imperial spoils hasn’t been a thing since at least the fall of the USSR, once there was literally no alternative. Now there is an alternative but the population has been so thoroughly propagandized that you mention any enemy of the State Dept and they start frothing at the mouth.
Non-westerners’ view on what life is like here always amaze me. Then they complain they’re not rich besides earning “a lot”, because they’re fed the propaganda that we’re all dirty imperialists exploiting them. No, most of us are not millionaires. Most of us can’t even buy a place to live without enslaving ourselves for half our life to bankers. But OK buddy
Which is why the rest of us is confused about why most of y’all so rabidly do the propaganda work for your oppressors. Y’all consistently get to the line of class consciousness and then do a 180 and sprint in the opposite direction whenever it concerns foreigners.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I am a westerner. No other comment. You’ve already made up your mind. And I can’t be assed to talk over what ever incronguencies you have of mindset.
we’re all dirty imperialists exploiting them
Okay just one comment I’ll have to withold else I’ll probably get banned for insulting your intelligence
i used to feel badly blocking accounts
If you’re that shook just from somebody mentioning the commies I don’t think you’re gonna provide much in the way of productive discussion anyway, so, by all means.
Removed by mod
Pasting my comment from earlier:
Any “leftist” that thinks the fact that China has billionaires means it therefore isn’t actually Socialist needs to read Marx and Engels. There are many such liberals here in these comments. Marx predicted Socialism to be the next mode of production because markets centralize and create intricate methods of planning. As such, he stated that folding private into the public would be gradual, and by the degree to which industry would develop. From the Manifesto:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
In even simpler terms, from Engels in Principles of Communism:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
That doesn’t mean billionaires are good to have, necessarily, either. It remains a contradiction, but not an uncalculated one. I highly recommend anyone here read China has Billionaires. As much as Marxists want to lower wealth inequality eventually as much as possible (insofar as thr principle "from each according to ability, to each according to needs applies, Marx was no “equalitarian” and railed against them), in the stage of developmemt the PRC is at this would get in the way of development, and could cause Capital Flight and brain drain. Moreover, billionaires provide an easy scapegoat that the USSR didn’t have, and thus all problems of society were directed at the state. It’s important to consider why a Marxist country does what it does, and not immediately assume you know better. The CPC has an over 95% approval rate, you can’t just assume you know what’s best.
The phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is meant to depict higher stage Communism. Until that is possible, the answer becomes “to each according to his work,” because as Marx said in Critique of the Gotha Programme:
these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis. There are genuine Marxist critiques of the PRC that don’t rely on nonsense. If you consider yourself a Marxist, correct your study. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you need one.
At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis.
The PRC is not socialist because, it produces commodities (the commodity form), Has A Dictatorship of The Bourgeoisie, The Wage System, and an employer-employee distinction.
Which um, is in the passage you quoted:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour.
Socialism is a transitional status from Capitalism to Communism. There can be no immediate jump from one to the other, this jump must be gradual. Moreover, you cannot eliminate Wage Labor without eliminating Private Property, and you cannot eliminate Private Property overnight, but gradually, and by the degree to its development. Socialism is about which is primary, Public Ownership and Central Planning, or Private Property and Markets, not the mere existence of one in purity or the other. Such a stance is anti-dialectical and erases Marx’s analysis of Capitalism and Communism.
Furthermore, even Communism will have an “employer-employee” relationship, insofar as it still retains labor for labor vouchers. Communism is about Central Planning and Public Ownership, not horizontalism. The passage you reference is indeed the essential condition for the existance of the bourgeoisie, and its eventual elimination, but not the existence of Socialism.
Finally, the PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You can’t simply assert the opposite when it’s very clear that in the PRC the State is absolute over the Bourgeoisie.
All of these misconceptions of yours betray a deeply “Wikipedia-educated” notion of Marxism. If you want, you can start reading with my introductory Marxist reading list.
Socialism is a transitional status from Capitalism to Communism. There can be no immediate jump from one to the other, this jump must be gradual.
Agreed. As in, Capitalism is also a transitional stage to Communism. China is a decidedly capitalist society, as evidenced by their production of commodities.
Furthermore, even Communism will have an “employer-employee” relationship, insofar as it still retains labor for labor vouchers.
There will be no “employer” class under communism. A communist society is classless. China does not use labor vouchers even, it has a system of money.
Finally, the PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You can’t simply assert the opposite when it’s very clear that in the PRC the State is absolute over the Bourgeoisie.
The state is the Bourgeoisie in centrally planned economies. They extract surplus value from the Proletariat just like in a private market economy. The difference between the State Bourgeoisie and the Private Bourgeoisie, in China, is just aristocratic rank.
I am sorry, but none of what you have said makes any sense from a Marxist perspective.
- The presense of Commodity production does not mean the system is Capitalist. To that extent, if you have a 99% publicly owned and centrally planned economy, it must be Capitalist, and once that final 1% is absorbed, it becomes Communist. There is no Socialism by this definition, it’s a straight jump from Capitalism to Communism. Even in the PRC, the majority of the economy is Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned. Engels disagrees with your stance:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
You kill the Scientific and Dialectical aspects of Marxism and deny the existence of Socialism.
-
This is really 2 points in 1. “Employer” is not a class. Classes are not jobs, but relations to production. Communism will have managers, planners, and so forth to assist with economic production. The other point, on the PRC not using labor vouchers, that’s for when China reaches Communism, when they are currently Socialist.
-
This is entirely anti-Marxist. The State is an extension of the class in power. In a fully centrally planned economy with full public ownership, there is no state. The bourgeoisie is focused on competition and accumulation, it isn’t a “power dynamic” but a social relation to production. From Engels:
When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
Bolded the most relevant bits. The state ceases to exist when classes cease to exist, because when all property is public there are no classes. However, production remains administrated and directed! I think it’s quite obvious from reading the source material that Marx was no Anarchist, nor did he believe that Socialism was devoid of private property, nor could it be. This is a gradual process for Marx, one we call Socialism, as it works towards a fully Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned Economy, Communism. The government does not “extract surplus value” in a profit accumulating manner, but to pay for public services and infrastructure, directly spelled out by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme. The State is an extension of the dominant class, and the class which is dominant can be found through real analyzing of the trends and conditions of an economy. In the PRC, those trends are towards uplifiting the working class and continuing to fold Private Property into the Public Sector.
Removed by mod
Official gweilo post
Removed by mod
Ok officer
Removed by mod
