Imo there should be a law that limits the sum of assets everyone is allowed to have, say 1M-10M
Imagine living in Lebanon and not being a millionaire…
Even normal people there live in houses worth billions of Lebanese Pounds.
China has maintained enough of a market system to avoid our usual direct efforts at overthrow or embargo, as long as our billionaire ruling class sees their markets as an opportunity outweighing the threat of their government they’ll block any push by our government to interfere with their access to those markets. Not only did that work perfectly but they actually managed to get their greatest global rival to voluntarily de-industrialize and hand the vast majority of our productive capacity over to them without a single shot fired. Every last bit of argument here and elsewhere about whether they’re communist or not is just cope from people whose civilizations have never pulled off anything half that slick in their entire worthless existences.
They do have famously good working conditions, high wages and quality of life. Their working class is in a meat grinder to an extent I haven’t seen anywhere else. Especially unskilled laborors.
Their working class is in a meat grinder to an extent I haven’t seen anywhere else
You’ve never been to a global south country I take it?
China has a lot further to go to reach parity with the first world, but its nowhere near as bad as it was 20 years ago when you could see videos of children working inside machine presses.
Meanwhile conditions remain similar to what they were 20 years ago in India, Bangladesh or El Salvador.
Cool story kiddo
Cope
Lol no u
China’s restrictions on free speech scare me… and I don’t like all their policies… at all…
but, in China’s defense…
Many countries that have tried to implement communism have been overthrown… and so if China is trying to position itself in a technologically dominant way to avoid being overthrown, embracing some limited capitalism to foster technological dominance may make sense. If you look at China, they make a lot of great tech and they are really excelling at robotics.
If someone is really good at making money, they sometimes use that capital to create more companies or push technological development further. So it may be a thought out policy choice to allow limited capitalism, even resulting in billionaires, so as to gain technological dominance, so as to not be overthrown?
Not only does it make sense from a global perspective, but it also makes sense economically. China would still be in the gutter if they didn’t have market engagement. The USSR, for example, failed dramatically at trying to have a strictly command-based economy.
First and foremost, there’s no such thing as a “communist country”. Communism is a very late stage of socialist development when all class contradictions have been abolished. We don’t know what that might look like, but the consensus is that we can’t really talk about a country being communist but rather an overall state of the world.
Secondly, China has a fairly good grip over its billionaire class. They don’t have the class power their class has in the US, Europe, or the rest of the western capitalist world. The capitalist class in China is subject to the wishes of the working class represented by the party with its over 100 million members.
Cope
In what way? There’s nothing to cope about
You know exactly what way.
You’re losing and you know it
I’ve never won harder
Embarassing if true
We don’t need donations, we just need to tax them at the same level we’re taxing regular workers. And since their fortunes are growing at double digit rates, a small annual wealth tax wouldn’t hurt them either.
We need to bring back the tax brackets from the 1950’s
The community allows for the accumulation of wealth by providing services, security and labor. Therefore the community is entitled to a portion of the accumulated wealth in form of taxation.
No man is an island, and nobody becomes a billionaire from their own labor. Community matters.
Because communism never was about equality. It was always about the iron boot in your face.
What better way to aquire power than siding with the masses against the powerful?
What better way to aquire power than siding with the masses against the powerful?
Siding with powerful against weak masses.
Worry about your own country, yank
I hate baseball.
They’re both bad. China is full of pollution issues (though admittedly making progress), global blackmail (well mostly Africa) and terrible (virtually non-existent?) privacy. And a totalitarian capitalist state.
USA is an Idiocracy also full of pollution issues, mind numbing idiocy, and a declining imperialist empire full of (and I really can’t emphasize how many) idiots that’s a cancer spreading fascism and oligarchy.
Finland is, well, here. The Prime Minister did some corruption with an ice hockey stadium, but that’s recent and we’re waiting to see if he’ll be jailed. If he isn’t, we’ll be joining the ranks of corrupt capitalistic oligarchies I suppose, but we’ve had an okayish track record so far. Never invaded other countries (USA and to a much lesser extent, China) or tried to annihilate others (Taiwan).
If China is a 10 on badness scale, then the US is at 10000000. I won’t tolerate people even talking about the two as equals.
Not a chin defender typically but why is what China is doing in africa black mail? Especially in comparison to traditional banking loans used to leverage natural resources away from africa?
A better term is usury. Or simply exploitative loans. And the ideal is that NO ONE should be exploiting the resources of other countries. Not the US. Not China.
Lol, nope.
So much ignorance on display here in this thread. People talking out of their ass with no clue or care why and how China has implemented economic reforms and development policy. No clue what communists even are much less the details of how they manage the economy of a developing socialist state within a capitalist global economy. Just thought-terminating clichés about billionaires and so-called “state capitalism”.
Fun fact: you can actually read the justifications for why socialist countries managed by proletariat governments have implemented limited market systems in their economies in China, Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, even Korea. Their thoughts are public!
I might go one further and suggest this is why the “Just tax the billionaires” line never actually delivers the goods. It’s a classic Belling-The-Cat problem, because its very easy to say “Tax the Billionaires” but its very difficult to move forward with a policy that does the actual thing, without billionaires pooling their resources to prevent you from accessing any of the levers of power.
You need a certain collectivist worldview to even attempt the problem of regulating and sanctioning a bourgeois class. And when you’re brainwashed by some combination of out-of-context Adam Smith quotes and reskinned Milton Friedman / Ayn Rand videos, good fucking luck.
Fun fact: you can actually read the justifications for why socialist countries managed by proletariat governments have implemented limited market systems in their economies in China, Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, even Korea. Their thoughts are public!
If you know where to look and you trust the source material and you’ve got the patience to work through the finer details, sure.
But that’s the sort of learning you typically need to tackle in grade school if you want it to stick. Open minds and lots of free time are necessary to get this kind of rigorous political education. By the time you’ve had your head crammed full of cable news fearmongering and employer-sponsored propaganda, you’ll be allergic to the very idea of taking a book like Fanshen or The Bolivian Diary at face value.
What do you mean? Are the Chinese billionaires a good thing?
Are you an actual child? Serious answers only please
What do you mean?
I mean that if you have a valid excuse for being this painfully naive then I would like to know in advance before I hurt your feelings about it
You’re why I do this. I’ve never seen an easier group to ragebait than .ml users. I don’t care even a tiny bit about China or their billionaires. The fact you’re viewing a shitpost through the lense of winning and loosing is the best thing I could have hoped for making this post. Look through every comment I’ve made here, are any even slightly high effort. Its all the easiest bullshit talking points to keep people unable to discern context riled up. I’m having a fantastic time.
Not even a little believable, you’re either some sort of deeply incompetent fed or profoundly lonely, maybe both lol
I think the billionaires are just a symptom of the capitalist global economy. China uses the wealth generated by the billionaires to further their goals of working towards communism.
Instead of using the term good, I think the standard here is asking, “Do the billionaires have more power than the some other group? In this cases CPC.” And if the CPC has more power, “What role does the CPC imagine using the billionaires to development of society and the party goals?”
“The ends justify the means.”
Surely that’s never caused any problems…
It depends if you think capital circulation is a necessary step along the way to a more just world. For Marxists, they see it as just another step in the process to socialism. There are reasons, and I’m happy to describe the theory if you’d like, but that’s what they believe. They see it as a process they can control verse a process in which they become exploited.
I’m not really asking about capital circulation. I’m interested specifically in the billionaires. So why the billionaires?
I can understand the logic of having a market-based economy. It’s a very effective means of achieving compound economic growth. But a market economy does not require billionaires. There are numerous more equitable models that China could have built its system around. For example, they could have built their market economy based entirely around worker-owned co-ops. Co-ops can compete just fine in markets. Or, they could have gone with the current structure, but put in place a wealth cap. That’s been proposed before even in the US.
Why couldn’t China build a market economy, but just have a hard rule of “no one is allowed to amass more than X amount?” Even if people couldn’t hoard more than say, $100 million, that still gives people plenty of incentive to start new businesses, get an education, work hard, etc.
I can’t actually answer why they don’t set a hard limit of how much they will let some one accumulate or as for why they didn’t use coops. Both of these are counterfactuals that would be difficult even if I knew all the internal discussions. For example, you’d have to look closely at Deng’s policies and the subsequent three represents during the early 2000s to see what the discussion around coops was. Hard to say what the thinking was that precluded coops from the discussion.
It’s easier to say what they are doing and the policies they are enacting. I believe they have a goal of reducing inequality with a goal of a Gini index of .35 by 2035. They are focusing on a common prosperity goal. This has led to increased donations and contributions from the wealthy to social causes. With the common prosperity project, they hope to increase the middle class and reduce the rural-urban divide as well. I think there are several other goals.
I don’t see setting a hard limit on whether or not one is a billionaire contributing to these goals and then runs the risk of creating resentment of a particular class that the party needs to grow their level of prosperity.
Edit: Prior to the 90s, there government supported state-owned and collective enterprises. But they weren’t growing quick enough to meet the needs of the CPC.
Meanwhile, the growing number of entrepreneurs were gaining power, but no access to representation. So the CPC decided to bring them in to the party. This would reduce the likeliness of a counter revolution.
Theoretically, coops struggled with massive, capital-intensive investments. They can’t scale or absorb risk because their capital is in the form of worker’s equity.
When coops fail, it can be doubly devastating. Workers lose their jobs and equity when the firm goes bankrupt. Just as bad, though, there can be a prolonged declined as the coops would go under they would slash their pay to keep the dying firm alive.
Coops seem great when the economic engine is humming along, but if you are looking for rapid growth, you need large capital investments and the ability to fail quickly or massively succeed.
China does not claim to be a fully communist society yet. Official ideology describes the country as being in a long-term developmental phase of socialism; communism is portrayed as a future goal. However, if they continue as they have been treating people like mere numbers, keeping them in poverty under total control, while billionaires amass wealth they will never achieve that anyway. In a society that ideologically advocates for overcoming class distinctions and capitalist exploitation, enormous private fortunes exist. Entrepreneurs like Jack Ma have at times amassed wealth running into the billions. At the same time, the Party controls key sectors of the economy and can exert massive pressure on companies. That transitional phase has gone spectacularly wrong. That is not how communism is defined. Private property is accepted only as long as it remains compatible with the Party’s political interests. This is very convenient for the government: it can harness the productivity and innovation of capitalism without adopting the political power structures of a liberal political system.
Oh Jesus Christ. They’re as communist as you can humanly get currently. I hate this crap where people go “well xyz isn’t full communist”. No country can or will be 100% communist, socialist, or capitalist. It’s basically impossible. They can claim whatever they want. Half the shit they say is made up anyways.
But. they are at communist as possible.
No they aren’t. Try actually reading about how their economy works. The whole thing is a scam to keep their form of state capitalism.
The people who wanted to make China communist, as in people having collective ownership over the economy, were thrown out of power by the Dengists who ostensibly believed that they needed to use capitalism to build towards socialism. Except they’ve never done anything to actually implement socialism. In China everyone is still a wage cuck just like everywhere else.
Have you considered, although everyone is still a wage cuck, the government is popular and therefore “proletarian socialist”? (/s)
Poop fart and fart poop
China is a capitalist country
They focus their government money on creating jobs and control. People will well paying jobs and money for fun stuff are less likely to start a civil war
Rather than the US where the focus is making themselves richer and funding the military
You don’t have a clue what the word capitalism means
Funding the military so they can quash any rebellions from people having nothing left to lose deciding to rise up. Did you know that the founding fathers intended for there to be no standing army for this very reason? I just learned this the other day.
Unfortunately the “no standing army” thing was a product of a certain age. When the fastest an army could move is via sail or a trotting horse, you can get away with not having a standing army. In the months it took your enemy to reach you, you could train and prepare. Standing armies always had some advantage, but it was actually possible to maintain a viable defense without one.
But today? The enemy army will be occupying your capital before you can even send all the draft notices out. Imagine if Ukraine had had no standing army when Russia invaded. And that’s just with how quick ground armies can move. We haven’t even mentioned aircraft and paratroopers!
Sure, there are a handful of countries with no standing army today, but they’re countries that simply don’t need a credible defense. Iceland has no army. But an Iceland without an army would perform in war only slightly worse than an Iceland that was as devoted to war as the historical Spartans. Iceland could tax themselves into oblivion and put every citizen they could in uniform, but they just don’t have the population to credibly deter an invasion by a major power. The only countries without standing armies today are very small countries that, due to their population, are completely dependent on outside allies for their defense.
Jefferson said a central bank was more dangerous to our liberty than a standing army. They also basically told us to overthrow the government and rewrite the constitution in our situation
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
They should’ve banned it in the Constitution then. Though given how bloodthirsty Americans turned out to be, we probably would’ve amended it anyway.
They didn’t used to have billionaires, when Mao was in power. Strangely, a lot of Westerners seem to hate what China is now, but also hate what China was before, which seems very strange to me. “The reforms were bad and China should be more Maoist” that is a coherent position, “The reforms were good but should have gone further and become even more capitalist” that is also a coherent position. But “China is bad now because they allow billionaires but they were also bad when they didn’t allow billionaires” isn’t really coherent, it just seems like knee-jerk opposition to whatever they do or don’t do. Anyone who wants to offer critiques should be able to answer the simple question of whether the reforms were good or bad, whether they moved in the right or wrong direction.
On the off-chance that you actually want a serious answer to the question, let’s start with some history. Before the revolution, China’s average life expectancy was in the 30’s, it experienced frequent famines, had no access to medicine, and had had similarly awful conditions for literally thousands of years with no improvement for the average person. The revolution brought about huge improvements in life expectancy and the basic necessities of life (with the failure of the Great Leap Forward being an exception to this general trend).
However, while central planning works for providing basic necessities because the demand for those necessities is very predictable, it is not the most efficient regarding consumer goods. This was one of the failures that caused the collapse of the USSR, the desire for consumer good and the inability to compete domestically. Furthermore, despite the increases in life expectancy, virtually everyone in China still lived in extreme poverty. The reforms in the 80s were intended to address this, and they were wildly successful at it:
In the words of Deng, it doesn’t matter if the cat is white or black, so long as it catches mice. It doesn’t really matter if a policy is ideologically “pure,” so long as it provides clear material benefits for the common people.
Where I’m standing, the whole point of having any sort of political beliefs at all is to figure out which policies will improve people’s lives. And lifting 800 million people out of extreme poverty over the span of 40 years, can you name a more successful policy, ever, in all of history?
And lifting 800 million people out of extreme poverty over the span of 40 years, can you name a more successful policy, ever, in all of history?
Democracy. I really hate this untestable argument as if we could go back in time and do A|B test to see which framework would have lifted people out of poverty the fastest. Taiwan is richer and more free than China despite being democratic, so is Japan, South Korea - what now? Which dicks do we measure and do we start at the balls or just the shaft?
And yet, China has delivered substantially lower average incomes than its peers. It’s not even close. The people of Taiwan, despite sharing a common cultural and ethnic history as mainland China, enjoy a substantially higher standard of living than their mainland peers.
Yes, they’ve raised hundreds of millions out of poverty, but that’s been the case throughout East Asia. The whole region saw its standard of living dramatically rise as it industrialized. And the capitalist countries have enjoyed far greater economic success than the communist ones.
The absolute number of people is a red herring. Obviously big countries have more people.
I’m hoping you’re not one of those .ml folks that acts like a Republican and calls every source they don’t like “Fake News.” But in case you are, can you provide your own sources? I would be curious on your thoughts of the per-capita incomes of China vs the capitalist East Asian countries. Can you show that China has performed better than them on a per-capita basis?
The people of Taiwan, despite sharing a common cultural and ethnic history as mainland China, enjoy a substantially higher standard of living than their mainland peers.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Taiwan received substantial foreign aid from the US because of it’s strategic value against the mainland, while the PRC was subject to a massive economic embargo.
Yes, they’ve raised hundreds of millions out of poverty, but that’s been the case throughout East Asia. The whole region saw its standard of living dramatically rise as it industrialized. And the capitalist countries have enjoyed far greater economic success than the communist ones.
Sorry, which countries are we talking about again? There’s not that many countries in East Asia. Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan all benefited from foreign investment and trade, and again, with much smaller populations.
If you’re going to argue that the embargo on China was an inevitable result of its communist policies, well, that’s a big part of why they did the reforms in the 80’s.
The absolute number of people is a red herring. Obviously big countries have more people.
That… what? I don’t follow what you’re saying here at all.
It’s much easier for a small country to modernize in a short period of time, especially with outside help. It’s very difficult to reach all the people in all the rural areas of China, it means more infrastructure has to be built, more people have to be educated, etc.
I’m hoping you’re not one of those .ml folks that acts like a Republican and calls every source they don’t like “Fake News.” But in case you are, can you provide your own sources?
My source is the extremely biased communist newsletter known as The World Bank. Hopefully that’s not too far-left for you.
I would be curious on your thoughts of the per-capita incomes of China vs the capitalist East Asian countries. Can you show that China has performed better than them on a per-capita basis?
I don’t agree that per-capita is the relevant statistic for the above reasons.
I’m also not entirely sure why we’re comparing China to capitalist countries in the first place.
Taiwan received substantial foreign aid from the US because of it’s strategic value against the mainland
And? China literally owns the 4th largest land mass in the world. So which variables are allowed in this math and which aren’t? Maybe if you give us a list we can defeat your delusion more swiftly.
You linked a source repeating your earlier claim about the raw number of people lifted out of poverty. Again, I ask, what about per-capita income?
This is a ridiculous comparison. Taiwan received substantial foreign aid from the US because of it’s strategic value against the mainland, while the PRC was subject to a massive economic embargo.
China received extensive aid from the USSR.
That… what? I don’t follow what you’re saying here at all.
Do you understand what “per capita” means? It would be far more impressive for a country of one million people to lift 950,000 people out of poverty than for a nation of 1 billion people to lift 800 million people out of poverty.
It’s much easier for a small country to modernize in a short period of time, especially with outside help. It’s very difficult to reach all the people in all the rural areas of China, it means more infrastructure has to be built, more people have to be educated, etc.
Why? I see no reason for this. Larger countries have more resources. Everything you need to lift people out of poverty scales with population. If anything, it’s actually EASIER for large countries to lift themselves out of poverty. A tiny micro-nation with a population of 10,000 isn’t going to be building an aircraft factory. There’s a lot of minimum-size requirements on certain national infrastructure. If anything, the bigger, the easier it is to modernize. Yes, the larger population creates greater needs, but you also have more people to address those needs.
And China was not unique in having disconnected rural populations. Small countries and big countries both have isolated rural areas.
I don’t agree that per-capita is the relevent statistic for the above reasons.
It’s the only meaningful way to compare countries. Otherwise you just end up making brain-dead conclusions like, “the big country has the big number. Therefore it’s better.”
You linked a source repeating your earlier claim about the raw number of people lifted out of poverty. Again, I ask, what about per-capita income?
Yeah, because I didn’t make any claims about per-capita income. That’s how sources work. I’m not going to provide sources for claims I didn’t make, if you’re just curious about some random fact, you can look it up yourself.
China received extensive aid from the USSR.
Lol? That’s a joke right?
You never heard about a little thing called the Sino-Soviet split? Even before that, the Soviets had plenty of their own problems, they were nowhere near as wealthy as the US and were struggling to survive and rebuild from WWII, and again, that much smaller aid for a much shorter period of time was distributed to a much larger population.
Also worth noting that the USSR initially supported the KMT over the CPC, seeing the CPC as too small and weak to be viable and the KMT as a lesser evil to the Japanese and expecting China to go through a capitalist stage of development.
Also, I thought we were discussing the Dengist reforms, which happened in the 80’s? The USSR wasn’t even around for much longer, even if they had been aiding them, which they very famously weren’t.
Do you understand what “per capita” means?
Yes I know what per capita means.
It would be far more impressive for a country of one million people to lift 950,000 people out of poverty than for a nation of 1 billion people to lift 800 million people out of poverty.
Not really, no.
Why? I see no reason for this.
Because, for one thing, modernization in developing countries is dependent on foreign technologies that have to spread to a much wider area, and that takes time and resources (resources that China lacked, because so many people were on the brink of starvation). If a big rich superpower says, “Hey, I’m gonna plop a semiconductor factory on your little island” it’s going to have a pretty significant impact on the average income of said island.
It’s the only meaningful way to compare countries.
I don’t really understand why we’re comparing countries.
Otherwise you just end up making brain-dead conclusions like, “the big country has the big number. Therefore it’s better.”
That is not remotely close to anything I’ve said or believe.
I said things about the success of the policy of the reforms and opening up in the 80’s, and you’re bring up all these other countries that I said nothing about and trying to compare them on absolute terms for some reason. I’m not saying one country is better than another country, I’m just looking at the effects of a particular policy. If you want to argue whether your dad could beat up my dad, you’ll have to find someone else to do that with.
You’re making a false dichotomy fallacy…
Like, the problem is that we don’t like neither because both are shit, just as USA, Russia and Ukraine are.
There are more than these two options, and is reasonably to want one of these.
Like, why aren’t they more like Iceland, Finland, Switzerland or Norway?
Honestly, these are the only countries I do like in the world, specially Switzerland and Norway.
Norway? Massive oil reserves and natural resources in a country with a small population. Imagine Quatar with a more sane government and much more sane (and richer) neighbours. Plus self-sufficiency in terms of agriculture.
Switzerland? It was the one neutral country where everyone parked their emergency money. They played all sides in ww2 and won. Everyone needs a neutral ground to negotiate and put their fuck-off money.
Both very exceptional cases.
Like, why aren’t they more like Iceland, Finland, Switzerland or Norway?
Honestly, these are the only countries I do like in the world, specially Switzerland and Norway.
That’s probably because you’re only looking at the surface level and not understanding the history of why countries and cultures make the decisions they do. Because all around the world, you can find countless examples of people trying to enact moderate social democratic policies, and being labelled as communists anyway and getting exterminated by far-right militias funded by the US. You generally don’t hear about them because they’re long dead, but the people of those countries remember their examples.
European countries generally haven’t had to worry about that as much, being essentially vassals of the US instead of colonies, they are granted much longer leashes. But those countries outside of the West who recognize this and take necessary measures to survive are generally denounced as “authoritarian,” justifying more open acts of aggression against them. The harsh truth is that when you look at examples of existing socialism and wonder why they’re not more open, it’s survivorship bias.
Take the example of Mohammad Mossadegh, a peaceful, progressive, democratically elected prime minister of Iran. After generations of struggling to convince the British to negotiate and abide by agreements regarding the oil they were stealing, Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, in order that the profits from it would help lift ordinary Iranians, who were some of the poorest people in the world. He was faced with a devastating embargo, and was ousted in a coup led by the CIA.
What makes Mossadegh a particularly poignant example is that he did everything “the right way.” When all then newspapers in the country were taken over by the CIA and started printing constant criticism of him, he respected the freedom of the press and did nothing about it. When the CIA hired protesters to march in the streets, he respected the freedom of assembly. He never shut down the US embassy which the CIA was operating out of, and in fact, when a diplomat called him, days before the coup, feeding a false story about the embassy getting death threats from his supporters, he put out a public radio message urging his supporters to stand down and stay off the streets. When the coup happened shortly afterward, there was no one to come to his aid.
Mossadegh was replaced by a literal monarch who used secret police to hunt down and exterminate the Iranian left. When the shah fell, the left was too weak to step into power, and that’s how they got the government they have now. Generations of Iranians suffered from political repression and economic exploitation under the shah, only for it to be replaced by the repressive government they have now. It could very well be a hundred years until the Iranians get another chance at a leftist government.
With those stakes, with the ever-present threat from the US, is it actually so commendable to do things the “right” way, like Mossadegh did? To fall on your sword, knowing that you didn’t commit the sin of authoritarianism, but that millions of people will suffer generations of oppression because you failed to protect your country from the colonizers?
When you understand that this is the reality of every country outside of the imperial core, you start to have more sympathy for those countries and projects that have actually succeeded and survived, even if they have done so through ideologically impure means.
I think the position of those people is “Maoism was bad, the reforms were good, but they overcorrected”. Imho a perfectly coherent position as well. Quality of life in modern China is surely better than during the Mao era, and not only because if material wealth, but surely this current state is not perfect. Far from it, if you ask me.
You mean people don’t like that millions of people starved to death when Mao killed at the intellectuals? Yeah, I could see why people might have a bad view of that.
Precisely. Among massive corruption, a decadent ruling elite, and some less than ideal foreign politics, if I remember correctly.
Just because one thing is bad, it doesn’t mean that the other extreme is good. Maoism had massive flaws, but it transformed a practically medieval country ruled by warlords into a single, somewhat industrialised nation. The reforms by Deng and others, including Xi, turned it into a country with a half-decent standard of living and competitive economy. But they introduced other problems, such as massive wealth inequality and environmental issues.
i have it on good authority from about half of lemmy that china is a wonderful place where everyone feels safe and actually there never were any uyghurs, since that’s just western propaganda
itt: people confirming the premise. ni hao baybeeee
Xinjiang is open for tourism, you can literally just visit and ask them yourself dumbass
After living and working in the US and now living and working in China (no not a teacher), I can say my life is definitely better in China than it was in the US. And no I’m not a bot or paid CCP stooge. Just a normal person lucky enough to have worked and lived in many places around the world.
There are too many things to mention why China is better besides the obvious like healthcare, social security, infrastructure, green energy, technology, cost of living.
I still don’t understand why western media portray China as a communist hell hole, worse than North Korea. Clearly no one bothers to really understand how China works.
And in regards to safety, yes it’s one of the safest countries in the world. Actually when you ask Chinese what is good about China, safety is one the core answers. No school shootings, no need for metal detectors at schools. I can leave my electric scooter unlocked with my phone on it, come back an hour later and everything is still there. If I tried that in my birth country, it would be gone by the time I turned around.
Thailand for example is much stricter and run by a military government. When I worked there, one morning we had tanks rolling down the street when the military overthrown the government. And don’t say anything about the playboy king or his family.
Anyway, I’ll get downvoted but if you are from any of the 62 visa free countries that can visit China, obviously not the US, I recommend you visit and have your eyes and awareness opened. Or just stay in your ‘China bad’ bubble.
ctrl-f uyghur
it’s so easy!
Being banned from .lm is a badge of honor.
Here is your Lemmy ban medal;
Aw Fuck yah, a chucky cheese token
Also North Korea is what all countries should strive to emulate.
No, seriously, I’ve seen a tankie on here say that.
Also, any source that disagrees with you, biased sources like Wikipedia, are just Fake News!
Western media is verifiably corrupt, they’re right
Wdym? Haven’t you seen the citizens of the democratic people’s republic of Korea cheer and cry when they see their beloved leader Kim Jong Un?
Also, did you know that countless people defect from South Korea to the democratic people’s republic of Korea???
/s
The second point is legitimately what someone told me on lemmygrad. No, they explicitly said “today”. They were not just talking about the 50s-60s.
I wonder how many of them think they ally live like a North Korean peasant?
I’ve heard that too
Why people like china? They are trying to solve global warming problem. They are bringing innovations at scale and low cost. Their state is battling some capitalism schemes, like price inflation of goods and housing. Their billionares are little bitches of the party. Not the other way around. People there generally feel safe, better salaries compared to its neighbours, better medicine etc.
If usa or europe or russia rules the world, humanity is fuked. If china rules then everything will be fine.
better salaries compared to its neighbours, better medicine etc.
[CITATION NEEDED.]
You know other, better countrys exist outside of these 2, right?
i guess uyghurs aren’t human.
that tracks with chinese policy.
out of curiousity, how much do you get paid to post on lemmy? is it a decent gig?
How paranoid do you need to be to think anyone is paying to propagandize to a small collection of grumpy middle aged autists, tech geeks, and trekkies?
Like maybe you think someone’s understanding of the world is downstream of that propaganda from elsewhere, but do you really think we have anyone actually getting paid by China or the CIA on this deserted island of the internet?
must be morning in china
I mean, we all know you’re making more at Langley, but at what cost?
Oh, right, your soul.
Same reason the US has the most prisons even though it’s aiming to be the freest country.
Systemic racism to control the marginalized and ensure the poor stay with very few viable options?
It was always from the very start meant to maximized the freedom of the Landed classes, nobody else.
gotta ensure that reserve army of labor, otherwise how the capitalists gonna keep profit?
Don’t make me tap the sign.
The sign: “Whatabout the USA”
That’s because China is not Communist and only “communist” on paper so that the people can still be fed propaganda of the “trickle down” economics where “the people” own a share of the business.
They do not.
China is more authoritarian capitalism where the CCP and Xi rule the people and dissidents are punished with death and prison
The United States is only a national emergency away from this by the way.
Still prefer that to the hellhole that is the US
!!! 15+ social credit
LOL edgy westerner chatting shit. Go suck Israels dick
Go play with your credit score
