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.
Removed by mod
The original was funny to me because people thought the second guy was fine when the reality would be if a woman is calling human resources there’s probably something there. It’s a joke told from the perspective of someone who’s unable to see anything wrong and is only representing their side of the story. So I thought this was a riff on that idea, and viewed in that light this version is funny too.
Oppressing the owners of capital is good, actually. If you don’t do it you end up like the US where everyone has to pay them for everything all the time and the police is only there to prevent you from doing anything about it.
Chinese people don’t have to go out and get jailed for doming a mass murdering CEO out of desperation, the government gladly prosecutes and makes an example of them.
Except Xi Jinping is not oppressing owners of capital. China has lots of oligarchs that in some ways have a tighter grip on society than their western counterparts. He’s oppressing people that are “inconvenient” to him.
These are all vibes, can you explain exactly how and why you believe Xi is simply “oppressing those invonvenient” to him?
He’s oppressing people that are “inconvenient” to him.
All vibes, no thoughts.
Did you get that info from the same dudes insisting that killing Brian Thompson was, like, not okay guys? Businessmen in China are scared shitless of the party, and so should they, the party has 87 million members and a 90+ approval rating.
There’s no CEO in china wielding one tenth of the influence that weird nazi Elon Musk has, or Bill Gates’ vaccine privatizing ass.
Elon Musk openly daydreams about being Ma Huateng. What does that tell you?
Elon Musk is an idiot.
I think that he is only pretending to be one. Blockheads don’t become billionaires.
He dreams of copying their products not being him lmao.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires
You will note that china has 406 billionaires.
So way fewer billionaires per capita with a way smaller fortune than the ones in the US, despite having a bigger economy? Oh no, this is a disaster.
Oh ok, i guess its ok for billionaires to exist as long as they simp for your dictator of choice.
Getting a liberal to read is borderline impossible. They can’t even stomach short articles anymore.
China ranks second in the world in number of millionaires as well as number of billionaires.
China ranks second in the world in human population, too.
They also have more millionaires per capita than Countries like Russia, but I focused on total number because a country that actually oppressed capital owners wouldn’t have any billionaires.
China’s top 1% income share is lower than US and Russia. Top 10% income share is also lower in China.
-
Quantity of bourgeoisie is not an indication of who runs the country or which is primary, public or private property
-
China has the second biggest population in the world, period.
The PRC saw what happened when you cracked down too hard on wealth inequality too early in the USSR, there was significant brain drain and people took what they could elsewhere. This eventually led to decreased growth and contributed to collapse. The PRC instead allows billionaires (so long as they don’t commit crimes), and as a consequnce they now have the largest economy by PPP and second largest by GDP. It’s a “boiling the frog” approach.
And capitalists have no choice but to partake now, even western companies are tripping over themselves to set up shop in China because that’s the biggest market now that the leeches have bled the US population almost dry and destroyed their supply chains. They literally can’t compete, unless they invest and build in China.
They’re selling them the rope, and that’s why the US has gotten progressively more rabid against the CPC.
-
Per capita or total?
By this logic, a monarchy that keeps the aristocracy in line is better than the US democracy. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
Removed by mod
In what manner is Xi a dictator? The fact that he has been reelected democratically and hasn’t lost to someone else?
I’m not sure if it’s intentional, but you’re missing the point
I don’t believe you have a point. Your point rests on the PRC being a dictatorship, which it isn’t.
The Communist Party is based in the Leninist principle of “democratic centralism”. This means “debate within the party, unity in action”. It is meant to make the party more powerful by allowing dissent and debates within the party, but when it comes to taking action, all members are expected to follow the consensus even if they disagreed with it.
Since China’s Congress is primarily members of the Communist Party, this means that the decision of the president ultimately originates in the Communist Party itself. After they reach a consensus, the whole party will vote for that consensus in the Congress. While there technically are smaller parties in China’s Congress, they act more as advisors, since it is not practically possible for them to overturn the vote, since the CPC always votes in unity.
Formally, China’s president is elected by the Congress. But the decision of who to elect largely comes back to the CPC itself before they come to a consensus. So the final decision largely originates in the Politburo and the Central Committee.
The president in China is harder to shift on a dime than like in the US. The president is not elected by a nation-wide vote but by the Congress itself. To change who the Congress elects, you have to change the opinions of the largest party in that Congress, you have to change the opinions of the CPC
Xi is not technically a dictator in the same way that Putin is not technically a dictator. He is in control of a governing body that could replace him on paper, but never will. And he has dictatorial powers without real checks/balances. And, to return to my original point, it may appear that this system is fine if it produces a good result, but the power of the government should come from the will of the people.
Baby level understanding of how China’s peoples democracy works, with not a single source.
You spent several paragraphs correctly outlining why Xi has power, while being subject to recall and democratic checks. The CPC has 96 million members, he isn’t leader of a cabal but of the party of the people, and as a consequence the CPC has over 95% approval rates in peacetime. This is unheard of outside of wartime in the west, you need to understand what you are talking about here.
I recommend Xi’s writing on democracy from 2021, Democracy is not an Ornament.
Putin is “technically not a dictator” in the same way that Biden is “technically not a dictator”: by way of the capitalist class abiding his status as ostensible head of state.
The problem with a benevolent dictator is that they die eventually, and are replaced by a non-benevolent dictator, or a civil war, or both. Unfortunately it looks like the US democracy might have the same outcome.
Yeah, but they get jailed for literally anything else lol
What do you mean?
Brother the US has ONE FIFTH of the world’s inmates (in dire conditions that provide slave labor) despite having less than 5% of the world population.
If y’all didn’t thoughtlessly and immediately internalize whatever outlandish shit your media tells you about the yellow peril you’d be envious of their living standards and, honestly? Their political freedom too.
That’s the point.
Cool for you that America does bad things. I really am confused about that argument because I never mentioned america and has nothing to do that china literally puts Gay people under pressure with medicine to cure them or put Islamic people into jail for being islamic and not wanting to convert. There are many stupid reaosons. But I never said America is better or smth. Thats what I interpret from your message/argument. Why do you think that the earth consists of only America? Thats the last country I wanna think of.
Xinjiang is almost half muslim and they have like 200 mosques there, you can go visit them 🤡 there was a push for deradicalization when the CIA did as CIA does and started sponsoring terror attacks, and China, instead of responding with bombings, provided education and vocational training. The result has been zero terrorist attacks since 2019, compared to 37 attacks in 2014 alone. I mention America because that’s unequivocally the only source of this nonsense, although they launder the State Department propaganda through VoC, ASPI (the only “primary sources” ever cited, such as they are) and several other proxy organizations with funding provided by NED and the military industrial complex. The Arab League and the United Nations have sent delegations to examine the claims and found them unsustained, the Arab League congratulated China as a role model in the fight against terrorism.
The UN delegation, by the way, was halted by America several times because they knew they wouldn’t find jack shit, and they didn’t think people would be stupid enough to keep saying it once it had been proven false.
Real convenient that you don’t want to think of America tho, but we’re talking about an American CEO that got killed by an American and arrested by American cops for doing a desperate act of self defense.
America sucks and I like what the guy did.
Still in such topics I didnt feel like it was related to America as China was the topic.
Interesting how fucked up the situation is with CIA sponsoring it. In a world of Propaganda I am afraid to believe or not believe such facts. I dont even know if sources would help, as any article positive or negative could tell lies. I will partly believe this with questions and curiousity. I know how America is full of propaganda and money laundring. But this doesnt mean that other sources are not similar.
Whatever, I like to have no opinions
Source?
Here a lot of articles.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=china+jails+islamic+people&t=fpas&ia=web
I had my source from a Video a long time ago where even Chinese Muslims were intervied about this in what they need to flee from. The topic also had Gay people needing to go through therapy because Gayness is a sickmess says china… how stupid
But I assume its pointless to share as you see probably everything as Propaganda cuz China is glory or smth. Idk. You can explain your viewpoint if you want. It can be neutral too
You’ve owned the tankies by posting a search link that brings up articles from US and anglophone state media sources, like CNN, BBC.
The majority of the world disagrees with them, most notably the Muslim world, who had decades of lies from those sources defending the US bombing of their countries.
Damn, yeah. I should start to create a chart of how truthful articles are and automatically remove them from search.
I can see how lost the articles are sometimes, following money.
Working class executing CEOs that work against them
Ruling class executing CEOs who don’t work for them
Slight difference
That’s an anti-Marxist view of class. What is the “ruling class” you speak of in the PRC? Government isn’t class, but an extension of the class in power, so which class is in power?
the ruling class in china is the working class since its a dictatorship of the proletariat. So commentor is kinda right, tho im sure commentor doesn’t mean it that way.
Yep, that’s why I framed my question in that manner. If they said bourgeoisie, I would point out how that’s wrong, if they said Proletarian, I would ask why that’s bad, if they said some third class I’d show how that’s anti-Marxist.
It’s the latter part of “no god’s no masters”
I’m sorry if I’ve insulted Marxist purity
You can be an Anarchist if you want to, but you should at least do so using actual analysis and not sloganeering.
No toilet paper no homework
Oh no, you depicted me as a nerd! My point is ruined 😭
My point is you had no point. You responded to a FANTASTIC explanation of the difference by splitting hairs on what by your definition qualifies as a class.
Instead of addressing the argument, you just threw a semantics argument, which I maintain is the terminally online version of pocket sand.
I addressed it entirely. The Proletariat executing Billionaires who go against the proletariat is perfectly in line with Marx and his concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The CPC has 96 million members, it isn’t a distinct class, it represents the will of the people and as such has a higher than 95% approval rate. Their implication is that the CPC is some third ruling class, and not the instrument of proletarian supremacy, which is why I corrected it.
Your response doesn’t address any of how I analyzed their argument, by insisting I am “splitting hairs” by pointing out how the class dynamics of a bourgeois state and a proletarian state are fundamentally different, and that difference is that the proletarian state represents the real will of the people while the bourgeois state does not.
This is where I think the conversations always break down on ml.
You fervently assert things like a 95% approval rating while selectively ignoring the “social credit” system that punishes people who don’t approve. You use large party employment to justify some kind of perfect overlap between the proletariat and the government. Where do you think the real decision making is done? Do you think it isn’t a tiny fraction of party elite? How would you view these things through the lens of manufactured consent?
I don’t think it’s any better in a western capitalist system, but I’m not going to deceive myself into thinking that china is running fundamentally differently than any western oligarchy.
The “social credit system” was made to hold financial and privately-run institutions to account, and prevent companies and organizations from committing fraud and polluting the environment. Even US capitalist mouthpieces like foreign policy agree with this.
The government does assign universal social credit codes to companies and organizations, which they use as an ID number for registration, tax payments, and other activities, while all individuals have a national ID number. The existing social credit blacklists use these numbers, as do almost all activities in China. But these codes are not scores or rankings. Enterprises and professionals in various sectors may be graded or ranked, sometimes by industry associations, for specific regulatory purposes like restaurant sanitation. However, the social credit system does not itself produce scores, grades, or assessments of “good” or “bad” social credit. Instead, individuals or companies are blacklisted for specific, relatively serious offenses like fraud and excessive pollution that would generally be offenses anywhere. To be sure, China does regulate speech, association, and other civil rights in ways that many disagree with, and the use of the social credit system to further curtail such rights deserves monitoring.
These are basic things the US used to do in the 1950s, but now stopped any pretense of doing. Any regulation against business is considered “authoritarian” now.
Meanwhile in the US, having a bad credit score can prevent you from buying a car, house, or even renting an apartment.
China uses these scores to hold financial institutions to account, while the US uses scores to prevent ordinary citizens from getting housing. One country is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the other a dictatorship of capital.
I’m not going to deceive myself into thinking that china is running fundamentally differently than any western oligarchy.
You’re choosing to continue deceiving yourself that China is not fundamentally different from any western oligarchy, got it.
It’s more that liberals like yourself directly ignoring 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 your claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” you hint at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner you imply it does.
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.
You responded to a FANTASTIC explanation of the difference by splitting hairs on what by your definition qualifies as a class.
A fantastic explanation? It literally isn’t an explanation, it’s a comparison of two statements. Which is fine, and so is the critique of those statements to examine their perceived contradictions.
From the perspective of the CPC and Marxist-Leninist theory, their ruling party represents the working class, just like our ruling parties represent the owner class of CEOs. [wikipedia page: DotP] Obviously that’s a contested claim which not even all Marxists will agree with, but it’s far from splitting hairs. It’s the basic foundation of the comparison, the implicit claim that one is a working class act and the other is not.
This is the most concise rebuttal and I think you’ve highlighted well where the root of the perceived discord lies.
If one accepts that the CPC represents the working class, then the critique of the unfair comparison via the meme would be viewed as legitimate.
If one contests the original assertion, then it does not. To them, Xi memeing a CEO would look to them more like Musk offing Altman.
There is never a case of a working class party conquering political power, that hasn’t been demonized by western anti-communist society.
When the US and its media tells you that the leaders China or Cuba or Vietnam are just “dictators”, why do you believe them?
Absolutely. Power is the difference. Vertical power structures all look the same. Call it communism, but those at the bottom are still ruled by those at the top. Instead give me some of that horizontal, bottom up power. No gods, no masters.
A tale of two countries
Bro but they did it dictatorshiply 😭 in a real democracy you’d yell at them online, get arrested by Homeland Security, and politicians give them another 500 million in subsidies and tax breaks.
How many non billionaires do they execute?
Not sure. But the US just executed an innocent man, Marcellus Williams, just a few months ago.
Some more US legal system fun facts!
- The US currently operates a system of slave labor camps, including at least 54 prison farms involved in agricultural slave labor. Outside of agricultural slavery, Federal Prison Industries operates a multi-billion dollar industry with ~ 52 prison factories , where prisoners produce furniture, clothing, circuit boards, products for the military, computer aided design services, call center support for private companies. 1, 2, 3
- The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world. Even individual US states outrank all other countries.
- The War On Drugs, a policy of arrest and imprisonment targeting minorities, first initiated by Nixon, has over the years created a monstrous system of mass incarceration, resulting in the imprisonment of 1.5 million people each year, with the US having the most prisoners per capita of any nation. One in five black Americans will spend time behind bars due to drug laws. The war has created a permanent underclass of impoverished people who have few educational or job opportunities as a result of being punished for drug offenses, in a vicious cycle of oppression. 1, 2
- In the present day, ICE (U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement), the police tasked with immigration enforcement, operates over 200 prison camps, housing over 31,000 undocumented people deemed “aliens”, 20,000 of which have no criminal convictions, in the US system of immigration detention. The camps include forced labor (often with contracts from private companies), poor conditions, lack of rights (since the undocumented aren’t considered citizens), and forced deportations, often splitting up families. Detainees are often held for a year without trial, with antiquated court procedures pushing back court dates for months, encouraging many to accept immediate deportation in the hopes of being able to return faster than the court can reach a decision, but forfeiting legal status, in a cruel system of coercion. 1, 2
- Over 90% of criminal trials in the US are settled not by a judge or jury, but with plea bargaining, a system where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in return for a concession from the prosecutor. It has been statistically shown to benefit prosecutors, who “throw the book” at defendants by presenting a slew of charges, manipulating their fear, who in turn accept a lesser charge, regardless of their innocence, in order to avoid a worst outcome. The number of potentially innocent prisoners coerced into accepting a guilty plea is impossible to calculate. Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients. Plea bargaining is forbidden in most European countries. John Langbein has equated plea bargaining to medieval torture: “There is, of course, a difference between having your limbs crushed if you refuse to confess, or suffering some extra years of imprisonment if you refuse to confess, but the difference is of degree, not kind. Plea bargaining, like torture, is coercive. Like the medieval Europeans, the Americans are now operating a procedural system that engages in condemnation without adjudication.” 1
- A grand jury is a special legal proceeding in which a prosecutor may hold a trial before the real one, where ~20 jurors listen to evidence and decide whether criminal charges should be brought. Grand juries are rarely made up of a jury of the defendant’s peers, and defendants do not have the right to an attorney, making them essentially show-trials for the prosecution, who often find ways of using grand jury testimony to intimidate the accused, such as leaking stories about grand jury testimony to the media to defame the accused. In the murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice, all of whom were unarmed and killed by police in 2014, grand juries decided in all 3 cases not to pursue criminal trials against the officers. The US and Liberia are the only countries where grand juries are still legal. 1
- The US system of bail (the practice of releasing suspects before their hearing for money paid to the court) has been criticized as monetizing justice, favoring rich, white collar suspects, over poorer people unable to pay for their release. 1
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Oh, so like Boeing whistleblowers?
I heard they all accidentally fell out of windows.
Three times
One is authoritarian in nature, the other is protestant in nature. These are not the same thing
Taking a life is the most authoritarian act there is, the CEO certainly didnt consent lmao
The authorization of CEO execution sounds like a good thing. People are clearly singing for it, so why not make it policy?
bc when the gubmint do thing it makes it communist and that’s literally like that book with the animals at the farm
What are you talking about?
Luigi’s alleged actions were an attempt at drawing attention to social issues. Xi Jinping’s actions on the other hand are attempts at violently suppressing opposition ergo authoritarianism.
Can you provide any support for your argument that the PRC executes billionaires because of opposition, and not, say, massive corruption? Because you again seem to be making up a narrative to suit your present biases without looking at any sources.
The opposition in China is the capitalist class, that gets capital punishment if they get out of line. China executes billionaire tycoon convicted of being ‘ruthless underworld kingpin’
That’s a fun way of saying the government consumes you if you commit wrongthink. That’s authoritarian lol.
If only Adolf Eichmann had committed his atrocities 10 years later or so, all he had to do was say “the authoritarians are canceling me for wrongthink, literally 1984” and you liberals would have ate it the fuck up
so according to your own definition, luigi killed that CEO for committing wrongthink and is authoritarian.
like davel just showed you, they’re doing the exact same thing, but it’s only bad to you when it’s law and not adventurism. anarchists or whatever you want to call yourself really are just vibes-based and it’s so fucking annoying and reductive. you will never accomplish anything because you instinctively oppose progress as “authoritarian” when it’s actually made. you just want to feel like a rebel no matter what kind of system you’re living in.
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.
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
He’s going around calling everyone that especially when it doesn’t fit because he just learned it’s an insult.
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.
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?
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.
Edit: oh, hello MeanwhileOnGrad users! Why is it that you intentionally cut off 80% of my comment? Moreover, if you disagree, why not comment here directly and counter, rather than hide behind an anticommunist drama post and downvote? Guess my fanclub just isn’t feeling it today, sadly…
Thank you for your service comrade. o7
No problem comrade 🫡
Extraordinarily based, comrade 🫡
Thanks, comrade 🫡
In China, Xi is the CEO.
What does this even mean?
It means the parent commenter thinks “socialism with Chinese characteristics” looks an awful lot like state capitalism.
Can you explain what Socialism is, and what “State Capitalism” is?
Something tells me you already have an idea of what those words mean. I’m not here to have a debate, I just thought I could help with understanding the parent comment. I thought it was pretty obvious what calling Xi the CEO of China was implying.
The CEO of a worker’s CO-OP.
You really pissed off the .world neolibs with this one. Good work.
This thread is funny because it’s filled with a bunch of libs criticizing but bringing nothing of value to the table except vibes, and communists and comrades providing extensive source material to support their arguments, while avoiding low-hanging fruit like ad hominem.
If you’ve ever done any sort of research into democratic socialism, you’d quickly learn that this is the way. Criticism and self-criticism are at the forefront of cadre training and will make you a better person. If you view a person trying to provide you with educational material as your enemy while you spout off vibe-driven nonsense, you’re not getting the picture and are still hindered by your country’s propaganda, as well your own apathy and ignorance. You’re criticizing people that are passionate because they see a chance to have a better world for all working class—you included—while responding with empty words.
Unchain yourself from the criticisms of figures your country has implanted in you over your lifetime, and think in terms of ideas.
and communists and comrades providing extensive source material to support their arguments, while avoiding low-hanging fruit like ad hominem.
sorry I’m late
Really, I think anyone considering themselves a Leftist needs to 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.
Huh, I’ve come across this False Witness article before, years ago.
In retrospect, this desperate, shotgun appeal to religious authority demonstrated why the dossier itself was probably futile. It was an acknowledgment that the people they were attempting to convince were beyond the reach of mere fact or reason — people who did not find reality compelling.
This reminds me of the requisite Parenti quote:
During the Cold War, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
Exactly. I read it for the first time this week, and it’s made a pretty big perspective shift. The Parenti Quote is evergreen as well, and tying it together with the conclusions of False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels is a cool way to see people independently coming to similar conclusions of observed phenomena.
If you’re a glutton for this kind of stuff, I found philosophy prof. Hans-Georg Moeller’s YouTube series on the media to be illuminating.
I think philosophy prof. Jeffrey Kaplan’s video “Advertising doesn’t work the way you think it does” is good as well. It too hinges on what Moeller calls the “general peer,” which he gets deeper into in his series on “identity technology.”
Unchain yourself from the criticisms of figures your country has implanted in you over your lifetime, and think in terms of ideas.
Realistically, that’s not gonna happen for most people. Hear me out:
In 1500s when the printing press was invented, Martin Luther (not to be confused with Martin Luther King) saw the opportunity to print “bibles for everyone” to transform everybody into a priest - an enlightened being that always (or at least mostly) does the good/right thing.
We know from history that that didn’t succeed. Not everybody turned into a priest, not even close. Instead, he caused Evangelism, and is partially causal for the Thirty Years’ War.
Realistically, people thinking in terms of ideas is an inclination you’re born with (or so I believe). There’s just a lot of people who are not gonna do that. Especially if people see themselves at a (economic) disadvantage because of it. Most people just wanna live through ordinary life.
BTW, I guess something similar happened with the internet. When the internet was first invented, people guessed that it would lead to the total education of all human beings. Instead, it has caused smartphones, “social” media (which is more antisocial media tbh), and a lot of spreading dumb narratives. So i’m not sure it really “enlightened” the people.
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.
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
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.
-
-
Some resources for a lot of the people below claiming that China is just like any other capitalist country.
Is China State Capitalist?
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
- Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
- Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
- Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
- China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
- Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
- How the State runs business in China.
- 50% of the economy is in the socialist public sector and directly follows the plan (40% if you ignore the agricultural sector). 20 to 30% is inside the state capitalist sector, which is the sector partially or totally owned by domestic capitalists but run by the CPC or by local workers councils. The rest is made up of the small bourgeois ownership like in the NEP.
- China pushing forward Marxist training in colleges, attracts 1M students.
- China tells the US that it has no plans to weaken the role of its State-Owned-Enterprises, one of the US’s main demands in the trade war. “Beijing plans to make the state economy stronger, bigger, and better.”
- Unlike the US, China refuses to bail out over-leveraged property developers, and lets them go bankrupt.
- A China misinformation Megathread.
smd admin
I actually agree that the PRC is still presocialist but at least I didn’t spit out your useless ‘lol fuk u’ reply.
Presocialist as in the economy isn’t yet at public ownership and planning levels to be considered fully Socialist, or preparing to transition to Communism? I know you’ve read a lot more than I have so I’m curious what you mean here. I’m still a “baby ML.”
As far as I know, capital, the law of value, and generalized commodity production remain phenomenal in the PRC. Their prevalence does seem to be diminishing, though, which is one reason why I think that equating the PRC with something like Imperial America is wrong.
I agree largely, I suppose I just use the term “Socialist” because I believe the Public Sector to be primary and the trends to be towards collectivization. The “stages” of Socialism model common among Chinese Marxists at work.
The difference is that Xi is now the CEO.
What does that even mean? Do you think he personally plans and runs all of the public sector of the PRC that take’s up over half of the economy?
> government runs half the economy
‘But how is dear leader like a CEO, unless he signs every paycheck by hand?’
The public sector has their own planners, Xi deals more with broad policies and decisions. That’s like saying Biden is the “CEO” of Amazon, it doesn’t make sense, plus the CPC heavily plans even the Private Sector. This is all in line with Marxism.
… how directly involved do you think any CEO is?
If the state is making policy and planning decisions for both the public and private sectors, how does the distinction even matter? It’s like if Biden was Jeff Bezos’s boss.
It’s just an extremely odd thing to say and paints any leader as a CEO. The coach is the CEO of the football team, the Starbucks manager is the CEO of the store, etc. Etc.
Not an argument. You’re just complaining about how there’s multiple words for “some schmuck in charge.” Do you realize that’s incompatible with your prior insistence he is not in charge?
Xi is in the highest seat of the CPC, that doesn’t make him a “CEO.” Your comment is nonsense word salad.
Xi can disappear anyone he doesn’t like. He doesn’t need to personally oversee every company, the threat of being visited by police is enough to keep them in line.
Source?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64781986 You are allowed to use search engines btw, we aren’t living behind china’s great firewall yet.
None of it says Xi can kill anyone he likes, moreover this is BBC, which frequently pays to report anti-China propaganda regardless of validity.
Xi can disappear anyone he doesn’t like
Is actually what I wrote. But I get it, I wrote two whole sentences, that’s a lot of information right there. And if you’re not happy with the BBC, go look for other sources then. Like I said, using search engines isn’t illegal yet. I certainly won’t waste my time looking for a source you deem impartial.
See, I have done research, and have come to the conclusion that Xi can’t disappear people willy nilly. The burden of proof is on you for making that claim.
📽
- https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-targeted-killing-disposition-matrix
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_black_sites
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Clark_(activist)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Malcolm_X
- https://americanexception.com/book/
Oh, so you noticed the US is bad, congratulations. Let me know when you realize China is just as bad.
Let me know when you realize anything that wasn’t spoon-fed to you by Western governments, NGOs, and corporate media.
“Just as bad” — are you fucking kidding me?
- List of Atrocities committed by US authorities
- A Detailed Chronological List of US Interventions, Invasions, Destabilzations, and Assistance to Oppressive Regimes (ending in 2002)
- The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
- Shock therapy (economics)
- Are We The Baddies?
- The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
- Infographic: US military presence around the world The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.
- Michael Parenti: Africa is Rich
- World Incarceration Rates If Every U.S. State Were A Country
.
Feb. 2022 President Biden on Nord Stream 2 Pipeline if Russia Invades Ukraine: “We will bring an end to it.” Sep. 2022 
Dec. 2022 U.S. LNG exports both a lifeline and a drain for Europe in 2023 Dec. 2024 
It’s not just as bad though, you’re just a chauvinist.
Who told you that?
Western supremacists think every country they’re in a trade war with doesn’t even elect their leaders.
The corporate media has been consistent in their response to both.
which is why it boggles my mind that liberals don’t connect the dots
