You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
The proletariat in China are already empowered, comrade.
Ah, through the magic of The People's Billionaires and The People's Capitalist State, of course
Permanently Deleted
Read my agitprop or I won't discuss this with you.
Lmao, enjoy sitting alone in silence then 🤷
Permanently Deleted
Sourced? From what? Propaganda, opinion pieces, and almost the entire library of Marx and Engels?
You know other people can have input on the economic state of "communist" nations outside of those nations right? This essay is the equivalent of those anti communist propaganda works from the height of the cold war.
Permanently Deleted
Or they read enough to not fall for the propaganda
If it's something you believe is true then you should be able to articulate it and use it in arguments. If you're not able to make an argument in favor of it then you are either holding the belief disingenuously or don't know enough about what you're arguing about
That's excruciating to read. Why would someone take an hour to read this as an answer to that comment? Only near the end does it conclude the whataboutism and try to address why "socialism" produces hundreds of billionaires.
Apparently, "it's fine because the proles have public transit and stuff." Perhaps magical thinking seems compelling if it is disguised in an expensive vocabulary and hiding behind many citations.
Permanently Deleted
If the means of production is owned by the people, why would there be people with more money than others, let alone billions?
Uh, yes, it is an argument, whether or not you want to close your eyes to reality. Billionaires do not occur without individuals using concentrations of capital or power to extract large amounts of value from laborers. The wealth inequality in China is very present, due to the fact that it is capitalism.
You would do well to join the people capable of observing objective reality instead of scouring the web for essays that cite philosophers instead of data. That would require confronting your cognitive biases, though.
They're literally defending the existence of The People's Billionaires as proletarian liberation. They're a lost cause, like most tankies.
Totally agree. The essay they posted has some funny magical thinking if you want to skim through it for a laugh. "Billionaires are good actually because we need them to be like a sort of USB plug so we can link into capitalist economies. Anyway the state can execute them as a scapegoat if the need arises. Here's a few dozen quotes from philosophers. See? Still socialist."
Permanently Deleted
As Mao also said, "let one hundred flowers bloom in social science and arts and let one hundred of view points be expressed in the field of science.", and then promptly jailed and murdered those who expressed themselves. Not sure he's the ideal champion of free thought.
Permanently Deleted
Jailing reactionaries is objectively good, the Cultural Revolution just went a little too far (like the Great Purge before it).
...
????
You know. I imagine most tankies are just radicalised westerners.
But you my friend, I would be willing to bet you’re a chinese state sponsered keyboard warrior.
You might want to take up ol' sparrow killer on that advice yourself.......
Permanently Deleted
Socialism is about control of the means of production.
Oh, you're closer to reality than I imagined. Ok, so the billionaires are receiving billions of dollars with whose means of production?
Permanently Deleted
Socialism is not about wealth inequality. Socialism is about control of the means of production.
"Chinese billionaires are just really well paid proletarians" said no one sane ever.
Yup, no one said it
As your comrade above said: "...if you had read the assigned essay you would know...."
Wafling whataboutism and semantic games.
Permanently Deleted
I've clearly spend more time reading it than you have. Else you wouldn't have linked something so embarrassing.
Permanently Deleted
How about you make an actual point rather than go "read my long (poorly written) propaganda piece".
You mean the one that has 4 listed references from Stalin? That long poorly written propaganda piece?
Permanently Deleted
Listen, you have to read ayn rand if you want to have discourse with me. Fountainhead AND Atlas shrugged.
Until then you're just a propagandized tankie 🤷
The Fountainhead is actually what I was going to suggest! Not because I disagree with it (although I do) but because it's so insipid.
Only if you agree to spend an hour reading something of my choice.
Why do people think they are always teaching a class here? Like in what non tenured position has this ever worked? And what paper outside of philosophy would get away with 52 references without a single one being actual data?
No really this is weird all the 52 are from interviews or opinion pieces, there is not one primary source of data in that list. Wild.
Doubt, dipshit.