• Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      0·
      9 days ago

      What are you talking about. Hitler and the nazis were just as much about empowering corporations and suppressing workers movements, as the US is.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      0·
      9 days ago

      Equating Communism with fascism is false thinking, because it ignores the real classes served by each and therefore the direction of power and the consequences of their implementation. Communism has always corresponded with dramatic working class improvements while fascism has served the bourgeoisie. I highly recommend Blackshirts and Reds.

      • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
        0·
        9 days ago

        But if libs don’t say stupid shit they have tp not say anything and just read. This is a human rights violation.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      10 days ago

      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.

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          0·
          9 days ago

          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.

          • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
            0·
            8 days ago

            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.

            • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
              0·
              8 days ago

              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.

          • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
            0·
            8 days ago

            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

            • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
              0·
              8 days ago

              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.

          • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            0·
            10 days ago

            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.

            • Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              0·
              9 days ago

              China’s top 1% income share is lower than US and Russia. Top 10% income share is also lower in China.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          0·
          9 days ago

          1. Quantity of bourgeoisie is not an indication of who runs the country or which is primary, public or private property

          2. 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.

          • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
            0·
            9 days ago

            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.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        0·
        10 days ago

        By this logic, a monarchy that keeps the aristocracy in line is better than the US democracy. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

        • SoulWager@lemmy.ml
          0·
          10 days ago

          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.

          • balderdash@lemmy.zip
            0·
            9 days ago

            Next you’ll tell me Putin took justified military action. Tankies are out in full force today

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          0·
          9 days ago

          In what manner is Xi a dictator? The fact that he has been reelected democratically and hasn’t lost to someone else?

              • balderdash@lemmy.zip
                0·
                9 days ago

                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.

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        10 days ago

        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.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      0·
      9 days ago

      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.

  • Azzu@lemm.ee
    0·
    10 days ago

    It is indeed possible for a person/entity to do a good thing and a bad thing. Who would’ve guessed, it’s actually incredibly likely. I’m sure Luigi was no angel and can be criticized about many things, though he likely didn’t have the power to perform systematic human rights transgressions.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      10 days ago

      Lmao. There’s a Joe McCarthy inside every gringo. Nice thought terminating cliche tho.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          0·
          9 days ago

          One comment later, the just demonized tankies turn into greats.

          Don’t expect any consistency from anti-communists.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          0·
          9 days ago

          No, you would have called them tankies. These people are comrades, and liberals love stealing their valor. Castro, a person you here refer to as a “great,” said

          "Xi Jinping is one of the strongest and most capable revolutionary leaders I have met in my life. I think China is a socialist country, and Vietnam is a socialist nation as well. And they insist that they have introduced all the necessary reforms in order to motivate national development and to continue seeking the objectives of socialism.

          There are no fully pure regimes or systems. In Cuba, for instance, we have many forms of private property. We have hundreds of thousands of farm owners. In some cases they own up to 110 acres. In Europe they would be considered large landholders. Practically all Cubans own their own home and, what is more, we welcome foreign investment.

          But that does not mean that Cuba has stopped being socialist."

          Don’t try to absolve them of their words and turn them into toothless liberals for you to celebrate, either condemn them honestly or uphold them honestly.

  • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

    Working class executing CEOs that work against them

    Ruling class executing CEOs who don’t work for them

    Slight difference

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      0·
      9 days ago

      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?

    • within_epsilon@beehaw.org
      0·
      9 days ago

      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.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      0·
      9 days ago

      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?

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        9 days ago

        It’s the latter part of “no god’s no masters”

        I’m sorry if I’ve insulted Marxist purity

          • Windex007@lemmy.world
            0·
            9 days ago

            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.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              0·
              9 days ago

              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.

              • Windex007@lemmy.world
                0·
                9 days ago

                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.

                • davel@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  0·
                  9 days ago

                  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.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  0·
                  9 days ago

                  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, while 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.

                • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
                  0·
                  9 days ago

                  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.

            • comfy@lemmy.ml
              0·
              9 days ago

              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.

              • Windex007@lemmy.world
                0·
                9 days ago

                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.

      • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        0·
        9 days ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          0·
          9 days ago

          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.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    0·
    9 days ago

    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

    • _lunar@lemmy.ml
      0·
      9 days ago

      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

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
        0·
        8 days ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          0·
          8 days ago

          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?

          • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
            0·
            7 days ago

            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 rampant or 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.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              0·
              7 days ago

              1. 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.

              2. 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.

              3. 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.

              • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
                0·
                7 days ago

                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).

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  0·
                  7 days ago

                  1. 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?

                  2. I would love to see any proof behind this other than vibes. Until then, the logical conclusion is likely the correct one.

                  3. Same as 2, I would love to see any proof that isn’t just vibes.

      • TimeNaan@lemmy.world
        0·
        9 days ago

        Ah yes, just like every beloved dictator ever he has over 90% approval, just trust him, the statistic is surely real!

        Authoritarians really have zero critical thinking skills.

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          0·
          9 days ago

          The authoritarian Harvard and Pew polls which reported such a number? Lmao yall are so brainwashed 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.

          • _lunar@lemmy.ml
            0·
            9 days ago

            stormfront.world users downvoting facts when they don’t fit their racist vibes smh

            you hate to see it

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          0·
          8 days ago

          '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.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      0·
      8 days ago

      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.

  • gravityowl@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    9 days ago

    Every now and then, the .ml side of this community comes through with these inaccurate tankie memes. You win some, you lose some I guess…

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      9 days ago

      If you’re that shook just from somebody mentioning the commies I don’t think you’re gonna provide much in the way of productive discussion anyway, so, by all means.

      • LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world
        0·
        8 days ago

        what XJP/beijing does is authoritarianism under the guise of communism. Lemmy of all places would be fine with actual communism but authoritarian regimes are a no go.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          0·
          8 days ago

          Pasting my comment from earlier:

          Any “leftist” that thinks the fact that China has billionaires means it therefore isn’t actually Socialist needs to read Marx and Engels. There are many such liberals here in these comments. Marx predicted Socialism to be the next mode of production because markets centralize and create intricate methods of planning. As such, he stated that folding private into the public would be gradual, and by the degree to which industry would develop. From the Manifesto:

          The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

          In even simpler terms, from Engels in Principles of Communism:

          Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

          Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

          That doesn’t mean billionaires are good to have, necessarily, either. It remains a contradiction, but not an uncalculated one. I highly recommend anyone here read China has Billionaires. As much as Marxists want to lower wealth inequality eventually as much as possible (insofar as thr principle "from each according to ability, to each according to needs applies, Marx was no “equalitarian” and railed against them), in the stage of developmemt the PRC is at this would get in the way of development, and could cause Capital Flight and brain drain. Moreover, billionaires provide an easy scapegoat that the USSR didn’t have, and thus all problems of society were directed at the state. It’s important to consider why a Marxist country does what it does, and not immediately assume you know better. The CPC has an over 95% approval rate, you can’t just assume you know what’s best.

          The phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is meant to depict higher stage Communism. Until that is possible, the answer becomes “to each according to his work,” because as Marx said in Critique of the Gotha Programme:

          these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

          At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis. There are genuine Marxist critiques of the PRC that don’t rely on nonsense. If you consider yourself a Marxist, correct your study. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you need one.

          • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            0·
            8 days ago

            At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis.

            The PRC is not socialist because, it produces commodities (the commodity form), Has A Dictatorship of The Bourgeoisie, The Wage System, and an employer-employee distinction.

            Which um, is in the passage you quoted:

            The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              0·
              8 days ago

              Socialism is a transitional status from Capitalism to Communism. There can be no immediate jump from one to the other, this jump must be gradual. Moreover, you cannot eliminate Wage Labor without eliminating Private Property, and you cannot eliminate Private Property overnight, but gradually, and by the degree to its development. Socialism is about which is primary, Public Ownership and Central Planning, or Private Property and Markets, not the mere existence of one in purity or the other. Such a stance is anti-dialectical and erases Marx’s analysis of Capitalism and Communism.

              Furthermore, even Communism will have an “employer-employee” relationship, insofar as it still retains labor for labor vouchers. Communism is about Central Planning and Public Ownership, not horizontalism. The passage you reference is indeed the essential condition for the existance of the bourgeoisie, and its eventual elimination, but not the existence of Socialism.

              Finally, the PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You can’t simply assert the opposite when it’s very clear that in the PRC the State is absolute over the Bourgeoisie.

              All of these misconceptions of yours betray a deeply “Wikipedia-educated” notion of Marxism. If you want, you can start reading with my introductory Marxist reading list.

              • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                0·
                8 days ago

                Socialism is a transitional status from Capitalism to Communism. There can be no immediate jump from one to the other, this jump must be gradual.

                Agreed. As in, Capitalism is also a transitional stage to Communism. China is a decidedly capitalist society, as evidenced by their production of commodities.

                Furthermore, even Communism will have an “employer-employee” relationship, insofar as it still retains labor for labor vouchers.

                There will be no “employer” class under communism. A communist society is classless. China does not use labor vouchers even, it has a system of money.

                Finally, the PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You can’t simply assert the opposite when it’s very clear that in the PRC the State is absolute over the Bourgeoisie.

                The state is the Bourgeoisie in centrally planned economies. They extract surplus value from the Proletariat just like in a private market economy. The difference between the State Bourgeoisie and the Private Bourgeoisie, in China, is just aristocratic rank.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  0·
                  8 days ago

                  I am sorry, but none of what you have said makes any sense from a Marxist perspective.

                  1. The presense of Commodity production does not mean the system is Capitalist. To that extent, if you have a 99% publicly owned and centrally planned economy, it must be Capitalist, and once that final 1% is absorbed, it becomes Communist. There is no Socialism by this definition, it’s a straight jump from Capitalism to Communism. Even in the PRC, the majority of the economy is Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned. Engels disagrees with your stance:

                  Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

                  Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

                  You kill the Scientific and Dialectical aspects of Marxism and deny the existence of Socialism.

                  1. This is really 2 points in 1. “Employer” is not a class. Classes are not jobs, but relations to production. Communism will have managers, planners, and so forth to assist with economic production. The other point, on the PRC not using labor vouchers, that’s for when China reaches Communism, when they are currently Socialist.

                  2. This is entirely anti-Marxist. The State is an extension of the class in power. In a fully centrally planned economy with full public ownership, there is no state. The bourgeoisie is focused on competition and accumulation, it isn’t a “power dynamic” but a social relation to production. From Engels:

                  When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

                  Bolded the most relevant bits. The state ceases to exist when classes cease to exist, because when all property is public there are no classes. However, production remains administrated and directed! I think it’s quite obvious from reading the source material that Marx was no Anarchist, nor did he believe that Socialism was devoid of private property, nor could it be. This is a gradual process for Marx, one we call Socialism, as it works towards a fully Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned Economy, Communism. The government does not “extract surplus value” in a profit accumulating manner, but to pay for public services and infrastructure, directly spelled out by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme. The State is an extension of the dominant class, and the class which is dominant can be found through real analyzing of the trends and conditions of an economy. In the PRC, those trends are towards uplifiting the working class and continuing to fold Private Property into the Public Sector.