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.
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.
“China has billionares therefore it’s not socialism” is not an argument. It’s a thought-terminating cliche. The essay is an in-depth examination of why China should be considered socialist, and is therefore a direct refutation of that sentiment.
You keep saying it’s “whataboutism”. That’s another of those thought-terminating cliches, and you would do well to stop using it to dismiss every argument that makes you uncomfortable.
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.
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.”
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.
Socialism is not about wealth inequality. Socialism is about control of the means of production. Reduction in wealth inequality is an expected outcome of a socialist system, but it is not the sole marker of that system’s success. You are hyper-focusing on this specific metric and ignoring all arguments against your blinkered point of view.
Their workers of course, but if you had read the assigned essay you would know that this is accounted for already. The billionaires in China do not have control of Chinese society in the way that the billionaires in other countries have control of theirs, and their existence is strictly a temporary condition of the Chinese economy as it goes through the development necessary for the next stage of socialism to become possible.
Workers who own the means opt to force billions in wealth they generated upon these unfortunate individuals who must act as lightning rods for criticism. Instead of distributing it amongst themselves or spending on infrastructure. Very realistic perspective, thank you.
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.
Ah, through the magic of The People’s Billionaires and The People’s Capitalist State, of course
Please do yourself a favor and spend an hour reading this. Then either come up with a better argument or accept that you’re wrong.
Read my agitprop or I won’t discuss this with you.
Lmao, enjoy sitting alone in silence then 🤷
Agitprop is usually a poster or something short and memorable. This is a well written and sourced essay on the topic at hand.
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.
The people arguing against me clearly haven’t read anything, and are incapable of arguing on this topic until they do.
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.
“China has billionares therefore it’s not socialism” is not an argument. It’s a thought-terminating cliche. The essay is an in-depth examination of why China should be considered socialist, and is therefore a direct refutation of that sentiment.
You keep saying it’s “whataboutism”. That’s another of those thought-terminating cliches, and you would do well to stop using it to dismiss every argument that makes you uncomfortable.
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.”
As Mao said, no investigation, no right to speak. I used to think like you do, but then I did a little investigation.
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.
Jailing reactionaries is objectively good, the Cultural Revolution just went a little too far (like the Great Purge before it).
You might want to take up ol’ sparrow killer on that advice yourself…
Socialism is not about wealth inequality. Socialism is about control of the means of production. Reduction in wealth inequality is an expected outcome of a socialist system, but it is not the sole marker of that system’s success. You are hyper-focusing on this specific metric and ignoring all arguments against your blinkered point of view.
Oh, you’re closer to reality than I imagined. Ok, so the billionaires are receiving billions of dollars with whose means of production?
Their workers of course, but if you had read the assigned essay you would know that this is accounted for already. The billionaires in China do not have control of Chinese society in the way that the billionaires in other countries have control of theirs, and their existence is strictly a temporary condition of the Chinese economy as it goes through the development necessary for the next stage of socialism to become possible.
Workers who own the means opt to force billions in wealth they generated upon these unfortunate individuals who must act as lightning rods for criticism. Instead of distributing it amongst themselves or spending on infrastructure. Very realistic perspective, thank you.
“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…”
Only if you agree to spend an hour reading something of my choice.
Wafling whataboutism and semantic games.
Removed by mod
I’ve clearly spend more time reading it than you have. Else you wouldn’t have linked something so embarrassing.
Removed by mod
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?
Removed by mod
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.
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.