• bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Yeah, I am deeply skeptical that maximum billionaires with no social services of any kind is the path to anything but lining Xi and his allies’ pockets. Sorry. Not buying it no matter how many Chinese AI bots post 8000 word articles about how actually socialized healthcare is a capitalist scheme to hold back the proletariat from space future communism you can’t understand without reading 700 of Marx’s lesser letters to random parties in Bavaria.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Nooo, those letters to the Sozialistischer Kegelklub, Straubing are vital! Without them you misunderstand Marxism!!! /s 😭😭😭

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      What do you mean by the PRC “maximizing billionaires?” The PRC regularly cracks down on their bourgeosie, and the majority of the economy is in the Public Sector, not the Private. What do you mean by “no social services of any kind?” Large infrastructure projects like massive public transit, a much better and more comprehensive public healthcare system than the US, an elimination of extreme poverty in the last decade, the PRC is focusing on the working class. Xi himself is far less rich than most world leaders, can you explain how the PRC is built to "enrich him and his allies?

      Further, I have no idea what you mean by “socialized healthcare is a Capitalist scheme to hold the proletariat back.” Capitalist concessions do exist in Social Democracies, but they aren’t holding the Proletariat back, Bourgeois control of the state is.

      Are you trying to say that a Socialist country needs to have 100% of the economy fully socialized to be considered Socialist? What do you call a system transitioning from one system to the next?

      Finally, are you trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is a “Chinese AI bot?”

      • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        I will give you that they do occasionally hang the odd executive, which I will give props for. I’d probably still be a dem if they had hung ONE executive in 2009. But if I don’t have cash in pocket, I’ll be left to die of treatable disease MORE on the streets of Beijing than NYC post-Obamacare. I’m not saying you need to be 100% there out of the gate, but telling me that I just need to eat shit for decades while not asking for better because it’s all some grand strategy I don’t get is why I’m no longer a dem. I’m not saying everyone with a different opinion is a bot but there do seem to be a LOT of people with nothing bad to say about China and a prewritten 5000 word statement defending them on every topic on here versus my expectations of the world at large, but maybe my expectations are off, I’ll give you that. I am open to the possibility that I’m just out of touch.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          What on Earth are you talking about? The PRC eliminated extreme poverty, you absolutely would not be left to die on the street. You aren’t making any sense.

          • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            29 days ago

            Okay, then why are Chinese savings rates so high relative to income if they’re well supported by the state for basic care like healthcare needs? Eliminating “extreme” poverty by being awesome at capitalism and maintaining French or worse levels of youth unemployment is the dream of Ronald Reagan, not Mao. Is the right to a job not a BASIC maxim of anything left of FDR, much less Mao?

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              29 days ago

              Because prices are lower there and PPP is raising. There isn’t as much of a need to spend and instead they can save. They are “good at Capitalism” because they are using markets as a tool to develop and fold Private Property into the Public Sector as it develops.

              • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                29 days ago

                Do I need to try to find the Marx quote about savings and how that’s an admission the state isn’t providing safety in a way that actually undermines markets? I will if I must, but I feel this has to be bad faith if you’re not already familiar with it in this context.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  That’s true in Marx’s time, in a Capitalist economy. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, which is completely different, and moreover is still rapidly developing infrastructure. Healthcare is cheaper and more readily available than in the US as well.

                  It’s clear that you’re arguing in pure bad faith.

                  • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    29 days ago

                    Healthcare is cheaper and more available than the US in every non-US economy on the planet. But if I am one of the 30% of young male Chinese who can’t find a job… Developing infrastructure is nice, but, how do empty cities built for the sake of building or subway stops that never open in the jungle miles out of town help anyone? To quote The Little Red Book: “The Communist Party does not fear criticism because we are Marxists, the truth is on our side, and the basic masses, the workers and peasants, are on our side.” Who is arguing in bad faith here?