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.
Wow this one really brought out the votes, both kinds 😂
Putting the agitation in agitprop
just .ml things
Working class rebel vs Elite class looking for more control
Please show your work. What is the proof that it was done for more control?
Are you asking for proof of Occupied China being a planned economy or that the party controls it?
The comment I replied to says:
Working class rebel vs Elite class looking for more control
Notice the part highlighted in bold. I am asking for proof of this. In other words, proof that the Chinese government executed CEOs only because they sought “more control”. Surely we are not expected to blindly trust this claim, right?
So it’s planned economy that you’re disputing
I really can’t think of any proof that you would believe if you’re disputing that
So it’s planned economy that you’re disputing
No.
My question is very clear, why can’t you address it without pretending I asked something else?
Again, you made the claim that CEO executions were made for the reason of seeking more control. Please provide proof that they were done for this reason and not any other reason. I have not asked for planned economy proof or anything else.
If it’s a planned economy then the government controls it
You’re just saying the same thing
How do you twist yourself up in knots to not even get in the general vicinity of an evidence-based position and not wonder "damn, do I really not know shit about the stuff I’m so loud about "?
Surely we are not expected to blindly trust this claim
Why not? They did when the CIA told it [to the journalists that repeated it] to them.
This is your brain on a lack of class analysis
What the heck is an “elite class?” Where did Marx talk about it?
Believe it or not, things can exist independently of Marx having described them.
When everyone is using Class in a specific manner, the addition of a “class” that doesn’t actually exist just for a quip is really odd. You have to make the argument that it even exists in the first place first.
So which non-Marxist political economy or sociology defines this elite class? Usually class politics is attributed to Marx
One is a normal person oppressed by an unfair system.
The other is a tankie doing the oppression.
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.
Yeah, but they get jailed for literally anything else lol
What do you mean?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He’s oppressing people that are “inconvenient” to him.
All vibes, no thoughts.
These are all vibes, can you explain exactly how and why you believe Xi is simply “oppressing those invonvenient” to him?
By this logic, a monarchy that keeps the aristocracy in line is better than the US democracy. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
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.
Next you’ll tell me Putin took justified military action. Tankies are out in full force today
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.
China ranks second in the world in number of millionaires as well as number of billionaires.
Per capita or total?
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.
-
That’s why you should all do one each.
One is authoritarian in nature, the other is protestant in nature. These are not the same thing
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.
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.
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 corporate media has been consistent in their response to both.
which is why it boggles my mind that liberals don’t connect the dots
.ml username
Disregarded
You’re literally in a .ml com.
The difference is that Xi is now the CEO.
Who told you that?
Western supremacists think every country they’re in a trade war with doesn’t even elect their leaders.
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?
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.
📽
- 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.
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.
> 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.
i used to feel badly blocking accounts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am sorry, but none of what you have said makes any sense from a Marxist perspective.
- 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.
-
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.
-
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.
Putin: all my CEOs executed themselves
Oh, so like Boeing whistleblowers?
I heard they all accidentally fell out of windows.
Three times
your social credit score has increased!
The “Big Brother” style credit system in China doesn’t actually exist.
ok, sure 👍
Glad you could come around!
Reposting my comment from below.
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.
Any “leftist” that thinks the fact that China has billionaires and 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. 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 as much as possible, 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.
Thank you for your service comrade. o7
No problem comrade 🫡
All this comment section proves is that if the only thing that changed was that Thompson was a Chinese healthcare CEO called Zhao Qiang and got clapped by the government libs would be calling him a working class hero and a martyr like the fucking NYT.
I have not seen a single Marxist make this claim. Deng wasn’t pro-billionaire, but wished to return to a Marxist analysis of the PRC’s economy. It had taken on an ultraleft character and was unstable, they had socialized more than they should have with their level of productive forces, and have consistently been working their way back to that level of socialization now that the Socialist Market Economy has proven wildly successful. Without doing so, extreme poverty could not have been eradicated like it has been.
