• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    The proletariat in China are already empowered, comrade.

    Ah, through the magic of The People’s Billionaires and The People’s Capitalist State, of course

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Read my agitprop or I won’t discuss this with you.

        Lmao, enjoy sitting alone in silence then 🤷

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

          • Donkter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            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

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            3 months ago

            If the means of production is owned by the people, why would there be people with more money than others, let alone billions?

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              They’re literally defending the existence of The People’s Billionaires as proletarian liberation. They’re a lost cause, like most tankies.

              • barsquid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.”

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

              • barsquid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Socialism is about control of the means of production.

                Oh, you’re closer to reality than I imagined. Ok, so the billionaires are receiving billions of dollars with whose means of production?

                  • barsquid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    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.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Socialism is not about wealth inequality. Socialism is about control of the means of production.

                “Chinese billionaires are just really well paid proletarians” said no one sane ever.

          • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’ve clearly spend more time reading it than you have. Else you wouldn’t have linked something so embarrassing.

              • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                How about you make an actual point rather than go “read my long (poorly written) propaganda piece”.

              • YeetPics@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                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 🤷

                • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.