One is a regular person taking out a person of huge authority, balancing power.
The other is the biggest authority taking out a smaller one to consolidate power.
Please show your work. What is the proof that it was done to consolidate power?
This isn’t to mention that your use of the word authority is strange. How exactly do you determine who has more authority between a US house representative vs. a CEO?
Consolidate ? he’s the leader of a 90 million strong party and been at the reins for more than 14 years lmao. I stg libs’ understanding of politics can be directly mapped to Harry Potter.
Greed is never satisfied?
You think I’m a lib?
Hahahahaha
If you’re not a Marxist, you’re a lib
All that says is that you’re a Marxist (which I’m not saying is a bad thing).
Bet, it’s just been like a hundred comments of the same three talking points from liberals in .world. The reason it’s not just bad because it’s a “bigger authority” is because of the class character of the state, as well as the subject of the oppression. Lenin dedicated an entire book to the subject, State and Revolution. As to how it applies to China and why popular support among a revolutionary government despite capital and billionaires being allowed to exist, one of the best pieces I’ve ever read on the subject is this https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
It’s good that there’s a bigger authority than capital, the party rules through popular consent, and they chose Xi Jinping as well as the people that do the actual legwork of the anti corruption drive to be the executors of that will. If the US had a popular mandate that prevented corporate abuses, Luigi Mangione wouldn’t have needed to be incarcerated, he would have already gotten his surgery.
Wow this one really brought out the votes, both kinds 😂
Putting the agitation in agitprop
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Removed by mod
Copying my comment over here, as it’s highly relevant:
It’s more that liberals like yourself directly ignore 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 claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
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.
The authoritarian Harvard and Pew polls which reported such a number? Lmao yall are so stubbornly committed to chauvinism 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.
stormfront.world users downvoting facts when they don’t fit their racist vibes smh
you hate to see it
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.
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?
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 run rampant or when 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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).
-
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?
-
I would love to see any proof behind this other than vibes. Until then, the logical conclusion is likely the correct one.
-
Same as 2, I would love to see any proof that isn’t just vibes.
-
-
One isn’t a corrupt dictator killing or imprisoning anyone who complains about him. If you think the little guy isn’t getting hurt in China I want the drugs you’re on.
Do you have any source on the PRC killing or imprisoning anyone who complains about it? Moreover, what do you think about 95%+ Chinese citizens supporting the CPC? 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 claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
There’s 1.4 billion Chinese citizens. Do y’all think this is Star Wars and you can just jail tens of millions with nobody noticing or complaining? Terminally unserious.
Removed by mod
Yeah, because unlike Israel, Neon 🇮🇱, China has not and is not ethnically cleansing anyone.
Israeli flag in name
Removed by mod
I wonder if it has anything to do with PRC’s punishment towards citizens who have been critical of their government. Who knows man.
I wonder that too. Do you have proof that it does?
I have shared some links further in the thread, here you go.
Thank you for your comment. From my skimming of the articles you sent, they seem to argue that the state has a track record of cracking down on dissent and protests.
I’m not sure this proves your initial claim though (that CEO executions were done to combat government criticism), unless there’s a detail in these articles that I missed by skimming too fast. Please let me know if I missed it.
While your claim is plausible, it is also equally plausible that they are acting within the defines of their state ideology, and we would need more evidence to prove it is one or the other.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the articles and did not attempt to verify the evidence they present, as it didn’t seem that they are addressing your initial claims.
I think you’ve misread my comment.
“Xi doesn’t get the solidarity like Luigi, because his government has a track record of punishing citizens when they show dissent” was the point of my original comment.
I believe this context is important if we’re to discuss the likability of a country’s leader based on their actions. Additionally, “acting within the defines of state ideology” would permit a national head to practically do anything since they are the ones defining the state ideology.
With due respect, that’s quite different than the claim you explained in the comment I replied to, so I hope you will edit it to clarify that.edit: I seem to have misunderstood the original comment.As to the point you stated in quotes in this comment (edit: which is what OP originally intended), I don’t see how they’re related. Criticizing China’s crackdown on dissent must not mean you should deny their credit on executing CEOs.
The people of the PRC approve of Beijing to a far greater degree than western countries, with an over 90% approval rate. 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 claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
Again, unfalsifiable nonsense, both A and the opposite of A are proof that China bad, no need for evidence.
What’s more, why do they have to be critical? What are they missing from their lives? Their government actually works lmao. More than 700 million pulled out of poverty, corrupt officials at all levels get jailed or executed, most young people own their house, everyone has a job and very cheap food and cultural activities, as well as the best public transit in the world and well maintained infrastructure, not to mention billionaires keep their fucking mouths shut unless it is to pay lip service to the people’s government.
You know who punishes their citizens, verifiably often and viciously? Say it with me: the USA. The Ferguson protesters were murdered one by one in the following months with no investigation, the occupy wall street organizers were detained by Homeland security, the black panther party was infiltrated and their leaders murdered by police whether openly or covertly, the Gaza protests had students beaten, arrested and tried en masse and the US passes new surveillance and protest crackdown laws every other day it seems.
And, on the opposite side, what good does “being allowed to be critical” do, in and of itself? About 30% of Americans approve of the government at any given time, corrupt officials are openly insider trading, passing laws for bribes that they don’t even have to hide, and big business is allowed to KILL YOU FOR PROFIT.
You liberals are delusional, you buy that you live in the best country ever and shit is almost impossible to change for the better and assume the rest of us must have it so much worse, facts be damned.
I base my opinion on multiple people I personally know who moved from China to SG, because they were unhappy with the kind of control government maintained over any public criticism. I won’t pretend that I remember all the instances they’ve mentioned, but I know better than to reject the claims of the countries citizen when they have some concerns. I won’t pretend that I know better than the people living in the damned country.
We all know Chinese people, dude, there’s 1.4 billion of them lmao. That doesn’t make you an authority on their opinion and the sample size is negligible to say the least. 95 percent of them, according to Harvard, are happy with the government.
I never claimed to be an authority, and there’s a reason I mentioned it was my opinion.
And again, it’s not like there could be selection biases in a Harvard study. That absolutely never happens.
And again, it’s not like there could be selection biases in a Harvard study. That absolutely never happens.
Jesus dude, just admit that nothing could ever be enough to change your mind.
I have shared some articles on China’s crackdown on dissent here. Will you will change your mind after reading them?
Change my mind that the vast majority of Chinese are happy with their government? Why would your articles cause me to do that?
The only biases that Harvard could pull would be AGAINST the interests of the CPC, that’s the point. You wouldn’t accept a Chinese poll because of racism/chauvinism so I provide overwhelming proof even on your terms and the answer is “em, uh, nu uh”.
My friend, you’re the one who’s actively denying the opinions of the Chinese people I know, while pushing a Harvard study on my face. And then calling me racist/chauvinistic. I am not sure how that helps your case, but I guess just spouting random nonsense is your idea of a conversation.
To help you out, I have taken some time to find some of the articles from the time I was in SG, and cases I discussed. These are the articles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-64592333
https://www.economist.com/china/what-peng-shuai-reveals-about-one-party-rule/21806441
Most of the people I talked to related with these incidents, and acknowledged that while they may not the be the norm, they’re certainly not anomalies. And a lot of people dont come out because the government reacts in such dracnonian ways.
The people I talked to were not representative of all of China, it would be ridiculous to consider that. However, ignoring multiple unrelated people sharing similar stories would be an asinine thing.
If your response is going to be a an aggregate study about economic development, and ask me why would people be unhappy with that, then you need some sort of help to understand that economic freedom is not the only freedom in the world.
This is good agitation. Im not a blanket supporter but its been a good thread with a lot of decent links worthy of critical support. Lemmy world needed this lmao
When you see them seethe through the entire script and react to articles like you showed a cross to nosferatu you know they’re learning without their consent
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.
A tale of two countries
Bro but they did it dictatorshiply 😭 in a real democracy you’d yell at them online, get arrested by Homeland Security, and politicians give them another 500 million in subsidies and tax breaks.
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.
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 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’
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
Some resources for a lot of the people below claiming that China is just like any other capitalist country.
Is China State Capitalist?
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
- Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
- Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
- Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
- China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
- Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
- How the State runs business in China.
- 50% of the economy is in the socialist public sector and directly follows the plan (40% if you ignore the agricultural sector). 20 to 30% is inside the state capitalist sector, which is the sector partially or totally owned by domestic capitalists but run by the CPC or by local workers councils. The rest is made up of the small bourgeois ownership like in the NEP.
- China pushing forward Marxist training in colleges, attracts 1M students.
- China tells the US that it has no plans to weaken the role of its State-Owned-Enterprises, one of the US’s main demands in the trade war. “Beijing plans to make the state economy stronger, bigger, and better.”
- Unlike the US, China refuses to bail out over-leveraged property developers, and lets them go bankrupt.
- A China misinformation Megathread.
smd admin
In China, Xi is the CEO.
What does this even mean?
It means the parent commenter thinks “socialism with Chinese characteristics” looks an awful lot like state capitalism.
Can you explain what Socialism is, and what “State Capitalism” is?
Something tells me you already have an idea of what those words mean. I’m not here to have a debate, I just thought I could help with understanding the parent comment. I thought it was pretty obvious what calling Xi the CEO of China was implying.
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.
Edit: oh, hello MeanwhileOnGrad users! Why is it that you intentionally cut off 80% of my comment? Moreover, if you disagree, why not comment here directly and counter, rather than hide behind an anticommunist drama post and downvote? Guess my fanclub just isn’t feeling it today, sadly…
Thank you for your service comrade. o7
No problem comrade 🫡
You really pissed off the .world neolibs with this one. Good work.
