You're viewing part of a thread.
"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.
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).
Jailing reactionaries is objectively good, the Cultural Revolution just went a little too far (like the Great Purge before it).
...
????
You know. I imagine most tankies are just radicalised westerners.
But you my friend, I would be willing to bet you’re a chinese state sponsered keyboard warrior.
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.
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?
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.
Do you think that China doesn't distribute wealth among its population or build infrastructure?
I believe it isn't distributing the billions of yuan that are going to these individuals who own means of production, yes.
But it did distribute so much that it completely eliminated extreme poverty. China's system isn't perfect, but there are fewer poor people there than in America despite having three times the population.
This argument chain was on whether or not the proles are empowered under Chinese capitalism (they aren't) not whether or not their standard of living is above $2/day.
Comparing to America is whataboutism but the numbers I am finding are under 0.25% US citizens below that extreme poverty level in 2020 compared to 0.7% Chinese citizens in 2015.
Sus when you look at real numbers instead of just patting yourself on the back with citations that agree with you.
This argument chain was on whether or not the proles are empowered under Chinese capitalism (they aren’t) not whether or not their standard of living is above $2/day.
Everyone who responded to my initial comment was getting caught up on the existence of billionaires in Chinese society, so that's what I responded to.
As to whether or not Chinese people are empowered under the Chinese system, let's ask them their feelings instead of projecting our assumptions onto them from the other side of the world!
People's participation in top-level decision-making
Just after the Chinese New Year in 2022, citizen representatives from Hongqiao subdistrict in Changning district of Shanghai started to "give their opinions to the government". It had been seven years since Hongqiao subdistrict began seeking public opinions on legislative and community affairs from representatives of citizens and institutions. As early as 2015, the Legislative Affairs Commission under the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress established the first community-level legislative contact point at Hongqiao subdistrict.
Zhu Guoping, a NPC delegate, is an intermediary of the community-level legislative contact point based at Hongqiao subdistrict. When the NPC Standing Committee was selecting contact points for community-level legislation in Shanghai, it was she who strongly recommended Hongqiao subdistrict. The Gubei community under the subdistrict is home to residents from more than 50 countries and regions, perfectly representing Shanghai as an "international community".
Behind a community-level legislative contact point are more than 310 intermediaries coming from all walks of life. The contact points cover 16 neighborhoods and 50 institutions within the subdistrict. Once the intermediaries receive their survey questions, they solicit opinions from the public through letters, interviews, and forums. For every new draft of law, at least four forums are held.
The community-level legislative contact point has become a "direct access" for people to participate in legislation. "With the establishment of the contact points, the NPC Standing Committee can directly hear the real community voices. Many of the suggestions made by residents are adopted. We listen to the people's voices, meet their demands, and protect their rights and interests. This is a big step forward in our legislation," said Zhu Guoping.
This is just a small part of a very informative piece. The Chinese system actively seeks to integrate public opinion and average people's voices at all levels of decision making, empowering them far more than any other democracy on the planet. This is called "whole-process democracy", and is the only system of its kind and scale where the citizens' participation in their government doesn't stop at selecting a representative.
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.
Yup, no one said it
As your comrade above said: "...if you had read the assigned essay you would know...."
If the means of production is owned by the people, why would there be people with more money than others, let alone billions?