I already said, I love China, it’s great and getting better. It could get even better if it actually worked toward socialism instead of falling into the trap the people that used to exploit it did, trying to exploit other poorer countries.
You haven’t done anything but list twisted versions of right-wing taking points. “Billionaires aren’t a problem because poor people have refrigerators.”
There is no defense for China’s system, at least not from a communist.
Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy, and the working classes control the state. It’s socialist, and you haven’t disproven the prior claims nor are you willing to provide what you believe socialism to be so we can compare China to your vision. You haven’t backed up a single claim of yours. You also haven’t explained what “right-wing talking points” I have, and now you’re inventing points I never made, such as the point about refrigerators. If you want to see a communist defense of China, scroll back a few comments and actually read what I wrote instead of lashing out relentlessly.
You try to excuse the wealth hoarding of China’s parasite class in part by taking about the rising standard of living of the poor.
That is no different than right-wingers saying wealth inequality isn’t a problem because poor people have a higher standard of living than decades ago. There was a famous example not too long ago (I guess not too famous because I forgot the details) where some republican in the U.S. minimized the struggles of the poor because they all had refrigerators now. What you do to minimize the struggles of the poor in China is no different.
I never did that, though. I explained that China has billionaires because they still have private ownership in secondary small and medium firms. This isn’t permanent, however, it’s a consequence of existing at a definite state of development. As these firms grow, they are folded into the public sector. Explaining the temporary existence of billionares in the transition between capitalism and communism called socialism is not a defense of the permanent and justified existence of billionaires that right-wingers try to do to justify capitalist economies where private ownership is principal.
I already said, I love China, it’s great and getting better. It could get even better if it actually worked toward socialism instead of falling into the trap the people that used to exploit it did, trying to exploit other poorer countries.
You haven’t done anything but list twisted versions of right-wing taking points. “Billionaires aren’t a problem because poor people have refrigerators.”
There is no defense for China’s system, at least not from a communist.
Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy, and the working classes control the state. It’s socialist, and you haven’t disproven the prior claims nor are you willing to provide what you believe socialism to be so we can compare China to your vision. You haven’t backed up a single claim of yours. You also haven’t explained what “right-wing talking points” I have, and now you’re inventing points I never made, such as the point about refrigerators. If you want to see a communist defense of China, scroll back a few comments and actually read what I wrote instead of lashing out relentlessly.
Last one then I got to go.
You try to excuse the wealth hoarding of China’s parasite class in part by taking about the rising standard of living of the poor.
That is no different than right-wingers saying wealth inequality isn’t a problem because poor people have a higher standard of living than decades ago. There was a famous example not too long ago (I guess not too famous because I forgot the details) where some republican in the U.S. minimized the struggles of the poor because they all had refrigerators now. What you do to minimize the struggles of the poor in China is no different.
I never did that, though. I explained that China has billionaires because they still have private ownership in secondary small and medium firms. This isn’t permanent, however, it’s a consequence of existing at a definite state of development. As these firms grow, they are folded into the public sector. Explaining the temporary existence of billionares in the transition between capitalism and communism called socialism is not a defense of the permanent and justified existence of billionaires that right-wingers try to do to justify capitalist economies where private ownership is principal.