• Jmdatcs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.