• r_se_random@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    I wonder if it has anything to do with PRC’s punishment towards citizens who have been critical of their government. Who knows man.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      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."

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      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.

      • r_se_random@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        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.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        There are people upset enough with Chinese imperialism and rule that they light themselves on fire in the neighboring country as a way to try and get attention and assistance.
        That doesn’t come from nowhere even if it’s not a majority.

        Multiple things can be true such as different governments can be each doing their own form of abuse. It doesn’t excuse one to admit to the other and there can be positives to all relationships.

        Be upset with what you have and what’s around you but don’t use that to imagine a fantasy of greener grass on the other side of the fence. Do it to will a better existence around you.

  • carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

        • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          The comment I replied to says:

          Working class rebel vs Elite class looking for more control

          Notice the part highlighted in bold. I am asking for proof of this. In other words, proof that the Chinese government executed CEOs only because they sought “more control”. Surely we are not expected to blindly trust this claim, right?

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            So it’s planned economy that you’re disputing

            I really can’t think of any proof that you would believe if you’re disputing that

            • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              So it’s planned economy that you’re disputing

              No.

              My question is very clear, why can’t you address it without pretending I asked something else?

              Again, you made the claim that CEO executions were made for the reason of seeking more control. Please provide proof that they were done for this reason and not any other reason. I have not asked for planned economy proof or anything else.

              If your next comment does not answer my question, then you are being intentionally misleading

                • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  How do you twist yourself up in knots to not even get in the general vicinity of an evidence-based position and not wonder "damn, do I really not know shit about the stuff I’m so loud about "?

          • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            Surely we are not expected to blindly trust this claim

            Why not? They did when the CIA told it [to the journalists that repeated it] to them.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          When everyone is using Class in a specific manner, the addition of a “class” that doesn’t actually exist just for a quip is really odd. You have to make the argument that it even exists in the first place first.

        • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          So which non-Marxist political economy or sociology defines this elite class? Usually class politics is attributed to Marx

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Won’t someone think of the poor billionaires?! 😭 Communism is scary… I don’t think I want the Proletariat to have power after all, those billionaires seem so cool and fun… /s

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        Nothing is more terrifying to liberals, than a government having capitalists under their thumb, and serving the people, rather than the other way around as is normal in their “superior” capitalist dictatorships.

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    The difference is whether or not the CEO is working against the people or against the government.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Over 95% of people support the CPC, so it’s fair to say that the people approve of the way the CPC is handling billionaires that are highly corrupt or otherwise guilty of mass crimes. 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."

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          It isn’t a dictatorship, source on it being one please? Secondly, I outright bolded where the western study outlined that the biggest factor in approval was the real material improvements in their lives. Why do you think you know more about a country than the billions that live there?

          • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            You’re wasting your time, if living in that shit hole and having to pay out the ass whenever their bank, insurance, landlord, ISP, or utility company wants to pad out their margins while their politicians get bribed by them isn’t enough to convince them that they’re the ones living in a dictatorship, nothing short of total societal collapse will.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          They literally linked you a study from harvard, because we know you white supremacists consider any non-western source as being inferior, and would reject them out of hand.

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Ah, yeah, true democracy is when everyone fucking hates congress, the supreme court, the president, their senator, their cops and their prosecutors, but they have no choice but to accept them.

          Y’all get to be sassy on Twitter tho, good for you lmao

      • recreationalcatheter@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        I guess if you can survive the camps and can be virtuously re-educated you deserve to be a sycophant.

        So happy for them 🥳🙌 this means there wasn’t any crimes against humanity after all, must have all been a big western propaganda operation. 🤡

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          Just because they didn’t pay you to spout nonsense doesn’t mean there’s not verifiable evidence that they have paid people to do it, it just means you’re gullible enough to do their legwork for free.

          Congress just approved a 1.5 billion anti china propaganda package lmao, it was in your fucking news, how do y’all not get it.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          Western countries do not even pay the same level of lip service to their own minority populations, white people continue to dominate parliament and leadership roles in a manner that well overrepresents their makeup. Do you have sources for “crimes against humanity” that don’t originate with Adrian Zenz, a US State Department propagandist? The re-education program is complete already.

          You would do well to see why this story is so long-lasting despite a clear and odd lack of evidence, from UN inspectors finding no evidence to the ability to openly travel to Xinjiang, by reading The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz. Your attitude that the Uygur deputies must be sycophants and instead trust US State Department Propagandists over the people you claim to be fighting for is wildly chavanistic and racist. It’s one thing to have a hypothesis and investigate it further, it’s another thing entirely to assume its correct and doing no further investigation.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Are you dumb libs still claiming an Uyghur genocide despite being like 10 years, zero evidence, and multiple western sources calling out the atrocity propaganda? How does that look like, if Xinjiang’s economy is growing enormously, there’s tons of video evidence from travel bloggers of the bustling cultural and religious activities there? Plugging your eyes and ears to let the state department guide you doesn’t seem like a wise way to go about anything.

      The people boosting claims of an Uyghur genocide are still denying and aiding the fucking Palestinian genocide ffs.

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          American liberals would only speak the truth if the state department told it to them for once lmao

      • ebolapie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        It means the parent commenter thinks “socialism with Chinese characteristics” looks an awful lot like state capitalism.

          • ebolapie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            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.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      What does that even mean? Do you think he personally plans and runs all of the public sector of the PRC that take’s up over half of the economy?

      • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        Xi can disappear anyone he doesn’t like. He doesn’t need to personally oversee every company, the threat of being visited by police is enough to keep them in line.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Who told you that?

      Western supremacists think every country they’re in a trade war with doesn’t even elect their leaders.

      • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          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.

            • _lunar@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              so according to your own definition, luigi killed that CEO for committing wrongthink and is authoritarian.

              like davel just showed you, they’re doing the exact same thing, but it’s only bad to you when it’s law and not adventurism. anarchists or whatever you want to call yourself really are just vibes-based and it’s so fucking annoying and reductive. you will never accomplish anything because you instinctively oppose progress as “authoritarian” when it’s actually made. you just want to feel like a rebel no matter what kind of system you’re living in.

            • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              If only Adolf Eichmann had committed his atrocities 10 years later or so, all he had to do was say “the authoritarians are canceling me for wrongthink, literally 1984” and you liberals would have ate it the fuck up

  • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    Working class executing CEOs that work against them

    Ruling class executing CEOs who don’t work for them

    Slight difference

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      There is never a case of a working class party conquering political power, that hasn’t been demonized by western anti-communist society.

      When the US and its media tells you that the leaders China or Cuba or Vietnam are just “dictators”, why do you believe them?

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      That’s an anti-Marxist view of class. What is the “ruling class” you speak of in the PRC? Government isn’t class, but an extension of the class in power, so which class is in power?

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        It’s the latter part of “no god’s no masters”

        I’m sorry if I’ve insulted Marxist purity

          • Windex007@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            My point is you had no point. You responded to a FANTASTIC explanation of the difference by splitting hairs on what by your definition qualifies as a class.

            Instead of addressing the argument, you just threw a semantics argument, which I maintain is the terminally online version of pocket sand.

            • comfy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              You responded to a FANTASTIC explanation of the difference by splitting hairs on what by your definition qualifies as a class.

              A fantastic explanation? It literally isn’t an explanation, it’s a comparison of two statements. Which is fine, and so is the critique of those statements to examine their perceived contradictions.

              From the perspective of the CPC and Marxist-Leninist theory, their ruling party represents the working class, just like our ruling parties represent the owner class of CEOs. [wikipedia page: DotP] Obviously that’s a contested claim which not even all Marxists will agree with, but it’s far from splitting hairs. It’s the basic foundation of the comparison, the implicit claim that one is a working class act and the other is not.

              • Windex007@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                This is the most concise rebuttal and I think you’ve highlighted well where the root of the perceived discord lies.

                If one accepts that the CPC represents the working class, then the critique of the unfair comparison via the meme would be viewed as legitimate.

                If one contests the original assertion, then it does not. To them, Xi memeing a CEO would look to them more like Musk offing Altman.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              I addressed it entirely. The Proletariat executing Billionaires who go against the proletariat is perfectly in line with Marx and his concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The CPC has 96 million members, it isn’t a distinct class, it represents the will of the people and as such has a higher than 95% approval rate. Their implication is that the CPC is some third ruling class, and not the instrument of proletarian supremacy, which is why I corrected it.

              Your response doesn’t address any of how I analyzed their argument, by insisting I am “splitting hairs” by pointing out how the class dynamics of a bourgeois state and a proletarian state are fundamentally different, and that difference is that the proletarian state represents the real will of the people while the bourgeois state does not.

              • Windex007@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 days ago

                This is where I think the conversations always break down on ml.

                You fervently assert things like a 95% approval rating while selectively ignoring the “social credit” system that punishes people who don’t approve. You use large party employment to justify some kind of perfect overlap between the proletariat and the government. Where do you think the real decision making is done? Do you think it isn’t a tiny fraction of party elite? How would you view these things through the lens of manufactured consent?

                I don’t think it’s any better in a western capitalist system, but I’m not going to deceive myself into thinking that china is running fundamentally differently than any western oligarchy.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 days ago

                  It’s more that liberals like yourself directly ignoring 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 your claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” you hint at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner you imply it does.

                  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.

                • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 days ago

                  The “social credit system” was made to hold financial and privately-run institutions to account, and prevent companies and organizations from committing fraud and polluting the environment. Even US capitalist mouthpieces like foreign policy agree with this.

                  The government does assign universal social credit codes to companies and organizations, which they use as an ID number for registration, tax payments, and other activities, while all individuals have a national ID number. The existing social credit blacklists use these numbers, as do almost all activities in China. But these codes are not scores or rankings. Enterprises and professionals in various sectors may be graded or ranked, sometimes by industry associations, for specific regulatory purposes like restaurant sanitation. However, the social credit system does not itself produce scores, grades, or assessments of “good” or “bad” social credit. Instead, individuals or companies are blacklisted for specific, relatively serious offenses like fraud and excessive pollution that would generally be offenses anywhere. To be sure, China does regulate speech, association, and other civil rights in ways that many disagree with, and the use of the social credit system to further curtail such rights deserves monitoring.

                  These are basic things the US used to do in the 1950s, but now stopped any pretense of doing. Any regulation against business is considered “authoritarian” now.

                  Meanwhile in the US, having a bad credit score can prevent you from buying a car, house, or even renting an apartment.

                  China uses these scores to hold financial institutions to account, while the US uses scores to prevent ordinary citizens from getting housing. One country is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the other a dictatorship of capital.

                • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  I’m not going to deceive myself into thinking that china is running fundamentally differently than any western oligarchy.

                  You’re choosing to continue deceiving yourself that China is not fundamentally different from any western oligarchy, got it.

  • Azzu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    It is indeed possible for a person/entity to do a good thing and a bad thing. Who would’ve guessed, it’s actually incredibly likely. I’m sure Luigi was no angel and can be criticized about many things, though he likely didn’t have the power to perform systematic human rights transgressions.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    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

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      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.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      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.

      • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          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?

          • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            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.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 days ago
              1. 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.

              2. 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.

              3. 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.

              • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 days ago

                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).

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 days ago
                  1. 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?

                  2. I would love to see any proof behind this other than vibes. Until then, the logical conclusion is likely the correct one.

                  3. Same as 2, I would love to see any proof that isn’t just vibes.

  • forgotmylastusername@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Many of the chronically online social media poster (read: western professional class) are closer to the CEO than they are to any other group. The temporarily embarrassed millionaires as they’re also known.

    Statistically a not insignificant number of them are millionaires by net worth. Especially when we consider demographics where it’s mainly tech workers. But of course that doesn’t count because of some indeterminate line between evil CEO and average Joe who worked hard.

    The cognitive dissonance is that they’re all part of the same system. Climbing the same ladder. In any other context these people are bragging about being executive of some random startup or whatever.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      They’re not, they just think they are. They’re every bit as oppressed and the sharing of the imperial spoils hasn’t been a thing since at least the fall of the USSR, once there was literally no alternative. Now there is an alternative but the population has been so thoroughly propagandized that you mention any enemy of the State Dept and they start frothing at the mouth.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Reposting my comment from below.


      The “social credit system” was made to hold financial and privately-run institutions to account, and prevent companies and organizations from committing fraud and polluting the environment. Even US capitalist mouthpieces like foreign policy agree with this.

      The government does assign universal social credit codes to companies and organizations, which they use as an ID number for registration, tax payments, and other activities, while all individuals have a national ID number. The existing social credit blacklists use these numbers, as do almost all activities in China. But these codes are not scores or rankings. Enterprises and professionals in various sectors may be graded or ranked, sometimes by industry associations, for specific regulatory purposes like restaurant sanitation. However, the social credit system does not itself produce scores, grades, or assessments of “good” or “bad” social credit. Instead, individuals or companies are blacklisted for specific, relatively serious offenses like fraud and excessive pollution that would generally be offenses anywhere. To be sure, China does regulate speech, association, and other civil rights in ways that many disagree with, and the use of the social credit system to further curtail such rights deserves monitoring.

      These are basic things the US used to do in the 1950s, but now stopped any pretense of doing. Any regulation against business is considered “authoritarian” now.

      Meanwhile in the US, having a bad credit score can prevent you from buying a car, house, or even renting an apartment.

      China uses these scores to hold financial institutions to account, while the US uses scores to prevent ordinary citizens from getting housing. One country is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the other a dictatorship of capital.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      which is why it boggles my mind that liberals don’t connect the dots