this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
332 points (69.4% liked)

Memes

45902 readers
1579 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 72 points 1 week ago (26 children)

Working class executing CEOs that work against them

Ruling class executing CEOs who don't work for them

Slight difference

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 52 points 1 week ago (4 children)
[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (3 children)

One is authoritarian in nature, the other is protestant in nature. These are not the same thing

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 week ago

Taking a life is the most authoritarian act there is, the CEO certainly didnt consent lmao

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The authorization of CEO execution sounds like a good thing. People are clearly singing for it, so why not make it policy?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What are you talking about?

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week 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.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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’

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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...

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thank you for your service comrade. o7

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 week ago (6 children)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 week ago

You really pissed off the .world neolibs with this one. Good work.

[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 31 points 1 week ago (3 children)

This thread is funny because it’s filled with a bunch of libs criticizing but bringing nothing of value to the table except vibes, and communists and comrades providing extensive source material to support their arguments, while avoiding low-hanging fruit like ad hominem.

If you’ve ever done any sort of research into democratic socialism, you’d quickly learn that this is the way. Criticism and self-criticism are at the forefront of cadre training and will make you a better person. If you view a person trying to provide you with educational material as your enemy while you spout off vibe-driven nonsense, you’re not getting the picture and are still hindered by your country’s propaganda, as well your own apathy and ignorance. You’re criticizing people that are passionate because they see a chance to have a better world for all working class—you included—while responding with empty words.

Unchain yourself from the criticisms of figures your country has implanted in you over your lifetime, and think in terms of ideas.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 week ago

and communists and comrades providing extensive source material to support their arguments, while avoiding low-hanging fruit like ad hominem.

sorry I'm late

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Really, I think anyone considering themselves a Leftist needs to 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (16 children)

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

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Some resources for a lot of the people below claiming that China is just like any other capitalist country.

Is China State Capitalist?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago (42 children)

The difference is that Xi is now the CEO.

load more comments (42 replies)
[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The corporate media has been consistent in their response to both.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] recreationalcatheter@lemm.ee 20 points 1 week ago (29 children)

All those uyghur CEOs man.

Laughs in temu/shein

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

25 of the 2,975 deputies attending the second session of the 13th NPC were Uygur, making them have roughly the attendence as a proportion of their polulation overall. The Han ethnicity represented 2,538 seats, and was the second least represented by ratio of the population overall.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[–] r_se_random@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago (46 children)

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

load more comments (46 replies)
[–] carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›