sure bezos is individually more disgusting than the sympathetic local restaurant owner who asks you how your mom is when he greets you in person, but he doesn't exist simply as an individual: he exists collectively, inside a CLASS

and when the time comes for a truly socialist transition that guy and his class friends are gonna be just as reactionary as any billionaire

not only that, but whatever they lack in financial power individually, they certainly compensate in sheer numbers

so why is it that i often see criticism directed at china being followed by It even has billionaires! as if they would have any less trouble if that property was instead in the hands of a few thousand petty bourgeois

i can't help but feel like this is a vestige of a liberal interpretation of how society works sneaking into the thought of a socialist transition

just imagine what would've happened if instead of kidnapping jack ma the CPC had to kidnap, say, 10,000 store owners how the fuck is that not just outright worse

they're even harder to control as they're constantly flying under the radar - in fact, this is expressed even in china's foreign policy as smaller businesses are by far more guilty of exploitative practices in underdeveloped countries than the larger businesses like huawei

what am i missing here?

  • a_jug_of_marx_piss [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Capital owned by the petite bourgeoisie is qualitatively different from capital owned by the bourgeoisie, just as it is different between the higher and lower echelons of the bourgeoisie. Whether this difference is meaningful is a matter of interpretation, considering we are here comparing the actual existing world with one that is pretty unplausible.

    I guess the specific criticism of China that they have billionaires is kind of strange, considering it implicitly seems to advocate for a version of capitalism that does not produce billionaires, which does not exist.

    • s0ykaf [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Capital owned by the petite bourgeoisie is qualitatively different from capital owned by the bourgeoisie

      certainly the reaction from the bourgeoisie would be different, precisely because their capital has a different nature - but i'm arguing it wouldn't be any more dangerous, maybe even less

      if you nationalize, say, alibaba, you will face a reaction from, for instance, international investors - but i'm skeptical of the idea this would be any worse politically and economically than collectivizing a given amount of small businesses that are equivalent to even 10% of alibaba's output (in fact, i think it would be easier to do the former)

      so a part of me actually thinks consolidation of property, as long as you're able to maintain the monopoly on force and it doesn't have a direct effect on the livelihood of workers (such as their ability to have a home), is preferable to having less wealth (not income, wealth) inequality

      I guess the specific criticism of China that they have billionaires is kind of strange, considering it implicitly seems to advocate for a version of capitalism that does not produce billionaires, which does not exist.

      true