how the fuck are they gonna solve that without another revolution
edit: this is a genuine question btw, not supposed to be a "gotcha"
how the fuck are they gonna solve that without another revolution
edit: this is a genuine question btw, not supposed to be a "gotcha"
i think the problem is a bit more complex than that when it comes to the petty bourgeoisie, because they can't be seen on an individual basis
it's one thing to point a gun at jack ma and nationalize the alibaba group; no one will care but him and a few investors, you create a mere political event which would actually be pretty easy to steer propaganda wise
but expropriating the equivalent wealth from petty bourgeois elements? that's a political nightmare
think stalin and the kulaks; yes, the bolsheviks had the weapons, the actual power, and as such they did manage to collectivize agriculture in the end, but it was a horrible process - most likely far worse than if he only had to expropriate a handful of landlords
it's from the oecd
Not sure how the Kulak thing applies here; the kulaks were more than welcome to continue existing as a class right up until they refused to play their role as had been defined by the state by not only resisting collectivization, but by actively sabotaging that effort by deliberately destroying their harvests in the midst of a national emergency. Had the famine not occurred or had they cooperated during said famine, the kulaks would still have existed as a class. Thus, I feel, is what China is doing right now; their own kulaks are perfectly allowed to run as-is, but if a national emergency takes place that needs their productive forces, those means of production are getting the fuck seized, and god help you if you resist.
i agree
i'm just saying they've created so many "kulaks" in the process that this part:
would be disastrous, just due to the sheer number of reactionaries they have now
The Communist Party alone has almost 100 million members. I think they can handle 10 million or so business owners.