Imagine an American CEO being forced to do this.
On the one hand it’s not quite as good as if they just forcibly took his wealth and did this, but also making him choose almost feels more embarrassing
Definitely, cause you know he's scared shitless of getting the guillotine
Did he really get a choice though? The CPC told him to use his wealth to pay debts, and he's getting money to do that by selling his properties and art.
Because he’s still allowed to keep some which means he has to choose what he gets rid of. It almost feels like making a child clean up their room? But I also don’t know much about the situation at all.
I think maybe if they just seized it all it might have cause some sort of panic with the state of the company or something they wanted to avoid? I hope he's broke by the end of this, should consider himself lucky to just get out alive.
Pretty sure it's more like the relationship the bourgeoise state has with us in a capitalist country.
Better to do enough to scare others and enough to control the situation than to go overboard and cause other problems. When a worker acts out of line the bourgeoise state doesn't come down on him like a tonne of bricks, there's a set of rules and expectations with a clear set of outcomes if those aren't followed.
Same thing if you have a proletarian state controlling the bourgeoisie. You set a clear set of rules and boundaries and simply stay within expectations.
The bourgeoise state doesn't want to go too far and inspire workers into rebellion. The proletarian state also doesn't want to go too far with it.
IFFFFF a threat arises that requires the state to shift it a much stronger and scarier entity then it does so, with liberalism becoming fascism, and with communism becoming uhhh... A scarier communism that cracks down on them more ruthlessly and violently? I don't know how to describe that theoretical shift in gears since we don't really have a different word for it. I think it makes theoretical sense though, that there is a "friendly" variant of communism analogous to liberalism being the "friendly" variant of capitalism and then there is a very violent variant analogous to liberalism when it turns to fascism in order to eliminate the threat to the ruling class. I don't want to call it red fascism because it's not, but the concept makes sense to me, a violent stage of communism that upholds the proletariat as ruling class when there is a threat to it vs a more friendly stage when the threats aren't so strong.
I don't know this is mostly a stream of thought.
War communism? It's not exactly the same concept but I could see the terminology fitting.
I'm not sure really.
It just strikes me as odd that we define fascism separate from liberalism when we agree that fascism is just capitalism defending the ruling class from a threat to it from the left.
It seems to me like there is (or should be) a similar mechanism for when the roles are reversed with a proletarian state and that it would be sensible to define it as different to communism for the sake of consistency.
In Blood in my Eye George Jackson uses the phrase unsecure vs secure as a distinction between naked, open fascism and the more subtle liberalism of a state that would be fascist if push came to shove. That's if I remembered that correctly, it's been a while since I read it.
Thesis: Mao - Anti-Thesis: Deng - Synthesis: Xi.
Huge Xi fan over here.
Chinese authorities have told Evergrande chairman Hui Ka Yan, 63, to use some of his personal wealth to help pay bondholders
"told". I don't think same will happen if U.S politicians "told" CEOs to sell assets.
