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.
Right. There's clearly two distinct variants of the state exerting its power to oppress the classes that aren't ruling, the subtle controlling variant and the overtly violent one. I think this is true of the state in both hands, the bourgeoise state and the proletarian state respectively. We just don't have clear names for it and "fascism" was created as a distinct ideology to convert the liberal state into because otherwise you couldn't make the argument that liberalism is friendly and nice. The bourgeoisie require liberalism to be distinct from fascism in order to maintain the illusion of friendly and tolerable rulers. No such distinction has been given to the proletarian state and maybe that's actually something we should be doing in some way.
Theres also Dimitrov's definition of fascism as the open, terroristic dictatorship of finance capital, with the difference between liberal and fascist is whether the bourguoise hide their rule behind parliamentary democracy. Perhaps you could have an open, terroristic dictatorship of the proletariat in response to crisis (ex. the great purge, the cultural revolution, war communism, ect) and a more hidden dictatorship of the proletariat (modern china)
Right, that's much better. And part of me wonders whether this knowledge can be beneficial to us for the same reasons it is beneficial to liberalism.
Part of me wonders whether this is already unconsciously happening among leftists with the word socialism vs communism. Even many people that want actual communism will separate the two, and they do this mainly because communism already has been tarred with this sort of violent oppressive image.
It seems like something thats only really useful for communist parties in power, outside like serving as some kind of theoretical justification or whatever for the excesses of the purge, for example
openly calling it the "dictatorship of the proletariat" leaves open the possibility of an outward dictatorship
Hmm. I'm not sure.
I feel like if the capitalists weren't in power the proletarian state would be 110% pushing the "capitalism is fascism" argument and representing capitalism as just fascism. All the horrors of it. All the time. The proletarian propaganda against capitalism would be driving the knife in just as hard as the bourgeoise propaganda currently drives the knife into communism via representing it as all the purge and all that.
In that situation capitalists would benefit very greatly from separating themselves from fascism, and representing themselves as the very friendliest variant, the nicest socdems.
For this same reason I think MLs acting as demsocs has been effective in places like Bolivia, with united mixed-ideology popular parties like MAS.
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.
