It’s lemmygrad, we’re the spectre. I’d bet at least half of the other instances out there block us, there’s only like 300 dedicated users on this instance, and they still can’t stop complaining about lemmygrad/tankies
It’s lemmygrad, we’re the spectre. I’d bet at least half of the other instances out there block us, there’s only like 300 dedicated users on this instance, and they still can’t stop complaining about lemmygrad/tankies
I mean, I would also call the US a capitalist oligarchy, wouldn't call Biden an oligarch, and would say they've done the same in the past, so yeah I would still call it that personally. That's generally how industrialisation under capitalism goes. I'd even go as far as to say the US and UK had a lot of influence on it getting where it is in the first place, and it's very difficult to do trade with the west in this world without shifting towards capitalism. (Not impossible, but difficult)
Edit: In the definition of oligarchy, a small group of people hold power. I take that as relatively small, so maybe I'm mis using the term. Aristocracy might be a better term, but it's somewhere in the middle
The US has not eliminated poverty. Where did you get that from? In addition, the US has done nothing to help 3rd world countries at all, only to exploit them for resources. Before you say that's what China is doing too, it's not.
I did not say the US eliminated poverty and you didn't say China has eliminated poverty?
The US has indeed exploited countries for resources, but that does mean they haven't also helped in some cases, even if it's a minority of cases
China has eliminated poverty. And China helped in every case, while the US exploited in every case. I don't see how those two are similar.
You're splitting hairs at this point, I don't understand why
How is that "splitting hairs"? If I go to your house and help you build it, is that really the same as blasting it down with explosives?
No, I'm saying you took one small piece of what I said and latched on to it. Let's say the US has never helped another country before for sake of argument. It doesn't change the fact that I see both countries as capitalist aristocracies
Even if China is a capitalist aristocracy, it's done mostly good for the world. Besides, having rich people does not make a country an aristocracy.
I did not say having rich people makes a country an aristocracy, not did I say China has done no good for the world. You assumed that.
Alright, so your point is that China is run by capitalists, therefore it is revisionist and not true communism?
here
My point is that China has a capitalist market economy, and therefore it's not communism. Nothing to do with revisionism. Li's definition of capitalism seems to be narrow, I know it as the ability to own the means of production. If you can own a private company in China, and if that company can profit off of the work of people working for wages, I consider that capitalism. Xu Jiayin of Evergrande Group absolutely benefits from the work of people below him, and they are exchanging their labor for less than it generates. If you consider that to be a feature of communism, then we must have different definitions of communism
It's not communism, yes. But China is on the way to communism, and with what has happened already I am confident it will carry through.