dude i fucking hate them, every time i see jack ma's face on my timeline i want to set that deformed fetus face on fire in front of his children

we think it's a fucking tragedy that china needs a system that allows these disgusting people to exist. it leaves any dignified person with a bad taste in their mouth every time one of these maggots takes a breath.

but assuming that the chinese have to allow them to breathe, which we think just happens to be the case, then what the fuck are they supposed to do? reject reality? act emotionally and risk destroying what they've built?

there will be a time to put these people on the wall, and by god i wish i'm alive then, if only to watch and cheer at every instance of liberals crying over the "genocide". but that time isn't here yet. it just isn't.

regardless of whether you believe in the CPC or not, if they're actual marxists they won't do it right now, unless they go full stupid. and judging by the last 40 years they ain't going fucking stupid.

so for god's sake, argue about the CPC, but over something valid, like how you think they're doing wrong with their MMT, or how they're not doing enough for workers in the tech industry, or how underwhelming their health care system is. but quit the "dwah china has rich people" shit, it's void of meaning¹ :hexbear-shining:

¹ unless you're not a marxist, in that case i completely understand. but marxists aren't supposed to think reality bends to our will, we're supposed to be materialists not idealists

  • Classic_Agency [he/him,comrade/them]
    2·
    4 years ago

    growth needs scale and scale means billionaires

    No, scale means you have big corporations with millions of employees. It does not have to mean you have a small handful of people owning more wealth than the entire GDP of Russia.

    besides, if you do plan to expropriate them at some point, as weird as it sounds it’s far easier to expropriate a handful of billionaires than a million small business owners. do you not remember the mess that was stalin’s collectivization? you think having a small amount of large landowners would have made that job easier or harder?

    Why let them exist in the first place? I get that China is doing capitalism, but they could at least minimise the worst aspects of it. In this case they could absolutely have prevented a class of billionaries and 100 millionaires from emerging but they didn't.

    Also collectivisation in the USSR is a bad example because we are talking about big capitalists instead of rural landowners. In every revolution so far, expropriating industrial capitalists hasn't been a problem for the new state.

    whether they do that or not is dependent on the conditions set for them by whatever government they’re under/over and under the chinese government that money has mostly been turned into reinvestments on the company, they wouldn’t have gotten here otherwise would they?

    If the CPC expropriated the wealth they wouldn't have to worry about creating the right conditions for billionaires to invest, they would just spend the money. It honestly seems to me like letting independent entities control large amounts of capital creates more potential problems than it solves.

    “willing to admit” assumes i want the CPC to be communists and therefore i force myself to believe it somehow. this is false. it hasn’t even been a year since i’ve stated dumb stuff like “china hasn’t been communist since deng xiaoping’s reforms in 78”, i changed my mind when i realized i was most likely wrong. hell, on the chapo sub i used to make fun of CPC stans. but i was wrong, and that’s what i had to admit

    "willing to admit" means that a lot of people say that billionaires have no influence on the Chinese government when in fact it is likely that they have at least some influence.

    as for the power of chinese billionaires: watch this to get a clue, this woman is definitely not a “pro-CPC deluded tankie”, and the yale university is definitely not a “tankie hub”, so i hope you won’t dismiss it as a source

    I'm not going to watch an hour long video right now but thanks for linking it, I will watch it later.

    when she mentions huawei, she says she interviewed the CEO and mentions how he said large companies avoid exploitation because the party takes a closer look at them, unlike smaller private firms, which can go under the party and do bad shit freely

    What exactly does this have to do with billionaires? You are simply saying that larger companies are easier to monitor than smaller ones, which I agree with. But you can have huge corporations without having billionaires at the helm of them.

    • CommieGirl69 [he/him]
      6·
      4 years ago

      No, scale means you have big corporations with millions of employees. It does not have to mean you have a small handful of people owning more wealth than the entire GDP of Russia.

      perhaps russia should try to grow a bit :capitalist-laugh:

      jokes aside, for my first point (how hard it is for expropriating) i have to point out that i see no difference between having a large amount of small companies owned by various individuals and having a small amount of large companies owned by larger groups of people - in the end, both mean "resistance from more people" at the time of expropriation, which is something i want to avoid as much as possible

      for instance, i do believe that the homestead acts played a large part in making america such a rabidly conservative/reactionary/anticommunist country, once you give a huge amount of people petty bourgeois status you get yourself a dangerously large reactionary group

      that's why i mentioned the collectivization, and i agree it's easier to expropriate in the case of industry, but that doesn't mean you won't have the same amount of discontent

      so that makes this point for how i think it's necessary to have the smallest amount of business owners you can

      naturally, a small amount of business owners doesn't mean they have to be billionaires, which leads to my second point:

      If the CPC expropriated the wealth they wouldn’t have to worry about creating the right conditions for billionaires to invest, they would just spend the money.

      as a quick note, they don't have to expropriate wealth to do any investment as they already use MMT for this - this is how they've financed infrastructure, where capital has usually been pretty shit at doing

      the thing is, i agree with marx when he says capitalists are good at one thing, and one thing only: increasing productivity, obviously up to a point where it causes falling rates of profit and makes the profit motive unsustainable/obsolete

      so my second point is: i do think these cunts are better than the CPC at doing the reinvestment on their own companies - again, up to a certain point, which places like america have already reached in many sectors (which is why you have aberrations like planned obsolescence - it's just a consequence of "excess productivity" as it relates to profit margins, and one of the reasons why they're migrating to the financial sector and relying on egregious shit like stock buybacks, though buybacks are a bit more complicated than that)

      this is what the CPC means by "moderately prosperous" obviously - productive enough that the profit motive is no longer a necessary incentive. but they haven't got there yet, unlike other countries

      so, 1) having a small amount of business owners is better, and 2) letting those business owners decide how to use their money is fine up to a certain point (which china hasn't reached yet), which leads to my third point:

      letting independent entities control large amounts of capital creates more potential problems than it solves.

      the CPC has an extremely tight grip on the financial sector. these guys control a large amount of capital, it's true, and having that capital means the CPC will normally try to negotiate with them rather than outright imposing anything unless their hands are forced (such as in the case of xiao jianhua)

      but i think you're overestimating the danger from these guys having a lot of high value assets. it's obviously a tight rope, as is everything, but so far the CPC seems to be using capitalists and not the other way around

      so, to sum it up:

      1. the government doesn't need to tax billionaires to fund any investments, so having billionaires doesn't really mean anything here

      2. i think at the current stage, and obviously the previous ones, heavy taxes on wealth would be counter-productive, though they've gone far enough that the need for heavy loans like in the 90s isn't there anymore (this is a criticism i have of how the party relates to the billionaires currently - though they have started to move away from this, they took a bit too long and still do it far too much)

      3. i think you're overstating the power that their asset values give them in china, especially given how tightly controlled their financial sector is, but this is obviously hard to quantify and we'll have to see

      • Rev [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Can you explain WHY exactly China needs billionaires to expand its productive base (besides some vague “that’s the only way” handwaving)?

        Why can’t the party control the factories, the real estate market, the retail chains, the R&D facilities, etc. directly? Do you really think that if the party were to control all of that directly and at the same time still offer the same lucrative manufacturing conditions to western companies, the western bourgeoisie would turn their nose at continuing to profit because of some purist ideological principles?

        It would seem way more idealist to hold such positions.