The AT&T antitrust case started in 1974 and ended in 1982 -- back before neoliberal economics became the dominant system in the U.S., i.e., back when we occasionally offered limited resistance to capital.
The most recent big antitrust case is Microsoft, which was decided in 2001. Notably, Microsoft didn't even get broken up, and we allowed the big tech giants of today to come to power in that case's immediate aftermath.
Yeah, that's why I said bell and not microsoft, ms wasn't trust-busted. No disagreement in your analysis either, just that celebrating china for shit noted shitheads nixon, carter and reagan were doing feels like another example of the overton window shifting.
The subreddit reeducated my propaganda-addled brain by talking about capital punishment for billionaires and marx as required secondary and tertiary education.
Critical support for China and critical support for teddy roosevelt's trust busting I guess.
celebrating china for shit noted shitheads nixon, carter and reagan were doing feels like another example of the overton window shifting
I don't see much issue with celebrating a step in the right direction. No one is calling this communism, or even socialism; it's basically just being held up as an example of China keeping capital under control. That's evidence in support of the idea that China intends to keep progressing towards socialism, even if by itself it doesn't prove that contention. And if self-identified communists are credibly opposed to capital, I think they deserve a presumption that they know better how to manage the path than anyone here.
I should have been more specific: self-identifying communists, running a self-identifying communist country, whose actions show they are willing to take on capital in serious ways, likely know more about how to best run that country than we do.
Breaking up Bell is the actual example
*The counter example isn't Jack Ma it's the billionaires they've executed
The AT&T antitrust case started in 1974 and ended in 1982 -- back before neoliberal economics became the dominant system in the U.S., i.e., back when we occasionally offered limited resistance to capital.
The most recent big antitrust case is Microsoft, which was decided in 2001. Notably, Microsoft didn't even get broken up, and we allowed the big tech giants of today to come to power in that case's immediate aftermath.
Yeah, that's why I said bell and not microsoft, ms wasn't trust-busted. No disagreement in your analysis either, just that celebrating china for shit noted shitheads nixon, carter and reagan were doing feels like another example of the overton window shifting.
The subreddit reeducated my propaganda-addled brain by talking about capital punishment for billionaires and marx as required secondary and tertiary education.
Critical support for China and critical support for teddy roosevelt's trust busting I guess.
I don't see much issue with celebrating a step in the right direction. No one is calling this communism, or even socialism; it's basically just being held up as an example of China keeping capital under control. That's evidence in support of the idea that China intends to keep progressing towards socialism, even if by itself it doesn't prove that contention. And if self-identified communists are credibly opposed to capital, I think they deserve a presumption that they know better how to manage the path than anyone here.
Are we not self-identities communists?
I should have been more specific: self-identifying communists, running a self-identifying communist country, whose actions show they are willing to take on capital in serious ways, likely know more about how to best run that country than we do.