https://twitter.com/calebmaupin/status/1344166951401254912

  • Whateveryoulike [comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    the ideal that limiting their wealth is better for morale or something

    While the take that it would be idealist is nice and sounds Marxist there is also the concentration of power that goes together with capital. While it doesn't change the system and the capitalists do still have their class conflict with the working class, having more of them with lower wealth means they have a harder time organizing and a harder time to become a class actor (similarly to the separation of workers in different countries).

    While any Marxist and Dengist perspective for that matter ought to challenge the system and existence of capital in the current form (by taking over the means of production and holding the power (of the state) to regulate them) and facilitate socialist reforms, develop productive forces and such, just taking away capital isn't Marxist.

    Hindering power of capitalists can be Marxist though, just has to be thought through and be implemented from a position of power (and at that points most would just do away with billionaires - e.g. Cuba).

    The KPCh is wielding power of the state and billionaires are hit with it. Though Xi's conception of what Marxism is and how a nation ought to be lead (and that of the party / party congress of thousands!) obviously varies from many "justice-Marxists" here.

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

      i guess the epistemic rift between the camps is that one part thinks that the power coupled to capital is real here, while the other thinks the fact that a ML party is in government makes the power of capital meaningless. Im in the former camp, I think the fact that some of the pigs are being fucking executed with impunity speaks volumes here