126
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
126 points (89.4% liked)
Socialism
5821 readers
1 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wonder how many houses this guy own
What an odd thing to wonder. Do you see Chinese state functionaries tooling around the world in megayachts?
What does a house have to do with a yacht though? Not everyone sails the open seas.
China is the second country in the world by number of billionares. In europe cinese businessmen with ties to the government have been buying football clubs and luxury shit for a decade.
Unlike in capitalist states[1][2], the Chinese billionaires don’t run the Chinese state[3][4].
Wow that website! The way it does the links to references as you scroll is so responsive and smooth. EDIT: This is an amazing read, thank you for sharing this!
Marxists do be extremely particular, haha
A "curious approach on billionares" sound much like billionares apologia to me. China has greedy vermin billionares like the rest of the world. A quick search for "chinese megayachts" will show what you are looking for.
Since you’re not going to actually read it, I guess you’ll never know.
I didn’t say there aren’t billionaires with megayachts, I said, “Do you see Chinese state functionaries tooling around the world in megayachts?”
And i didn't ask how many megayachts the guy own i asked how many houses he own. You don't really get to see state functionaries of any state tooling around in megayachts because they all try to keep a low profile, see putin and his proxy yachts.
They aren't perfect, and as stated elsewhere they are in a period of Dengist based socialism. However, they are extremely successful, very popular within their country from all sources that could be called evidence (especially compared to the US government), and do far less to acquiesce to the billionaires compared to West, seemingly (charging and sentencing billionaires for corruption, cracking down on financiers, etc). I think another user had a good point too about looking at the amount they have per capital.
They are the most successful nation practicing a form of socialism in the modern world and offering an alternative to liberal capitalism.
There's a reason it's called critical support.
But they aren’t buying them in china so it doesn’t count. ;)
In china they are probably buying chinese football teams and skyscrapers, i don't live there.
Those are parks and monuments, they aren’t meant to be occupied silly ;)
Wasn't there a huge scandal with Evergrande surrounding just how much of Chinese requirements were tied to real estate? Doesn't that directly contradict what Xi saying here?
Not to mention, China has its own homeless problem - let's not act like they're doing so much better.
Yes, which is why the Chinese state intentionally popped the real estate bubble and left the capitalists out to dry.
.
Compare that to Obama, who bailed out the private banks at the expense of people with home mortgages, banks that knowingly wrote those bad mortgages. Michael Hudson, 2023: Why the Bank Crisis isn’t Over
The Federal Reserve is just the cartel of the US private banks, whereas banking in China is predominantly state owned. The Chinese state both runs these banks and has fiat monetary sovereignty, so it’s not answerable to the capitalists like the US is.
Bonus info on fiat monetary sovereignty: Why The Government Has Infinite Money
[Citation needed]
Seems to me that the fact that 90% of families in China own their home, with 80% of these homes are owned outright is a more important thing to focus on. That's just me though.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes
Socialism is not a battle between america and china. Who owns skyscraper in china?
Socialism is a transitional period where the working class holds power in society, but capitalist relations have not yet been abolished. https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3228-lenin-s-three-theoretical-arguments-about-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat
I wouldn't define socialism as just a period of time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I'm wondering about how many houses own the state leader that comes out with the quote "houses are not for speculation"
You're far out of your depth if you are linking the Wiki article on "Socialism" to a Marxist that is recommending a synopsis on Lenin to you.
If you want something a bit easier to get into than Lenin, I really like the article What is Socialism? It's a quick, 30 minute read. The gist of the article is that Socialism is about what is dominant within a system, in Socialism central planning, public ownership, and the proletariat at large are dominant, while in Capitalism the bourgeoisie, private ownership, and markets are dominant.
In the PRC, the public sector makes up half of the economy and is growing, and Capital is trapped in a bidcage model while markets coalesce into monopolist syndicates, making themselves ripe for public ownership and central planning. The PRC is therefore Socialist.
Read the link, socialism date way before Lenin and it's not a political party.
Read the link, everyone knows that. You don't have a grand trump card in the wiki link. We are specifically referring to Marxist Socialism, not the nebulous historical usage of the term, because we are on a Marxist community.
That's a good clarification. I didn't know this is a marxist community it's not specified anywhere
The hammer and sickle if nothing else should give it away. You can talk about other forms of Socialism if you want.
Socialism isn't a period of time, it's a stage of development. Meanwhile, you're making some claim about how many houses Xi owns, so it's on you to tell us.
The guy linked a Wikipedia article on Socialism after you sent him to Verso Books. The brain is so smooth on that one.
you can always tell when people get all their political views from wikipedia 😆
You also can tell when people are biased and don't really know much history
I see you've made a self referential comment there because it's pretty obvious you are one of those people given prior ignorant statements you've made in this very thread.
go ahead and point to the ignorant statements
You linking to wikipedia repeatedly when trying to define socialism.
You are the one who tried to define socialism and come up with a reductive definition. The wikipedia page on socialism covers the broad aspects of socialism and its history.
I did not come up with a reductive definition, and I linked you a detailed explanation of what socialism actually is and its relation to communism. You never addressed that, and just continued to spam your wiki link. You're like a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Wikipedia is a good source for history. The page on socialism contains the major key events and enough cross links, the history section for example redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism
I encourage you to study more history and not just a specific period of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I encourage you to take your own advice and actually study instead of skimming wikipedia. You can start by studying the verso link I gave you earlier.