this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
290 points (67.7% liked)
Memes
49990 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The public sector has their own planners, Xi deals more with broad policies and decisions. That's like saying Biden is the "CEO" of Amazon, it doesn't make sense, plus the CPC heavily plans even the Private Sector. This is all in line with Marxism.
... how directly involved do you think any CEO is?
If the state is making policy and planning decisions for both the public and private sectors, how does the distinction even matter? It's like if Biden was Jeff Bezos's boss.
It's just an extremely odd thing to say and paints any leader as a CEO. The coach is the CEO of the football team, the Starbucks manager is the CEO of the store, etc. Etc.
Not an argument. You're just complaining about how there's multiple words for "some schmuck in charge." Do you realize that's incompatible with your prior insistence he is not in charge?
Xi is in the highest seat of the CPC, that doesn't make him a "CEO." Your comment is nonsense word salad.
If you can distinctly disagree with it then it's not word salad. You're just pulling insults from a hat.
The comparison between shmucks-in-charge is crystal clear. No CEO plans and runs an entire company. They have layers of people under them. They are still in charge. They pick those planners, and tell them what to do, in broad terms.
Your argument against this is that the state only has half the economy... and even that is undercut by acknowledging they "heavily plan" the other half.
No, my argument is that framing Xi as a CEO is nonsense. I disagree with the framing as it isn't accurate.
That's not an argument. That's a conclusion. The argument is the "why" part. Why is not not accurate?
You tried arguing why, and missed. That's what all the stuff about layers of planners is about. If those are the actual reasons you reached this conclusion, it should change.
Let me try arguing along your style. "Xi Jinping is a magical fairy."
Oh sorry, do CEOs not exist on your planet? Are they not in executive control of a hierarchy, with only theoretical means to remove them? Do they not set long-term plans and broad strategic goals, within the context of a global market economy? Y'know - the thing you acknowledge Xi Jinping does, as you try to say he shares no qualities whatsoever with people who do the same thing in the private sector?
Because that's what it would take for your response to be anything besides empty signalling to people who dogmatically agree with you just because of who you're defending. Fairies aren't real. CEOs are. National executives share enough in common, at the best of times, that idiots and assholes think states should "be run like a business."
What happens when a state does control half of a country's business, and "heavily plans" the other half?
Xi can be recalled, he just hasn't because he's wildly popular. The other aspects, such as having some level of control, becomes "Xi is a leader." Not a leaders are CEOs.
Hey look, an argument! Why'd you jerk me around seven times before trying that?
He's a leader in charge of goddamn near an entire economy. Half of it - by your own reckoning - directly under the state he controls. The other half - as you say - "heavily planned." How is he not as responsible for those industries as any CEO is responsible for their company? Is it just because he's even higher up the chain?
"CEO" implies he does so so he can personally profit, moreover it implies he is uncontestable. Neither is true, which is why your comparison is akin to calling him a fairy.
CEOs get removed all the time. Fairies still don't exist.
Do you wanna talk about Xi's motives for consolidating power, and how money pales in comparison to deciding which rich assholes get disappeared or executed?
Do you believe the people of China want Xi removed?
You're having a completely different conversation in your head.
You are justifying a nonsense comparison for nonsense reasons.
Says the guy talking about fairies.
Says the one pretending leaders are CEOs.
Some are real fuckin' close. It doesn't have to be all of them, every time.
Statements should make sense and have a purpose.
Again, says guy talking about fairies.
You grasped for a comparison to Biden. Biden can't fire whoever's in charge of a business. Xi can. Xi can have those people executed. That is the power this entire post is celebrating.
Drawing comparisons to the business executives themselves has a basis and a function, no matter how hard you try to pivot into nuh-uhs and non sequiturs.
You haven't proven those claims, though. You keep stating them as though they are fact. This is deeply unserious behavior.
They're your claims.
When I say the state has half the economy - that's your estimate.
When I say they plan the other half too - those are your words.
When I point out these businesses are so clearly beneath the state, that the business's leaders can be executed - that's the only thing this post is about! It is a direct comparison of some guy doming a healthcare exec, and the Chinese government's rather fucking tight control over that entire economy.
I don't think you understand how conversations work.
No, you make unsubstantiated claims of Xi being able to execute whoever he wants, willy nilly, and I ask you to substantiate them. I am not saying my claims are wrong, but yours.
That's what this post is about.
No, it isn't. The PRC executes billionaires guilty of mass crimes such as corruption, not "whoever they want."
Xi is neither a dictator nor a CEO, he is the head of the CPC and the president of China, a largely ceremonial position.
CEOs run private capitalist enterprises. The Chinese state runs public enterprises, so they aren’t run on the logic of capitalism. These public enterprises don’t even need to make a profit, because the Chinese state has fiat monetary sovereignty. In other words, it has infinite money[1].