• Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    And would you agree that by enabling people to become billionaires makes them quite the opposite of communist?

    I will say, they have at least as st made a show of keeping a leash on them so far, executing ones for corruption/embezzlement is good, I think these types of things are a continuum, if they allow the capitalists they’re attempting to instrumentalize to actually solidify political power within the country I would agree that anything they reach could never be called communism. That’s why I think it’s sort of a Faustian bargain.

    Almost like everyone at the top in every country is the actual problem?

    This last decade has made me acutely aware of this point, regime change begins at home.

    • intresteph@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      7 days ago

      Those executions are just for show. And change will only happen at the end of a blade… but pointing up, not down to the people. That includes the people of the west.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        How can execution of billionaires be “for show?” Are they supporting billionaires, or killing the ones that step out of line? Which is it?

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            Is Engels “wumao?”

            Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

            Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

            Do you think the PRC can summon more developed productive forces with the swish and flick of a wand? The entire purpose of Scientific Socialism is analyzing that markets and public ownership are both tools, and each is more or less effective at different points in development. Half the PRC’s economy is in the public sector, governing industries like steel, infrastructure, energy, etc, which all place reliance on the public sector from the private sector, which is not as developed and generally governs more complex industries at lower levels of development.