Link to the article

This makes her “strategy” even more baffling than before. How do you know you are down the entire time and do absolutely nothing about policy?

    • miz [any, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      54·
      4 days ago

      Li: At the moment, the Chinese the party state has proven an extraordinary ability to change. I mean, I make the joke: “in America you can change the political party, but you can’t change the policies. In China you cannot change the party, but you can change policies.” So, in the past 66 years, China has been run by one single party. Yet the political changes that have taken place in China in these past 66 years have been wider, and broader, and greater than probably any other major country in modern memory.

      Pilger: So in that time China ceased to be communist. Is that what you’re saying?

      Li: Well, China is a market economy, and it’s a vibrant market economy. But it is not a capitalist country. Here’s why: there’s no way a group of billionaires could control the Politburo as billionaires control American policy-making. So in China you have a vibrant market economy, but capital does not rise above political authority. Capital does not have enshrined rights. In America, capital — the interests of capital and capital itself — has risen above the American nation. The political authority cannot check the power of capital. That’s why America is a capitalist country, and China is not.

      from https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

      • Grapho@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        “[Capitalists] act as if they are being chased by a bear,” wrote Zhang Lin, a Beijing political commentator, in response to these comments. “They are powerless to control the bear, so they are competing to outrun each other to escape the animal.”

        This part absolutely sent me lmao

      • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        23·
        4 days ago

        Yeah. People would defend it by saying they were “hedging their bets” or “being pragmatic.” Which sounds like a solid take. But then I kinda had this epiphany that took the form of a question. “Maybe it’s because they know the outcome doesn’t matter and they’re just funding the theater of the election, rather than trying to get a particular outcome?”