Indeed! I am hopeful that they do actually represent the proletariat, and there is some great evidence for that. I just do not know enough about the internal politics. They certainly do not represent the capitalists.
The state isn’t outside class struggle, so it helps to understand that if they do not serve capitalists, who else could they serve? The peasantry are nearly gone at this point, leaving the petite bourgeoisie, national bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. We struck out the big bourgeoisie, leaving petite and proletariat, and what helps narrow this down is that the well-being of the whole of society is what is prioritized, which benefits primarily the proletariat, and that their goal is collectivization of production and distribution, which hurts the petite bourgeoisie.
The commanding heights of China’s economy are publicly owned, and the private corporations that do exist are heavily controlled by “golden shares” the CPC owns. Billionaires exist because private property still exists, and private property exists because markets are useful for socializing production. The social surplus is still oriented towards socialist development. The marketization of small and medium firms is in service of socializing production so that it may develop and be folded into the public sector, not for the sake of capitalist class interests.
I dunno, I could see private property existing without letting people hoard billions. It’s just very disappointing to see that the prime example of today’s socialism has billionaires running megacorps.
Work in progress I suppose but understandable how to some that sorta takes the enthusiasm for the ideology out of it for some
You’re getting fixated on an arbitrary level of wealth, rather than relations of production and distribution, and using this as reason to be disappointed. It’s this self-defeating obsession with “purity” that is holding the western left back, and it has roots in cultural Christianity. For many western leftists, it would be better for China to be poor but more dogmatic and anti-Marxist as they were under the Gang of Four than to course-correct and uplift the working classes.
What level of wealth is too much to allow, and how did you come to that conclusion? Why does this take priority over the scientific basis of socializing production and leveraging markets to accelerate this process?
I mean we cap it at billion. I’d be fine with capping it at much lower too but not allowing someone to hoard billions off the work of other people is at least achievable goal.
It’s bad because there’s no wealth like that without exploitation. And in a billion, there’s shitload of exploitation. More of the profits should go to the workers and not feeding some megawealthy elite.
How did you come to that conclusion? It seems like it’s just vibes, which is my point. Your conclusion that China isn’t doing enough is arbitrary, not scientific.
Why does this take priority over the scientific basis of socializing production and leveraging markets to accelerate this process?
You are making an arbitrary, moralist argument, not an argument based on what’s best for the people of China. It’s an argument based on perceived purity, not science, and as such it falls into the same trappings as the Gang of Four.
Yeah, but unlike the US, those billionaires do not control the government. The government is controlled by the CCP.
It’s the dictatorship of the (people who say they represent) the proletariat. Not the dictatorship of the people who buy the most politicians.
Yaaayyyy…
To clarify, the PRC is a dictatorship of the proletariat. The CPC is the organization of the proletariat, not its own distinct class.
Indeed! I am hopeful that they do actually represent the proletariat, and there is some great evidence for that. I just do not know enough about the internal politics. They certainly do not represent the capitalists.
The state isn’t outside class struggle, so it helps to understand that if they do not serve capitalists, who else could they serve? The peasantry are nearly gone at this point, leaving the petite bourgeoisie, national bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. We struck out the big bourgeoisie, leaving petite and proletariat, and what helps narrow this down is that the well-being of the whole of society is what is prioritized, which benefits primarily the proletariat, and that their goal is collectivization of production and distribution, which hurts the petite bourgeoisie.
It’s just a very capitalistic seeming thing to have billionaires and huge private corporations. Something familiar to many capitalist countries.
The commanding heights of China’s economy are publicly owned, and the private corporations that do exist are heavily controlled by “golden shares” the CPC owns. Billionaires exist because private property still exists, and private property exists because markets are useful for socializing production. The social surplus is still oriented towards socialist development. The marketization of small and medium firms is in service of socializing production so that it may develop and be folded into the public sector, not for the sake of capitalist class interests.
I dunno, I could see private property existing without letting people hoard billions. It’s just very disappointing to see that the prime example of today’s socialism has billionaires running megacorps.
Work in progress I suppose but understandable how to some that sorta takes the enthusiasm for the ideology out of it for some
You’re getting fixated on an arbitrary level of wealth, rather than relations of production and distribution, and using this as reason to be disappointed. It’s this self-defeating obsession with “purity” that is holding the western left back, and it has roots in cultural Christianity. For many western leftists, it would be better for China to be poor but more dogmatic and anti-Marxist as they were under the Gang of Four than to course-correct and uplift the working classes.
I’m fixating people being allowed to hoard billions off the labour of others. I don’t think it’s a very high horse to be on lol
What level of wealth is too much to allow, and how did you come to that conclusion? Why does this take priority over the scientific basis of socializing production and leveraging markets to accelerate this process?
I mean we cap it at billion. I’d be fine with capping it at much lower too but not allowing someone to hoard billions off the work of other people is at least achievable goal.
It’s bad because there’s no wealth like that without exploitation. And in a billion, there’s shitload of exploitation. More of the profits should go to the workers and not feeding some megawealthy elite.
But that’s just my take.
You didn’t answer my questions:
How did you come to that conclusion? It seems like it’s just vibes, which is my point. Your conclusion that China isn’t doing enough is arbitrary, not scientific.
Why does this take priority over the scientific basis of socializing production and leveraging markets to accelerate this process?
You are making an arbitrary, moralist argument, not an argument based on what’s best for the people of China. It’s an argument based on perceived purity, not science, and as such it falls into the same trappings as the Gang of Four.