The problem with an argument based on “purity” is that we wind back at the Gang of Four, you are fetishizing shared poverty rather than an uplfiting of the working classes. Collective poverty is more “pure” to you and is therefore better. The existence of billionaires is there because of the existence of private property, and private property exists due to the socialization effects of markets for lesser developed industries.
By arbitrarily picking the “1 billion” figure, which doesn’t exist for concrete reasons but instead vibes, you are making the judgment that China isn’t pure because it doesn’t tax enough. Billionaires are not qualitatively different from those with hundreds of millions of dollars, they are both capitalists. The capitalist class itself is being undermined by socialist construction in China, and the working classes are benefiting. You are valuing purity in a religious sense over concrete improvements in the lives of the working classes.
The working class would benefit a lot more of some of that billion was given to the actual workers instead of fattening up some wealthy capitalist’s bank account tbh.
I don’t know what the purity thing is you’re talking about, exactly. Isn’t China a mixed economy?
China already taxes them. Your argument is essentially that the level of taxation is not enough for you, based on nothing except your personal issue with the “billionaire” label. If China taxed at higher rates, this would not qualitatively transform the mode of production and distribution. This is why I say you are focused on “purity,” you’re fixating on what you percieve to be a “blemish” based on nothing but vibes. That’s why I asked why you came up with “1 billion” as the limit, and the only answer you could give was “it sounds bad.”
It’s not the label, it’s the literal amount of wealth and exploitation that entails and how that should be the worker’s wealth, not some one rich person’s.
I don’t care what name or label you use for it. The physical reality is what matters. Not to mention I would have been happy to cap it even earlier lol
If I may interject here comrade, I think I understand where they’re coming from. Taking the most basic sense of the labor theory of value, if a lot of profit is made and concentrated, then a lot of value is being extracted from the laborer, and it’s natural for any worker to be against that, right? Of course, if we take a step back, profit will exist as long as private property exists, so I think explaining why China has markets, how they’re different from capitalist markets, and why China doesn’t just collectivize everything would go a long way here.
I agree, which is why I am trying to center the conversation around why China has capitalists to begin with, by pointing out the arbitrary nature of picking “1 billion” as a wealth cap and using that as a cudgel to beat China with.
I don’t think it’s specific to that though, like I explained. And it’s clearly not enough taxation since people have been able to exploit the workers for an unimaginable pile of money such as that.
Also, USD? I never mentioned USD? Where did that come from?
A socialist society retains capitalist contradictions by its very nature because socialism is the transitional stage of development when the working class takes power, but existing relations of production have not yet been abolished. This is precisely what we see in China today. There are capitalists, they do exploit people, and that is a real contradiction within Chinese society. However, that’s different from saying that these people run the society the way they do in capitalist countries. Saying China is capitalist because it allows a limited form of capitalism to exist because it’s seen as useful for development, is like saying Canada is communist because it has public healthcare.
I already explained why capitalists exist in China, as a dying class used primarily to expedite development of the productive forces in less developed industry. Your response is that they have not been taxed out of existence, but this does not accomplish socialization of the productive forces. Instead, you are making an arbitrary argument based on semi-religious notions of purity. The only conclusion is that you would prefer collective poverty under a more publicly owned system to satisfy your desire for “purity.”
The way to get rid of capitalists is to develop out of relations of production that give rise to them, not to merely tax them out of existence.
As for the point on USD, it’s the international standard for “billionaire.” Do you mean in RMB? If so, this translates to roughly 150 million USD. Why this specific number? Why not 1 billion Francs?
\1. It is a moral take, yeah. Exploitation of worker’s to such degree that you are able to hoard billions is bad imo.
And it’s not just about China but same goes for everywhere.
\2. I don’t believe in your the factuality of your scientific basis for billionaires being necessary. It’s akin to all the trickle downs and whatnot.
The problem with an argument based on “purity” is that we wind back at the Gang of Four, you are fetishizing shared poverty rather than an uplfiting of the working classes. Collective poverty is more “pure” to you and is therefore better. The existence of billionaires is there because of the existence of private property, and private property exists due to the socialization effects of markets for lesser developed industries.
By arbitrarily picking the “1 billion” figure, which doesn’t exist for concrete reasons but instead vibes, you are making the judgment that China isn’t pure because it doesn’t tax enough. Billionaires are not qualitatively different from those with hundreds of millions of dollars, they are both capitalists. The capitalist class itself is being undermined by socialist construction in China, and the working classes are benefiting. You are valuing purity in a religious sense over concrete improvements in the lives of the working classes.
The working class would benefit a lot more of some of that billion was given to the actual workers instead of fattening up some wealthy capitalist’s bank account tbh.
I don’t know what the purity thing is you’re talking about, exactly. Isn’t China a mixed economy?
China already taxes them. Your argument is essentially that the level of taxation is not enough for you, based on nothing except your personal issue with the “billionaire” label. If China taxed at higher rates, this would not qualitatively transform the mode of production and distribution. This is why I say you are focused on “purity,” you’re fixating on what you percieve to be a “blemish” based on nothing but vibes. That’s why I asked why you came up with “1 billion” as the limit, and the only answer you could give was “it sounds bad.”
It’s not the label, it’s the literal amount of wealth and exploitation that entails and how that should be the worker’s wealth, not some one rich person’s.
I don’t care what name or label you use for it. The physical reality is what matters. Not to mention I would have been happy to cap it even earlier lol
Why 1 billion specifically, and not the current level of taxation? Why 1 billion in USD? This is an arbitrary argument.
If I may interject here comrade, I think I understand where they’re coming from. Taking the most basic sense of the labor theory of value, if a lot of profit is made and concentrated, then a lot of value is being extracted from the laborer, and it’s natural for any worker to be against that, right? Of course, if we take a step back, profit will exist as long as private property exists, so I think explaining why China has markets, how they’re different from capitalist markets, and why China doesn’t just collectivize everything would go a long way here.
I agree, which is why I am trying to center the conversation around why China has capitalists to begin with, by pointing out the arbitrary nature of picking “1 billion” as a wealth cap and using that as a cudgel to beat China with.
I don’t think it’s specific to that though, like I explained. And it’s clearly not enough taxation since people have been able to exploit the workers for an unimaginable pile of money such as that.
Also, USD? I never mentioned USD? Where did that come from?
A socialist society retains capitalist contradictions by its very nature because socialism is the transitional stage of development when the working class takes power, but existing relations of production have not yet been abolished. This is precisely what we see in China today. There are capitalists, they do exploit people, and that is a real contradiction within Chinese society. However, that’s different from saying that these people run the society the way they do in capitalist countries. Saying China is capitalist because it allows a limited form of capitalism to exist because it’s seen as useful for development, is like saying Canada is communist because it has public healthcare.
A good read on the subject I can recommend https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
I haven’t made claims about them running the society or that China is capitalist. I said it’s a mixed economy in one comment though.
I already explained why capitalists exist in China, as a dying class used primarily to expedite development of the productive forces in less developed industry. Your response is that they have not been taxed out of existence, but this does not accomplish socialization of the productive forces. Instead, you are making an arbitrary argument based on semi-religious notions of purity. The only conclusion is that you would prefer collective poverty under a more publicly owned system to satisfy your desire for “purity.”
The way to get rid of capitalists is to develop out of relations of production that give rise to them, not to merely tax them out of existence.
As for the point on USD, it’s the international standard for “billionaire.” Do you mean in RMB? If so, this translates to roughly 150 million USD. Why this specific number? Why not 1 billion Francs?
Why do you feel it’s necessary to have billionaires? Not even any wealth level below that but billionaires specifically?