You must log in or # to comment.
Post this at another instance that I shall not invoke by name, watch yourself get deleted and maybe even banned.
No way, tankies would never do this /s
hexagonal ursine?
Something bear right?
Not making a point here, I just like numbers:
China has a population of ~1.4 billion
China has 698 billionares
China has the one billionare for every 2,005,730 people.
United States has a population of ~340 million
United States has 724 billionaires
US has one billionaire for every 469,613 people.
Edit: I like numbers. I don’t like Reddit/Lemmy formatting.
I think it’d be better when adjusted for GDP.
China gdp: $17.96 trillion
China has 1 billionare / $25.73 billion GDP or 1 billionare / $18.22 GDP / capita
US gpd: $27.94 trillion
US has 1 billionare / $38.59 billion GDP or 1 billionare / $114.88 GDP / capita
Ohhhh numbers. Very yummy.
Wouldn’t a lower number of billionaires to a higher amount of profits be more favorable to everyone except billionaires? So that particular example actually favors the system in the USA, oddly.
Of course, GDP only accounts for excess goods and services sold to other nations, which for the USA includes financial services like trading platforms and exchanges, heavily skewing their actual production capacity.
I think so, yeah. Also, billionaire means anything more than 1 billion, right? It might help to look at how much wealth they actually have; for example, if one nation has 1 billionaire (with $30 billion) and another has 30 billionaires (each with $1 billion), I wouldn’t argue that the former is especially better off.
I don’t know, seems better to have 1 money hoarding asshole than 30…
Removed by mod
Hell / yeah / brother
This isn’t reddit. -3.14
It’s worth noting, though, that this doesn’t take into account the levels of inequality beyond comparing numbers of billionaires/non-billionaires.
The Gini coefficient is a popular method of measuring economic inequality, on a scale from 0 (total equality) to 1 (one person owns the entire nation’s wealth).
As of 2019, the US and China had Gini coefficients of 0.481 and 0.465 respectively, making them extremely similar in overall wealth inequality, which is extremely high for both nations.
Ooohhh… new types of numbers…
Tonight, we feast…
you are being generous if you think your average reactionary will understand such a heavy concept of per capita
I’m not trying to make anyone understand anything, I just like numbers.
A man of strong conviction, I see.
The numbers have no conviction. The numbers are objective.
numbers are fine i guess
Numbers care not for your approval.
but i have mild approval for them anyway.
It’s a good thing that all that time and resources and blood was spent making the CCP the only instrument of significant political power in China so they could [check notes] as a much-poorer country, have about the same number of billionaires as the poster country for capitalism!
Power to the people('s billionaires)!
did i say anything about the ccp?
in any case the country has seen the unprecedented growth in the economy and quality of life since its inception. not perfect, not too shabby.
did i say anything about the ccp?
The PRC, which is run exclusively by the CCP, is kind of the topic of discussion here. Is that too complex for you to grasp?
in any case the country has seen the unprecedented growth in the econony and quality of life since its inception.
It’s hilarious that tankies throw fits over capitalist countries using the same measure to judge their successes, but immediately resort to it when their favorite fascist state is questioned.
i dont recall throwing any fits about measures of success. the person you are thinking of is not me.
Only reactionary I see here is… you.ml
yo you might be looking into a mirror here. ml is a popular leftist instance, wonder why you hate it mmmmmmmmm 🤔
If factories in your country have suicide nets, maybe you aren’t doing socialism right.
If factories in your country have suicide nets, maybe you aren’t doing domestic governance right.
FTFY
I think both premises are well-justified by the presented evidence. That is to say, doing either effectively makes suicide nets vanishingly unlikely.
One could even go as far as to argue that doing either effectively implies also doing the other effectively at the same time
Why is Winnie the Pooh dressed like a sexual predator?
The two are hardly mutually exclusive…oh, bother…
I hear there’s a major sex-pest issue in the pro-china industry.
sex-pest
I keep seeing this term, can you translate it to American? Is it referring to anyone obsessed with sex, or specifically people who commit sexual assault?
I’ve heard it used, as an American myself. Sex-pest is someone who is bothersome towards others, typically in a harassing way with some thin layer of plausible deniability, in the expectation or hope of getting reluctant sex out of someone else.
Thanks.
Pretty sure it’s just a British way of saying “sexual predator.” I’ve heard it used to describe pretty extreme predator/assaulter behavior.
China is not socialist no matter what they say.
Can you provide more context? Im very confused after skimming the first few paragraphs
It’s a stupid comment practice where they claim ownership of their comment and place what they think is a binding and effective license against AI using that comment.
It literally does nothing. This is the modern equivalent of making a post on Facebook to assert that you have rights and control of your comments there.
Beyond the tools for editing and deletion you have no such rights in the Fediverse and it’s a good way to demonstrate you don’t understand how anything works.
Nothing stops anyone or any entity from indexing, ingesting, or scraping federated content.
comment practice where they claim ownership
Yeah that’s definitely what a creative commons license does.
For people that want to know what it is read the link.
Removed by mod
They put that link in all their comments. It’s got nothing to do with what they say.
Oh lol, thanks for clearing that up
It’s simple: China is an ultra-capitalist nightmare county and anyone who disagrees is either a liar or a fool.
Wow!
Except the Chinese government definitely manipulates prices and has mandates so not just usual privately owned capitalism.
Private businesses manipulate their own prices all the time.
That’s their business and is a part of capitalism. Private ownership.
So China isn’t capitalism because China isn’t capitalism?
Not “ultra capitalism” no.
Yup China has the fastest growing billionaire and millionaire class. It’s no more socialist than America but we need a boogy man, as long as that antagonist isn’t capitalism the wheels towards the cliff will keep turning.
It’s an authoritarian country where labour unions are illegal and the ruling party is dominated by wealthy billionaires. They spew out xenophobic propaganda that claims that foreigners want to repeat the humiliations of the past (over a century ago) and therefore they need strongmen to protect the people.
We probably should just call them fascists, but since they say they’re socialists we believe them. Fascists would never claim to be socialists, they’re known to be super honest about that kind of thing.
Labour unions are illegal? I saw from non-chinese ppl that live there they have strikes all time. Can you provide a sauce?
Labor unions are not illegal. They send a packet of meats to my girlfriend every year. The problem is that this is that only thing they are allowed to do
Global politics in 2024 is pretty much western fascism vs eastern fascism
South, middle, north, periphery, western & eastern citizens suffer
There is actually real generally agreed upon properties of fascism. It’s not just “politicians I’m angry at because the internet told me to be”.
It’s important to understand these things otherwise you’re just falling for the “both sides” rhetoric just as the actual fascists want you to.
Yes, and the properties apply. Umberto Eco’s list is a wonderful source
By no means are the people suffering one of “both sides”
deleted by creator
Honestly, not really anymore.
Biden has saved socialists from Far-Right Coups
It really seems that the U.S. is growing more accepting of international socialism, as long as it’s democratic.
It’s really weird how narratives alone can change the direction of nations,
We used to say we are the arsenal of democracy to justify all the right wing coups we sponsored against socialist leaders, even if they were democratically elected, and now a major US party’s establishment has zero qualms helping socialists if the socialists are the ones who are going to the defense of the global democratic society, because “we’re the defenders of democracy.”
The joking innuendo became a legitimate foreign policy planck!
I think this is part of an overall tone shift in the US’ culture, a rise of Radical Sincerity. Everyone is so burnt out of wink and nod cynicism after decades of it being the norm in one iteration or another, that the punkish backlash to the status quo cynicism and fake smiles is to play what was once made fun of as childish delusion completely straight.
Sincere fantasy stories, abandonment of lampshading tropes, exhaustion with wink and nod fourth wall breaks, shift to a sincere insistence on following through on the values we were told to aspire to, through religious upbringing or through the narrative of national history we were taught.
deleted by creator
Even in the Cold War, it was horrifically uneven. We were cozy with Yugoslavia and intermittently cooperative with the Arab socialist states (and Israel, which was dominated by the at-the-time-actually-left Labour coalitions), but couped the democratic governments of Mossadegh in Iran (who wasn’t even a socialist) and Allende in Chile for seeming a little too ‘red’.
Diving into Cold War history, you realize how much of the lines sold about realpolitik, liberal internationalism, and material conditions are all less important than their defenders present them as.
No one has a plan. There’s no rationality or structure to it. Personal quirks of low-ranking bureaucrats and cultural perceptions of political decorum are often as important as national-scale economic concerns.
It’s why democratic participation and awareness of foreign affairs is so goddamn important. Because otherwise, Mr. Empty Suit in a sinecure position during an unforeseen crisis who had a fucking cold the day a meeting was supposed to happen determines the fate of hundreds of thousands.
Shit’s almost never inevitable.
deleted by creator
Oh, certainly. But an active and involved population can help steer the ship back on course by democratic means when any given foreign policy bureaucrat fucks up.
Yeah, it’s odd honestly, only after effectively defeating marxism-leninism globally has the U.S. started to accept socialism.
Though it probably could’ve been predicted, the Socialist and, to a varying degree, the Communist Parties (France and Italy), had a large amount of influence in the European democracies of the Cold War, and the U.S tolerated it, mostly because those parties upheld democracy. It makes sense that this attitude towards foreign policy would spread to how the U.S. treats any nation globally, not just Europe.
No, but it’s a convenient drum to beat for the right-wing.
It’s an incorrectly framed question, I think. China doesn’t have real, by definition, socialism. If they did then maybe the “US establishment” would come out against it. They’re definitely against the Chinese brand of authoritarian socialism, though, but in that example the term socialism and China mean the same thing so you can’t be wary of the thing because it’s the thing, thats circular logic.
deleted by creator
Absolutely not. If you look hard at the colonialist shitfuckery the US perpetrated during the (so-called) “Cold War”, “socialism” was only the enemy as far as the propaganda and pretexts were concerned - in reality, the insurgencies the US tried to repress and the governments the US undermined were all nationalist in nature.
The US isn’t threatened by socialism because the US defeated any internal socialist threat with Roosevelt’s New Deal - whether they will do that again is anyone’s guess.
All the .ml users showing up to explain that actually real socialism is supposed to produce billionaires, because of reasons.
I mean you could argue an end goal is every person having the effective wealth of a billionaire in terms of being able to have what they need right when they need it and being able to enrich their lives without worry for losing money that might be needed for an emergency later, but that specific stretch point is so far into a post scarcity future it is only a slight exaggeration to say it’s literally the “Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism” meme but as an actual civilization.
the “Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism” meme but as an actual civilization.
We have that. It’s called The United Federation of Planets.
Socialism: A system of government where the country’s wealth is concentrated into a small, ruling class of billionaires, who use the media they own to keep the lower classes fighting with each other while they . . . the rich . . . run off with all the farking money.
Oh wait. that’s capitalism. I don’t know how I got those two systems confused.
Truth is, the number was once well over 698.
Ask Jack ma what happened.
Hate to spoil the fun but as of this year Ma is still heading Alibaba and is worth over $30bn USD.
Well ackshuyally (\s)
/s
Jesus who cares
MxM111 clearly does, so one who at the least
Jesus does.
deleted by creator
Lemmy world and being politically illiterate. Name a better duo.
Lemmy world and being politically illiterate. Name a better duo.
True political literacy is understanding that the PEOPLE’S billionaires are what the REAL path to socialism looks like!
Since China’s economic reforms in the 1980’s, 700 million Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty, accounting for three quarters of worldwide poverty reduction during that time.
Do people here think China should’ve continued Mao’s economic policies? Or do you think the correct path is somewhere in between Mao and Deng? Or are y’all just looking to criticize China regardless of what they do or what the results are, to performatively demonstrate your loyalty to the US government?
You don’t have to answer that. I’ve asked it many times and I know none of y’all have an answer to it, beyond calling me a bot or foreign agent, to avoid the question and to performatively demonstrate your loyalty to the US government. I’d love for someone to prove me wrong, but I also know it won’t happen.
Lemmy.ml user doesn’t understand that there are more than two options for China, and their people can do better than either bad or very bad
A tale as old as time
How about keep the system, but stop trying to pretend it’s not primarily capitalism
Well, I dont think they are socialist, not in the traditional term, but 100% they are not capitalists at all, not like any capitalist experience we had. Until a better one I always call it a post-capitalist technocracy.
Are you coming at it from a pro-capitalist perspective then?
Not really, that’s just my understanding of the meme
I don’t think OP would agree with the position that the economic system itself is fine and it’s just the label that needs to change. But I also don’t think they have any coherent position on the topic beyond “China Bad.” I suppose I could be wrong.
I have no idea what OP thinks of the economic system itself because from my understanding he is only criticizing the label. That’s all I’m saying
Interesting, how do you feel about uyghurs? Also, are you aware that some of these people “lifted out of poverty” were folks in rural areas who were totally fine where they were at. I’m not a big fan of the US government either or other bodies that seriously impinge human rights. I think a correct path forward for China economically is somewhere close to where they’re at now but with more civil liberties.
Also, are you aware that some of these people “lifted out of poverty” were folks in rural areas who were totally fine where they were at.
That’s… certainly a take, alright. I suppose it’s possible that hundreds of millions of rural Chinese were voluntarily choosing to live in extreme poverty out of some sort of commitment to asceticism. I’ll admit that this was not a possibility I had considered before.
I think a correct path forward for China economically is somewhere close to where they’re at now but with more civil liberties.
So then the billionaires aren’t the problem you have with China then, if I’m understanding you.
Yeah it turns out they’re just forcibly uprooting people who are happy where they’re at.
But Liu and other residents allege that the authorities are coercing them into signing away their older, much larger farm homes, demolishing them by force if necessary and not adequately compensating residents for their homes. The residents say the new, smaller houses or high-rise apartments they are being moved into are either too far from their fields, too expensive or ill-suited for their needs as farmers.
I don’t doubt that there were some cases of the government overstepping, or that you can find a couple people out of the hundreds of millions who are dissatisfied. But the figure of hundred of millions refers to people who were living in extreme poverty, which is defined as less than $2 per day, some of the poorest people on the planet. That’s not a lifestyle that’s worth preserving.
Coming back from that tangent though, am I correct that the general economic system and the existence of billionaires are not the problems that you have with China?
Since you bring up their income, do you have some data for the flip side of the coin - how much was cost of living for those people? I grew up with my Chinese dad telling me about buying the day’s vegetables for like a nickel. Granted that was before the 80s, so I’d be interested in any data you have to share.
I’m not op.
Also, a bit of a wry aside, you might actually struggle to find people voicing their dissatisfaction due to the fear of the government relayed multiple times in the article :)
The $2 per day is a figure used by the World Bank. According to this page:
The welfare of people living in different countries can be compared by adjusting for differences in the purchasing power of their currencies.
I don’t know the exact details of the World Bank’s methodology, but I believe the $2 figure is adjusted based on purchasing power.
That sent me down a cool rabbit hole, thanks!
Industrialization is a hell of a drug. During the same period apparently the wealth gap shot up, so chinas got that to contend with. Best of luck to them.
I mean that’s a decent point. More government involvement in the economy, strong regulatory oversight, can stop capitalism from becoming destructive. It’s just that even China’s level of government intrusiveness isn’t enough.
It used to be more intrusive. Personally, I think they’re better off for having toned it down.
If Earth is ever invaded by brain-eating aliens, I’m going to advocate presenting you as our envoy so they think there’s no food here.
Your insults are incredibly creative and I for one appreciate that.
Hey, while you’re here, care to answer the question yourself? You must have an answer if you’re criticizing other answers.
None of the above.
Piss off tankie.
I’m shocked that you can’t answer. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
Government is not the workers or the people. It’s the government, the elite ruling class.
