• hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    16 days ago

    Working class executing CEOs that work against them

    Ruling class executing CEOs who don’t work for them

    Slight difference

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      16 days ago

      That’s an anti-Marxist view of class. What is the “ruling class” you speak of in the PRC? Government isn’t class, but an extension of the class in power, so which class is in power?

      • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        16 days ago

        the ruling class in china is the working class since its a dictatorship of the proletariat. So commentor is kinda right, tho im sure commentor doesn’t mean it that way.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          16 days ago

          Yep, that’s why I framed my question in that manner. If they said bourgeoisie, I would point out how that’s wrong, if they said Proletarian, I would ask why that’s bad, if they said some third class I’d show how that’s anti-Marxist.

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        16 days ago

        It’s the latter part of “no god’s no masters”

        I’m sorry if I’ve insulted Marxist purity

          • Windex007@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            16 days ago

            My point is you had no point. You responded to a FANTASTIC explanation of the difference by splitting hairs on what by your definition qualifies as a class.

            Instead of addressing the argument, you just threw a semantics argument, which I maintain is the terminally online version of pocket sand.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              16 days ago

              I addressed it entirely. The Proletariat executing Billionaires who go against the proletariat is perfectly in line with Marx and his concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The CPC has 96 million members, it isn’t a distinct class, it represents the will of the people and as such has a higher than 95% approval rate. Their implication is that the CPC is some third ruling class, and not the instrument of proletarian supremacy, which is why I corrected it.

              Your response doesn’t address any of how I analyzed their argument, by insisting I am “splitting hairs” by pointing out how the class dynamics of a bourgeois state and a proletarian state are fundamentally different, and that difference is that the proletarian state represents the real will of the people while the bourgeois state does not.

              • Windex007@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                16 days ago

                This is where I think the conversations always break down on ml.

                You fervently assert things like a 95% approval rating while selectively ignoring the “social credit” system that punishes people who don’t approve. You use large party employment to justify some kind of perfect overlap between the proletariat and the government. Where do you think the real decision making is done? Do you think it isn’t a tiny fraction of party elite? How would you view these things through the lens of manufactured consent?

                I don’t think it’s any better in a western capitalist system, but I’m not going to deceive myself into thinking that china is running fundamentally differently than any western oligarchy.

                • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  16 days ago

                  The “social credit system” was made to hold financial and privately-run institutions to account, and prevent companies and organizations from committing fraud and polluting the environment. Even US capitalist mouthpieces like foreign policy agree with this.

                  The government does assign universal social credit codes to companies and organizations, which they use as an ID number for registration, tax payments, and other activities, while all individuals have a national ID number. The existing social credit blacklists use these numbers, as do almost all activities in China. But these codes are not scores or rankings. Enterprises and professionals in various sectors may be graded or ranked, sometimes by industry associations, for specific regulatory purposes like restaurant sanitation. However, the social credit system does not itself produce scores, grades, or assessments of “good” or “bad” social credit. Instead, individuals or companies are blacklisted for specific, relatively serious offenses like fraud and excessive pollution that would generally be offenses anywhere. To be sure, China does regulate speech, association, and other civil rights in ways that many disagree with, and the use of the social credit system to further curtail such rights deserves monitoring.

                  These are basic things the US used to do in the 1950s, but now stopped any pretense of doing. Any regulation against business is considered “authoritarian” now.

                  Meanwhile in the US, having a bad credit score can prevent you from buying a car, house, or even renting an apartment.

                  China uses these scores to hold financial institutions to account, while the US uses scores to prevent ordinary citizens from getting housing. One country is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the other a dictatorship of capital.

                • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  16 days ago

                  I’m not going to deceive myself into thinking that china is running fundamentally differently than any western oligarchy.

                  You’re choosing to continue deceiving yourself that China is not fundamentally different from any western oligarchy, got it.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  16 days ago

                  It’s more that liberals like yourself directly ignoring facts and statistics while blindly repeating vague and unsourced claims of “China Bad,” because it lets you remain comfortable in your pre-existing worldview. Communists do not have such luxury, which is why they seemingly always have endless sources on hand. In your comment here, as an example, you discredit the CPC’s approval with no source. However, if we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against your claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” you hint at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner you imply it does.

                  You are directly decieving yourself because you license yourself to. If you actually looked at real sources and didn’t reject them reflexively, instead of accepting bourgeois media at face value, you’d sit much closer to where I do. You should read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Both are excellent examples of why people don’t change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn’t mean Communists don’t do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these “licenses” to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.

                  • Windex007@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    16 days ago

                    And then the second pillar of why any ml argument falls apart: the insistence that any concerns about how china operates implies that the speaker of those concerns is defending Western status quo.

                    I can envision a more perfect system than China, and guess what, it isn’t anything close to western capitalism. I’ll even go so far as to say that in terms of absolute delta, China may already be closer. Creating a false dichotomy, however, in which it is argued any criticism or concern about China is actually a veiled attempt to maintain the status quo of western capitalism is ridiculous.

                    I mean, look at the overwhelming response to the murder of that CEO. Can we not accept that this is at the very least a significant criticism of the USAs runaway capitalist system? Does that imply an overwhelming desire for a Chinese-styled government? No? Somehow it appears to be empirically the case that people can express criticism against a system without existing in some binary state which implies full throated support of exactly 1 alternative that’s been constructed as part of this false dichotomy that ml users live and die by.

            • comfy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              You responded to a FANTASTIC explanation of the difference by splitting hairs on what by your definition qualifies as a class.

              A fantastic explanation? It literally isn’t an explanation, it’s a comparison of two statements. Which is fine, and so is the critique of those statements to examine their perceived contradictions.

              From the perspective of the CPC and Marxist-Leninist theory, their ruling party represents the working class, just like our ruling parties represent the owner class of CEOs. [wikipedia page: DotP] Obviously that’s a contested claim which not even all Marxists will agree with, but it’s far from splitting hairs. It’s the basic foundation of the comparison, the implicit claim that one is a working class act and the other is not.

              • Windex007@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                16 days ago

                This is the most concise rebuttal and I think you’ve highlighted well where the root of the perceived discord lies.

                If one accepts that the CPC represents the working class, then the critique of the unfair comparison via the meme would be viewed as legitimate.

                If one contests the original assertion, then it does not. To them, Xi memeing a CEO would look to them more like Musk offing Altman.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      16 days ago

      There is never a case of a working class party conquering political power, that hasn’t been demonized by western anti-communist society.

      When the US and its media tells you that the leaders China or Cuba or Vietnam are just “dictators”, why do you believe them?

    • within_epsilon@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      16 days ago

      Absolutely. Power is the difference. Vertical power structures all look the same. Call it communism, but those at the bottom are still ruled by those at the top. Instead give me some of that horizontal, bottom up power. No gods, no masters.