• Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      212·
      11 days ago

      Bro but they did it dictatorshiply 😭 in a real democracy you’d yell at them online, get arrested by Homeland Security, and politicians give them another 500 million in subsidies and tax breaks.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        174·
        11 days ago

        Not sure. But the US just executed an innocent man, Marcellus Williams, just a few months ago.

        Some more US legal system fun facts!

        • The US currently operates a system of slave labor camps, including at least 54 prison farms involved in agricultural slave labor. Outside of agricultural slavery, Federal Prison Industries operates a multi-billion dollar industry with ~ 52 prison factories , where prisoners produce furniture, clothing, circuit boards, products for the military, computer aided design services, call center support for private companies. 1, 2, 3
        • The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world. Even individual US states outrank all other countries.
        • The War On Drugs, a policy of arrest and imprisonment targeting minorities, first initiated by Nixon, has over the years created a monstrous system of mass incarceration, resulting in the imprisonment of 1.5 million people each year, with the US having the most prisoners per capita of any nation. One in five black Americans will spend time behind bars due to drug laws. The war has created a permanent underclass of impoverished people who have few educational or job opportunities as a result of being punished for drug offenses, in a vicious cycle of oppression. 1, 2
        • In the present day, ICE (U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement), the police tasked with immigration enforcement, operates over 200 prison camps, housing over 31,000 undocumented people deemed “aliens”, 20,000 of which have no criminal convictions, in the US system of immigration detention. The camps include forced labor (often with contracts from private companies), poor conditions, lack of rights (since the undocumented aren’t considered citizens), and forced deportations, often splitting up families. Detainees are often held for a year without trial, with antiquated court procedures pushing back court dates for months, encouraging many to accept immediate deportation in the hopes of being able to return faster than the court can reach a decision, but forfeiting legal status, in a cruel system of coercion. 1, 2
        • Over 90% of criminal trials in the US are settled not by a judge or jury, but with plea bargaining, a system where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in return for a concession from the prosecutor. It has been statistically shown to benefit prosecutors, who “throw the book” at defendants by presenting a slew of charges, manipulating their fear, who in turn accept a lesser charge, regardless of their innocence, in order to avoid a worst outcome. The number of potentially innocent prisoners coerced into accepting a guilty plea is impossible to calculate. Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients. Plea bargaining is forbidden in most European countries. John Langbein has equated plea bargaining to medieval torture: “There is, of course, a difference between having your limbs crushed if you refuse to confess, or suffering some extra years of imprisonment if you refuse to confess, but the difference is of degree, not kind. Plea bargaining, like torture, is coercive. Like the medieval Europeans, the Americans are now operating a procedural system that engages in condemnation without adjudication.” 1
        • A grand jury is a special legal proceeding in which a prosecutor may hold a trial before the real one, where ~20 jurors listen to evidence and decide whether criminal charges should be brought. Grand juries are rarely made up of a jury of the defendant’s peers, and defendants do not have the right to an attorney, making them essentially show-trials for the prosecution, who often find ways of using grand jury testimony to intimidate the accused, such as leaking stories about grand jury testimony to the media to defame the accused. In the murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice, all of whom were unarmed and killed by police in 2014, grand juries decided in all 3 cases not to pursue criminal trials against the officers. The US and Liberia are the only countries where grand juries are still legal. 1
        • The US system of bail (the practice of releasing suspects before their hearing for money paid to the court) has been criticized as monetizing justice, favoring rich, white collar suspects, over poorer people unable to pay for their release. 1
  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    409·
    10 days ago

    Any “leftist” that thinks the fact that China has billionaires means it therefore isn’t actually Socialist needs to read Marx and Engels. There are many such liberals here in these comments. Marx predicted Socialism to be the next mode of production because markets centralize and create intricate methods of planning. As such, he stated that folding private into the public would be gradual, and by the degree to which industry would develop. From the Manifesto:

    The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

    In even simpler terms, from Engels in Principles of Communism:

    Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

    Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

    That doesn’t mean billionaires are good to have, necessarily, either. It remains a contradiction, but not an uncalculated one. I highly recommend anyone here read China has Billionaires. As much as Marxists want to lower wealth inequality eventually as much as possible (insofar as thr principle "from each according to ability, to each according to needs applies, Marx was no “equalitarian” and railed against them), in the stage of developmemt the PRC is at this would get in the way of development, and could cause Capital Flight and brain drain. Moreover, billionaires provide an easy scapegoat that the USSR didn’t have, and thus all problems of society were directed at the state. It’s important to consider why a Marxist country does what it does, and not immediately assume you know better. The CPC has an over 95% approval rate, you can’t just assume you know what’s best.

    The phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is meant to depict higher stage Communism. Until that is possible, the answer becomes “to each according to his work,” because as Marx said in Critique of the Gotha Programme:

    these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

    At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis. There are genuine Marxist critiques of the PRC that don’t rely on nonsense. If you consider yourself a Marxist, correct your study. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you need one.

    Edit: oh, hello MeanwhileOnGrad users! Why is it that you intentionally cut off 80% of my comment? Moreover, if you disagree, why not comment here directly and counter, rather than hide behind an anticommunist drama post and downvote? Guess my fanclub just isn’t feeling it today, sadly…

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    319·
    12 days ago

    Some resources for a lot of the people below claiming that China is just like any other capitalist country.

    Is China State Capitalist?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          9·
          11 days ago

          Presocialist as in the economy isn’t yet at public ownership and planning levels to be considered fully Socialist, or preparing to transition to Communism? I know you’ve read a lot more than I have so I’m curious what you mean here. I’m still a “baby ML.”

          • Anarcho-Bolshevik@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
            6·
            11 days ago

            As far as I know, capital, the law of value, and generalized commodity production remain phenomenal in the PRC. Their prevalence does seem to be diminishing, though, which is one reason why I think that equating the PRC with something like Imperial America is wrong.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              9·
              11 days ago

              I agree largely, I suppose I just use the term “Socialist” because I believe the Public Sector to be primary and the trends to be towards collectivization. The “stages” of Socialism model common among Chinese Marxists at work.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    3715·
    11 days ago

    The former acted because he was personally affected by a person supporting exploitation within a liberal system, the latter leads an authoritarian regime that allowed their CEOs to do what they do until they got annoying for whatever reasons.

    So if you want to talk objective results here, sure, one of them got a higher kill count. However, who has the moral high ground here is not even up to debate IMO

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      134·
      11 days ago

      Luigi acted out of emotional response to individual trauma of a horribly cruel system, but very little will fundamentally change. The PRC punishes billionaires guilty of massive crimes, such as massive corruption. Which one does have the moral high ground, the one executing of his own volition in a manner that won’t change anything, or the justice system of another country repeatedly working in favor of the people?

      I’d say neither, if you start framing it in terms of morals and not material improvements for the working class you accept that Luigi didn’t change anything, just did what we all want to do. I’m against the.death penalty either way but I’d rather the working class be empowered overall.

    • _lunar@lemmy.ml
      91·
      11 days ago

      if by “annoying” you mean exploitative in ways that are tolerated in liberal systems but not in a sane, well-planned system that actually represents its people, sure

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      1723·
      11 days ago

      One has a 95% approval rate, which amounts to some 900 million working age adults alone, and is the leader of a party of over 93 million. His actions also don’t stop there, but rather continue in the monumental BRI uplifting hundreds of millions in Africa and Central Asia, as well as the total eradication of poverty in China and the development of twice as much green energy than the rest of the world combined.

      I liked Brian Thompson getting his due, absolutely, but let’s fucking pipe down lmao. The point was if y’all want to really stick it to CEOs, you better start organizing so y’all can get em in a way the pigs would be helpless to stop.

      allowed their CEOs to do what they do until they got annoying for whatever reasons.

      Again, libs just going by vibes and absolutely zero investigation, let alone evidence.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          114·
          11 days ago

          Copying my comment over here, as it’s highly relevant:

          It’s more that liberals like yourself directly ignore 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 claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."

          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.

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          128·
          11 days ago

          The authoritarian Harvard and Pew polls which reported such a number? Lmao yall are so stubbornly committed to chauvinism even if a million Chinese came up to you to tell you you’d be unconvinced. There’s literally dozens of western polls which confirm it, it’s not up for debate, denying it is as ridiculous as denying the existence of the moon.

          Being incredibly adept at mental gymnastics isn’t critical thinking. What part of parroting the headlines you get from corporate media says “critical thinking” to you? I feel super bad for my American comrades trying to organize and make things better when half the country is somehow even dumber than this.

          • _lunar@lemmy.ml
            102·
            11 days ago

            stormfront.world users downvoting facts when they don’t fit their racist vibes smh

            you hate to see it

      • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
        16·
        11 days ago

        The one which has the high approval rate has a very good working relationship with billionaires which kisses the government’s feet, the type of government we will be seeing in the USA for the next four years.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          83·
          11 days ago

          So if the government is run by a party people greatly approve of and said party dominates billionaires, who otherwise run rampant in countries like the US, this is a good thing and the people love it. However, you also expect a Communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years? What on Earth kind of fanfiction is this? How on Earth is Trump going to wrangle billionaires under him when the entire US state apparatus is designed from the ground up to represent billionaire interests?

          • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
            15·
            10 days ago

            who otherwise run rampant in countries like the US, this is a good thing

            Billionaires are not fine in any of the cases, neither when they run rampant or when they are subdued by the government to support their agenda and narrative. You can not take two bad cases A and B and then say B is not A therefore it is good. That is a logical fallacy.

            you also expect a Communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years?

            I don’t expect a communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years, all I am saying is that I expect them to subdue billionaires into obedience like China does. That is not communism to me. Whatever the overall arching goal of China and USA is for subduing millionaires, I think they meet in the common denominator: wanting have absolute control everything and I think there is a word for that kind of state.

            How on Earth is Trump going to wrangle billionaires under him when the entire US state apparatus is designed from the ground up to represent billionaire interests?

            Whether or not Trump will be able to achieve it we will see. But he can still do it in a way that represents billionaire interests: all he has to do is convince the billionaires that it is in their interest to support him. It will likely through mixtures of bribery and intimidation attempts. Of course billionaires might get threatened by him and try to burn him to the ground as well.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              7·
              10 days ago

              1. How do you get rid of Billionaires while remaining interlocked in a global economy and not suffer from Capital Flight and Brain Drain? Decouple and go the same way as the USSR? Ultraleftists like yourself reject Marx and let right take priority over what’s possible at the present moment, and risk the entire Socialist project.

              2. What has given you the impression that the US government can subdue Billionaires, let alone will? The last time Trump was in power the opposite was the case, and that has consistently been true for every presidency.

              3. This is silly. Trump is in this to get rich, his interests are in billionaires getting richer. He isn’t going to “subdue” anyone for those aims.

              • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
                14·
                10 days ago

                1

                Interlocked in a global economy is an understatement for a country in which millions of its citizens work for US based multinational enterprises owned by billionaires. They are at this state organic extensions of each other, cut one out and the other likely dies. Very similar to clothing sector in India, Bangladesh etc but for other sectors (like electronics I suppose).

                The question you asked is a difficult one I will give you that. I have no dreams (well I mean sometimes I do but don’t believe the practicality of it) of getting rid of all billionaires all at once. It is a bit like cancer I guess which must operated on surgically. Going to a billionaire free society is one of the many possible pathways that can lead from subduing billionaires. But at this point all you are presenting me with is the possible good-will of Chinese government. A more simplest explanation is that it simply is a very authoritarian government.

                2

                Can? I don’t know. I believe Trump will try. And he will try precisely because of the reasons you have presented. US is run by billionaires, if you subdue billionaires then you are the most powerful man in US. I think Trump is deluded enough to try this given that Elon likely also shares the same goal with him, perhaps even more enthusiastic than Trump about it. As I said above, there may be many reasons why a government tries to subdue billionaires, getting rid of them is just one of many such reasons.

                3

                Well after you subdue the billionaires, it is entirely up to you to decide how to use that power. Trump will %100 sure use it to get more powerful himself, might even try to change things so that he can be a president the next term as well. In the simplest cases, he will make forced deals that will immensely benefit the businesses he owns (well now his sons “own” them if you believe that).

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  6·
                  10 days ago

                  1. You are correct that the PRC’s economy is tied with the rest of the world. This is by design. The PRC witnessed the fall of the USSR in real time, and decided to take the opposite approach while still working towards Socialism: make themselves the producers of the world so the US can’t directly oppose them. This has paid off in spades. Further, what is “authoritarian?” What mechanically gives rise to that, why does it exist, and why is it bad? Is there an arbitrary level where democracy turns to authoritarianism?

                  2. I would love to see any proof behind this other than vibes. Until then, the logical conclusion is likely the correct one.

                  3. Same as 2, I would love to see any proof that isn’t just vibes.

    • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      192·
      11 days ago

      Taking a life is the most authoritarian act there is, the CEO certainly didnt consent lmao

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      16·
      11 days ago

      The authorization of CEO execution sounds like a good thing. People are clearly singing for it, so why not make it policy?

      • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
        144·
        11 days ago

        bc when the gubmint do thing it makes it communist and that’s literally like that book with the animals at the farm

      • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
        4124·
        11 days ago

        Luigi’s alleged actions were an attempt at drawing attention to social issues. Xi Jinping’s actions on the other hand are attempts at violently suppressing opposition ergo authoritarianism.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          319·
          11 days ago

          Can you provide any support for your argument that the PRC executes billionaires because of opposition, and not, say, massive corruption? Because you again seem to be making up a narrative to suit your present biases without looking at any sources.

          • recreationalcatheter@lemm.eeEnglish
            313·
            11 days ago

            That’s a fun way of saying the government consumes you if you commit wrongthink. That’s authoritarian lol.

            • _lunar@lemmy.ml
              101·
              11 days ago

              so according to your own definition, luigi killed that CEO for committing wrongthink and is authoritarian.

              like davel just showed you, they’re doing the exact same thing, but it’s only bad to you when it’s law and not adventurism. anarchists or whatever you want to call yourself really are just vibes-based and it’s so fucking annoying and reductive. you will never accomplish anything because you instinctively oppose progress as “authoritarian” when it’s actually made. you just want to feel like a rebel no matter what kind of system you’re living in.

            • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
              102·
              11 days ago

              If only Adolf Eichmann had committed his atrocities 10 years later or so, all he had to do was say “the authoritarians are canceling me for wrongthink, literally 1984” and you liberals would have ate it the fuck up

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      132·
      11 days ago

      which is why it boggles my mind that liberals don’t connect the dots

  • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
    194·
    10 days ago

    All this comment section proves is that if the only thing that changed was that Thompson was a Chinese healthcare CEO called Zhao Qiang and got clapped by the government libs would be calling him a working class hero and a martyr like the fucking NYT.

  • davel@lemmy.mlEnglish
    142·
    10 days ago

    Wow this one really brought out the votes, both kinds 😂

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      2028·
      12 days ago

      Lmao. There’s a Joe McCarthy inside every gringo. Nice thought terminating cliche tho.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      9·
      10 days ago

      It really hit the right balance, it prompted discussion in what is (hopefully) a productive manner by highlighting mass support for violence against billionaires compared to the actions of AES states. Hopefully people start reading Marx after this.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      2110·
      11 days ago

      Won’t someone think of the poor billionaires?! 😭 Communism is scary… I don’t think I want the Proletariat to have power after all, those billionaires seem so cool and fun… /s

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        202·
        11 days ago

        Nothing is more terrifying to liberals, than a government having capitalists under their thumb, and serving the people, rather than the other way around as is normal in their “superior” capitalist dictatorships.

  • Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
    6·
    10 days ago

    This is good agitation. Im not a blanket supporter but its been a good thread with a lot of decent links worthy of critical support. Lemmy world needed this lmao

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      71·
      10 days ago

      When you see them seethe through the entire script and react to articles like you showed a cross to nosferatu you know they’re learning without their consent

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    95·
    12 days ago

    Playing connect-the-dots by just scribbling whatever we want on top of the dots