You're viewing a single thread.
Me saying a market regulated by an uncorrupt government can generate wealth for many and generate a middle class.
Okay I know people might hate me for saying this, but isn't this just modern day China? Think about it:
-
While the government is definitely not uncorrupt and has many problems with corruption, Xi has introduced many corruption purges, and billionaires in China have actually faced legal consequences up to the death penalty. When is the last time a billionaire in the west actually faced legal consequences? (Just to be clear I am not pro death penalty, just illustrating a point).
-
China introduced markets with Deng and they are regulated by the government. Though this one is controversial among the left (quite a few Maoists think China could have achieved the same or even better results without the introduction of markets to the point it was done in the 80s and 90s).
-
China has generated wealth for many to the point they likely have the largest middle class on the planet in terms of sheer numbers, and in quality of life indicators such as average life expectancy, China has overtaken the US. They also achieved the largest poverty alleviation campaign in modern history.
This is not to say that China is a perfect country with a spotless human rights record or anything like that, it's to say that we can learn from what they've achieved and take our blinders off. And it's pretty ironic that your meme lines up with that in certain aspects.
I mean, probably as far as it is possible to fulfill ops utopia, probably yeah, and it's still far from being a utopia.
And libs fucking hate china, interestingly enough
It's the one-party system that bothers me, really. When I talk about politics to my one close-ish friend from mainland China, I often feel like she comes from an alien planet
what parts of your political discussions feel like that? and why? if you don't mind me asking.
Lmao they actually went on about Uyghurs and taiwan. They talked to an actual Chinese person and discounted their perspective that the Uyghurs weren't being persecuted and the attitude of both the ROC and the PRC that there is one Taiwan lmao
No, I don't mind you asking. When it comes to talking about race relations in Europe and systemic racism against black people in the US, especially in the US she's of the view that Obama became president = racism solved, this she relates to how many Uyghur people are "actually in power", like black people in the US. I still see a systemic problem.
Another one is when we talk about Taiwan. I'm of the view that a country is made up of land, people, and government, and the people should have a say in who governs them. She thinks Taiwan (and Hongkong) belongs to China because it has always historically belonged to China. Thing is, we both live and work in Germany, but I don't think she knows which parts of Europe used to historically belong to this or that other kingdom that are now divided into different countries.
this she relates to how many Uyghur people are "actually in power.
She would be more or less right, they Uyghurs aren't being persecuted https://xinjiangahr.carrd.co/ or at least not how most libs seem to think of it. There is something to be said of the schools, but it's a far cry from the accusations the west has thrown out (and then recanted because the accusations were lies).
She thinks Taiwan (and Hongkong) belongs to China because it has always historically belonged to China.
Well she would then be in agreement with both the official policy of the ROC and the PRC, so that would be pretty reasonable.
You say libs, but I'm not a liberal. I'm very pro regulations, what Lemmy would say "a leftist".
But, you see, I also believe in democracy. It's slow, but it's a noble idea where citizens are able to decide who governs over the country, and have a say in policy shaping. I personally like being able to vote and go on protests. If the people of Taiwan want to vote, let them vote. It's their lives.
regulations, what Lemmy would say "a leftist".
"I'm as left as they come" lmao. Dawg you're a capitalist, you're a liberal. Learn your terminology.
But, you see, I also believe in democracy. It's slow, but it's a noble idea where citizens are able to decide who governs over the country, and have a say in policy shaping. I personally like being able to vote and go on protests. If the people of Taiwan want to vote, let them vote. It's their lives.
Yeah me too, which is why I'm against a military dictatorship installed by the United States, existing on an island where it murdered millions of indigenous people to exist as a possible launch-board for future invasions despite the fact that the will of the people on the island and off it overwhelmingly supported and supports unification. It's this weird thing I like called "doing things despite the United States being against it"
More of a social democrat actually, although of course any purism of philosophy in economy is naive and can hardly be translated into the real world. Mind you, I'm not an economist, I just take part in it as a producer and consumer. I was just reading Adair Turner's articles on how financial growth might in fact take rent on the real economy rather than deliver economic value, what is called "unproductive financialization", I think you might be interested in reading around this idea.
I'm also against the military dictatorship installed by the United States anywhere outside of the United States, but we're talking about China and right now we're going into whataboutism territory and I'm going to disengage. Have a nice day!
More of a social democrat actually,
Social democrats are also in favor of capitalism, which again means you're a liberal.
I was just reading Adair Turner's articles on how financial growth might in fact take rent on the real economy rather than deliver economic value, what is called "unproductive financialization", I think you might be interested in reading around this idea.
Are you trying to show leftist credentials or something? This is hilarious. Why would I be interested in yet another economist speculating how finance capital will influence the material world?
m also against the military dictatorship installed by the United States anywhere outside of the United States, but we're talking about China and right now we're going into whataboutism territory and I'm going to disengage.
So first off you're abusing the disengage rule. It is not a "get the last word" magic spell, but instead a rule existing in order to make the site more welcoming for neurodivergent comrades. It is clearly stated that you must post "disengage" and nothing else.
Secondly: whataboutism is a concept introduced by CIA stooges in order to frustrate discussion. It is not "whataboutism" to introduce context relevant for a discussion. What actions the Chinese government takes are influenced by the historical and material context that give birth to them. This is the reason for introducing these facts to the discussion.
Thirdly: Even if whataboutism was a real thing, you choose to focus on this I stead of the arguments which have been put forth that relate to the discussion at hand. If you cannot relate to or engage with the arguments, do some self-crit and consider why that might be.
Fourth: Keep your condescending faux-friendliness to yourself you piece of shit
interesting. but I don't think her views sound very alien, the view of "racism is over" is widespread. and on the other issue, national unity is important because it's been so hard to achieve and maintain in the past. I don't agree with such broad statements like "people should have a choice in who governs them". it matters more what those choices are, and you can't just blanket statement "choice is good no matter what". your statement about devisions in Europe from historical kingdoms is interesting because obviously there's been a considerable effort in forming unity across Europe.
China has 8 parties in government currently...
not only that, the CPC is absolutely massive and encompasses several different ideologies in addition to Marxism-Leninism
I like to say having a strong centralized governments has its pros and cons. It allows things to get done on if the government focuses on it(e.g Covid Vaccination development and speed), but on the flip side, if the government chooses to hinder it, then anyone related would heavily be affected (e.g the recent bankruptcy of Evergrand) which more or less hurt anyone who invested money into it, something a good chunk of citizens do (as many invest in housing, be it local, or internationally)
-