this post was submitted on 19 May 2024

675 points (93.2% liked)

Political Memes

5429 readers

1490 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

675

Ah, the true path to socialism! (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

110 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 57 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Post this at another instance that I shall not invoke by name, watch yourself get deleted and maybe even banned.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (15 children)

China is not socialist no matter what they say.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

load more comments (15 replies)

[+] [email protected] -15 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

It used to be more intrusive. Personally, I think they're better off for having toned it down.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

How about keep the system, but stop trying to pretend it's not primarily capitalism

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 75 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago

Ohhhh numbers. Very yummy.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This isn't reddit. -3.14

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Force of habit

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 38 points 5 months ago (1 children)

All the .ml users showing up to explain that actually real socialism is supposed to produce billionaires, because of reasons.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

the “Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism” meme but as an actual civilization.

We have that. It's called The United Federation of Planets.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Truth is, the number was once well over 698.

Ask Jack ma what happened.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 102 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If factories in your country have suicide nets, maybe you aren't doing socialism right.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If factories in your country have suicide nets, maybe you aren't doing domestic governance right.

FTFY

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments