Link to the article

This makes her “strategy” even more baffling than before. How do you know you are down the entire time and do absolutely nothing about policy?

  • someone [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    15 hours ago

    How do you know you are down the entire time and do absolutely nothing about policy?

    Because her superiors on Wall Street don’t care what party wins, just that policies never change.

    • miz [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Li: At the moment, the Chinese the party state has proven an extraordinary ability to change. I mean, I make the joke: “in America you can change the political party, but you can’t change the policies. In China you cannot change the party, but you can change policies.” So, in the past 66 years, China has been run by one single party. Yet the political changes that have taken place in China in these past 66 years have been wider, and broader, and greater than probably any other major country in modern memory.

      Pilger: So in that time China ceased to be communist. Is that what you’re saying?

      Li: Well, China is a market economy, and it’s a vibrant market economy. But it is not a capitalist country. Here’s why: there’s no way a group of billionaires could control the Politburo as billionaires control American policy-making. So in China you have a vibrant market economy, but capital does not rise above political authority. Capital does not have enshrined rights. In America, capital — the interests of capital and capital itself — has risen above the American nation. The political authority cannot check the power of capital. That’s why America is a capitalist country, and China is not.

      from https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

      • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Yeah. People would defend it by saying they were “hedging their bets” or “being pragmatic.” Which sounds like a solid take. But then I kinda had this epiphany that took the form of a question. “Maybe it’s because they know the outcome doesn’t matter and they’re just funding the theater of the election, rather than trying to get a particular outcome?”