Part of a response I received in a thread on .ml
You’ve ended with the conclusion without the evidence to actually back things up. It presupposes that these people aren’t capitalists, so therefore they aren’t capitalists. Which is a bad argument. You need to look at the Chinese economy and how it’s structured.
This doesn’t address that politicians are big business magnates are usually two different groups of people even if they’re working together. But the heads of Tencent, Alibaba or other Chinese tech giants aren’t going to show up there.
Let’s go back to Obama. Was the US not capitalist in 2010 when billionaires didn’t have direct power in the USA? No. It was indeed capitalist back then. That’s what the economy looks like. (Well it’s a mixed market economy, but that’s another discussion, and yes I’m aware of the vast indirect power the billionaires have.)
Oh engagement! I thought this was dead. I’m so happy you came :)
I posted this ironically, because a lot of time people post anti tankie propaganda, someone posted this at me and I found it incredibly funny. And I was irritated by it too, I just think Dengism is a really silly position to uphold as a “revolutionary.” Anyway, the irony didn’t land. No one bothered to try and discuss it with me, the old downvote and go, so I didn’t think it was worth it to try and “save face”. My posts typically do shitty although my comments can be well received by lemmy communities
“Theres only 24 capitalists on the party congress out of 2000” yeah that’s cool, the problem with capitalists (as any ML should know) is that they wield incredibly outsized influence over the masses. A billion dollars could buy off 2000 people easy, and many more party members up the hierarchy. This doesn’t mean that these 24 capitalists have completely corrupted the Chinese economy, if only political science were that simple. I looked up the capitalists and they are incredibly wealthy, from incredibly wealthy families.
You’re right, its a dogshit argument.
I refuse to make up people to get mad at. So I’m presenting a particularly egregious example of, if not bad faith, incredibly silly reasoning defending… whatever you call the Chinese national economy. State capitalism? Bureaucratic social democracy? They definitely have many social reforms and have socialized many areas of their national economy, but it isnt the revolutionary socialism. I really like China’s culture, I’d love to go there someday.
But it gets on my nerves from some of these MLs, and their total inability to criticize, or tolerate criticism, of any country that calls itself socialist. It betrays an obsession with power and practically its the ideology of state bureaucrats. I organize with a few MLs and as long as they’re doing work, they’re good comrades. Some political disagreement, but lots of times we can work together. However online MLism, “tankies,” just seem so gullible.
Anyway, kudos to you! Much respect for people who can articulate a disagreement instead of just hitting that down arrow when something gives them “the ick.” Frankly I have very little respect for it, but youre cool.
what is capitalism goes all over the place in my conversations with communists. Like you can buy and sell stuff but just not have profit. Honestly I think communists would do better if they just pushed for one thing. I mean if you get rid of inheritance and not allow non governmental paper entities like llc’s then you would be pretty close.