China is building socialism by the year 2352 you have to trust the process
This we get to have cyberpunk 2077 in real life, so I am thankful to the CCP.
Marx loved markets that’s why his name shares three letters.
He loves them so much “Marx” is just his cool hip abbreviation for “markets”
This is outright lying with statistics. The majority of traders on U.S. stock exchanges (95%+) are individual traders. They just use a clearing house that does the trading for them because it’s cheaper and faster.
The majority of traders on U.S. stock exchanges (95%+) are individual traders.
Absolutely need a source for that one. Sounds wrong on both volume of $ and volume of trades.
That’s because “[number of] traders” and “volume” are two different numbers. Volume wise it’s probably the opposite.
Yes but using number of traders is useless to look at which is why I used total volume or amount of trades both of which sounds wrong from Ops claim.
Number traders does sound accurate but it’s a worthless metric that doesn’t tell us anything because they aren’t the ones doing the trading.
Yes
Yeah, but I don’t think, that was the point of the meme. It was just about making fun of tankies.
i thought it was making fun of US capitalism where socialism is used as an invective.
Nah it wasn’t it was making fun of the concept of “Marxist Leninist Stock Exchanges” implying that its just “state capitalism”.
Btw, happy cake day.
By volume, right?
95% of volume is done by individual traders?
Surely
This is why I don’t fuck with that. That and the memestock nonsense. I could tell you a high volume stock strike on Fridays by calculating how much corruption it took for market makers to not lose their ass. It’s all rigged and disgusting. They’ll drop a nuke on someone if their son in law can make a million.
No it’s the opposite
A mutual fund buys and sells on behalf of the consumer so individuals don’t have voting rights.
Also wrong. You can vote if you buy stocks themselves and not mutual funds.
Also wrong.
Only 21% of Americans directly own stock.
https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/?msockid=3cc1caf3010a68e612d9dc83002769e8
You can’t say a statement is wrong by agreeing with it. You just said that they use clearing houses. The majority of stock ownership in the US is through mutual funds and other similar products where individuals cannot vote.
You can vote if you buy stocks themselves and not mutual funds.
I said people who buy mutual funds can’t vote you muppet.
.ml collectively shits pants
There are two types of tankie. They either a) are very good at selectively ignoring what they’re not supposed to see or b) not true believers and are just trolling for the lolz
You forgot the third type: use dialectical materialism to analyze the world and understand what’s going on around them instead of using idealist and moral thinking like “markets bad”, allowing them to have nuanced understandings of why a revolutionary state would have a stock market.
nuanced understandings
stock market
you’re a fucking parody of yourself, and it’s fucking hilarious.
So weird, right? It’s almost like you have a… a sort of reaction… a knee-jeek reaction maybe… to the concept of a stock market. It’s almost like we differ not by ideology but by the fact that one of us is curious enough to research and analyze what appear to be contradictions and understand them in their historical and world systems context and the other is a reactionary.
Yeah, I react to the idea of a capitalist economy being a good idea. Don’t fuck with me, tankie, your debate bro bullshit isn’t thought out, and you aren’t an intellectual. You’re a fucking slave with Stockholm.
It’s unfortunate that you live in this timeline then, because capitalism is literally the only system that has ever been used to industrialize a country in this timeline. Maybe your issue with reality. You should lodge a complaint.
Also, just so you know, Stockholm Syndrome was made up by a Western liberal to explain how anyone could ever possibly side with their enemy. It’s not a real thing. It’s a made up concepts with roots in police violence, fascism, and misogyny. Look it up.
a capitalist tankie. what do you call that? a comcap? a capcom? a fascist?
either way, it’s somebody that would make the world a better place if you put a bullet in their brain. stalin wouldn’t even send you to the gulag, you revisionist twit.
use dialectical materialism
AKA, mental gymnastics.
Unrelated to the discussion, but dismissing dialectical materialism like that is a bit harsh. It is still very prominent in international relations critical theory, for example. I even learned about Marxism and dialectical materialism in my highschool politics class, lol
It takes mental gymnastics to call tankies both dogmatic book worshippers and simultaneously people who can accept a Chinese stock market into their understanding of revolutionary theory.
Nobody ever said tankies are good at theory. It’s not complicated: Tankies dogmatically worship the biggest state that calls itself communist and pretend it’s doing what the books say.
So much contradiction wrapped up into one simple comment.
They’re dogmatic because they pretend that it’s aligned with the sacred texts? And you’re better than that because you adhere more strictly to the text? Do you see the problem here? In fact, tankies don’t judge AES by textual alignment. It is not a requirement that any state that calls itself communist does what the books say.
In fact, it’s clearly impossible for them to do so, because the books are theory, which comes before practice. Practice will always be ahead of the published and established theory, but it will always be behind the leading edge of theory which is not established and often not published. That theory is not settled theory. It gets settled through… practice. We are all capable of incorporating a collapse of China into our theory as much as we are capable of incorporating a transition to a more socialist organization into our theory, because our theory is built upon real world experiences, not textual analysis.
But also, how do you account for the tankies’ support for the smaller, and even the smallest, state that calls itself communist? Are they worshiping them too? What about when the small states and the big states do it differently and the tankies support both of them? How does that work?
State propaganda is the de facto means by which tankies incorporate new information into theory: People may have their own “learning processes”, but ones that contradict the large state either learn to conform better, stop being tankies, or get purged. Thus anyone who has been a tankie for more than a year “settles theory” in a way that is causally determined by state propaganda, i.e. they treat it as dogma.
This means they back the large state no matter what, and other states when the propaganda allows it. And indeed we see that tankies approve of large communist states attacking small ones or engaging in CIA-style political interference.
I am not asking you to adhere to communist texts more closely, I am asking you to see how the process by which you change your mind can causally be traced back to the owners of large Chinese corporations justifying the accumulation of capital.
Internal contradictions are akshually totally good and not evidence of ideological impurity!
I love that your standard is ideological purity! It’s like you’re a textbook case of what not to do.
evidence of ideological impurity!
It doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.
“Ideological purity” first off, isn’t really a thing in Marxism-Leninism, because Marxism-Leninism explicitly calls for adapting policies to specific material conditions. To the extent that people have tried to pursue an “ideologically pure” version of it, it generally hasn’t worked so well. The Great Leap Forward, for example.
Now, one would think that China learning from its past mistakes and adapting policy in such a way that 700 million people get lifted out of extreme poverty would be seen as a good thing. And one would think that if someone didn’t see this move as a good thing, then they must prefer China’s pre-reform policies when they didn’t have billionaires and a stock market. Yet somehow, y’all seem to just blindly hate China regardless of what kind of policy they implement.
It kinda seems like what we are dealing with is an anticommunist ideological framework that can transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence, a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
Yet somehow, y’all seem to just blindly hate China regardless of what kind of policy they implement.
As an anarchist, I dont hate China specifically, I just hate states in general. So as long as the chinese state doesnt implement policies to abolish itself, I will always have something to critize.
Well, the funny thing about that is that Chinese state has actually done that. Or Mao did, anyway.
See, Mao feared that the government was going to follow the same reformist path as the USSR, so he issued a series of declarations saying that the government had been infiltrated by bourgeois elements, that the people of China had a “right to rebel,” and finally calling on them to “Bombard the Headquarters.”
These declarations created a period of violence and disorder known as the Cultural Revolution, where independent, student-led militias known as Red Guards formed and started fighting whoever they suspected of being counter-revolutionary. With no command structure, they often wound up fighting each other, when they weren’t committing atrocities.
Ironically, all this did was discredit this approach and convince a lot of people of the necessity of the reforms they were meant to prevent, and of the central government.
Of course, there were another time in Chinese history where China lacked a strong central government. After the fall of the Qing, there was no central government at all. This is generally referred to as the warlord period, and it sucked so bad that the communists and nationalists put aside their differences to try to end it. Unfortunately, China remained largely decentralized, which allowed the much smaller but more centralized nation of Japan to invade and kill tens of millions of people.
If you don’t read theory/study history, it’s easy to just rail against authority and centralization from an idealist perspective, but if you actually study China’s history and conditions, you’ll find reasons for every path they’ve chosen.
You are talking as if the choices made are the only reasonable ones regarding the things that previously happened.
You understand that if China were to do that today, it would immediately be vassalized, neoliberalized, and plundered by the imperial core, just as the dissolved Soviet states were 35 years ago, right? That life expectancies would plummet and poverty would become rampant?
Until imperialism (“the highest stage of capitalism”) is dismantled, socialist states are necessary. Basically, nearly everyone has to reach socialism before anyone can reach communism, because capitalism, as long as it continues to exist, will never stop trying to expand. You can’t wish your way immediately to the end-goal. You will surely fail.
At least your honest that you’re driven by a hate of concepts instead of a curiosity driven by compassion.
Being against states is compassion. Because there is nothing compassionate in police action, centralization of power and borders.
How about kind of afraid it might be impossible to hold out against imperialist capitalism without some degree of nasty repressive shit.
Skill issue.
What about the ones that turn off their mind and start regurgitating unrelated talking points?
I feel like that’s just a subset of type A.
There are a lot of ways to be “good” at ignoring what you are not supposed to see. Turning your brain off is a pathway to many abilities some consider unnatural.
I guess I need to level up my imagining a pathway to better world skills.
It’s almost like MLs aren’t dogmatic and don’t need to assess everything by whether or not it’s approved by specific authors
It never fails when ML loathe capitalism, but doesn’t criticise the red capitalism. What strange doublethink to have (which by the way, this is what Orwell pretty much describes when he coined the term, doublethink, as a tool in authoritarianism).
This is what lack of material analysis does to a mother fucker.
Why do we loathe capitalism? Because of its essence? No. Because of a subset of its effects. Capitalism itself is an arrangement of social forces. What is there to loathe about it in essence? The loathing is of the alienation, the class antagonism, the environmental degradation, the oppression. Capitalism is loathsome because of some of the things it does to humanity.
But capitalism is also an organic result of the manifestation of prehistoric white trauma. It is a natural outcome of specific conditions and it serves specific functions. The world as you know it, nearly all of it, was built within the capitalist mode of production. What your life consists of now could not have been created through feudal society nor through slave society.
It is possible that another form of industry could have emerged from non-European society that would not have gone through the capitalist mode of production but a) it hasn’t happened and b) we haven’t theorized how it would happen.
So reality is here. We have to deal with it. Capitalism is a facet of this stage of social development in the human species. One can no more do away with it by fiat than one can do away with trauma or coping mechanisms or addiction or many other arrangements of humanity brought about by prior conditions tied inextricably to long historical processes.
You can’t just deny its existence, nor it’s history, nor can you can hope to deny all that it has enabled if you expect to be able to overcome it. You must know your enemy to defeat it. Simply claiming your enemy is evil and then refusing to understand your enemy ensures your defeat.
Capitalism, like any opponent, has strengths and weaknesses. Those strengths perpetuate it, solve problems that human society has, and produces outcomes that human society wants. It’s weaknesses, however, are things that threaten to collapse it, things that produces outcomes human society does not want, and creates problems for human society.
We must understand both of these, and how they relate to each other, if we are to overcome capitalism.
China’s use of capitalism is an acknowledgement that it is useful to solve specific problems in human society, and in fact is useful to solve some problems in the meta game. Not only did a capitalist mode of production solve major industrial problems for China which were required to meet the needs of the masses, it also had the effect of reducing the opposition from the imperialists, which creates much needed space for it to continue to operate.
It learned from the USSR that used capitalism to solve problems for a short time, and then adopted a hard-line bloc stance, forcing it into increasingly more difficult positions vis-a-vis the imperialists, which weakened the USSR instead of strengthing it.
China has far surpassed what the USSR was able to do, and it has done so while remaining truer to its theoretical roots than the USSR was able to do in the same time frame.
By choosing an idealist perspective on capitalism (i.e. capitalism is bad) instead of a materialist one (i.e. capitalism is internally contradictory) you doom yourself to ignorance, incorrect reasoning, incorrect conclusions, and therefore incorrect praxis
yawn
All that wall of sophist cut and paste texts, and you basically said exploitation by red fascists is okay in pursuit of profit because of the fact that a) there are billionaires in China, which were produced more than the USA in the past seven years, and b) China has as bad, if not worse, labour rights as other capitalist countries (see 9-6 schedule, why else did the West export manufacturing to China if not for bad working conditions and cheap labour?). All these are antithesis to the fair and equitable society that communism purports to champion.
Oh, sweaty. Of course only you write out your own posts, everyone else copies and pastes their words. And of course everyone who argues against you a sophist, only you can cherry pick facts that make real arguments with substance. And of course you don’t have to read what other people write, sweaty. Only your words deserve to be read and argued against. Anyone else, and especially someone who disagrees with you, is writing for their own benefit and you don’t have to read it all. Just respond. I’m sure it’ll be just as good that way. You’re just so smart!
Oh sweety, it’s very easy to mince words and say nothing of substance when you’re just spoon feeding. Still waiting for someone spoon feed you on what to say about 9-6 schedule and the fact that China produced more billionaires than US? How is all this still in line with communism?
say nothing of substance
🪞 Talking to yourself, I see. 🪞
https://www.china-briefing.com/news/996-is-ruled-illegal-understanding-chinas-changing-labor-system/
The 996 schedule is illegal under Chinese labor law and has been for years. It went up to the court system and the legislative system and the workers in every case were supported in their labor claims.
As for billionaires, I’ve said this before in other comments, I’ll say it again here - The communist revolution in China was very explicit about its collaboration with the national bourgeoisie. It’s quite open about it, as communists do not hide their intentions and speak openly about their strategy. The Chinese strategy was experimental, drawing from the failures of past revolutions and developing a theory based on them, it implemented an experiment of cross-class collaboration while maintaining a dictatorship of the proletariat. Creating on-paper billionaires is easy when you have a stock market and you’ve opened it up to Western speculators. In fact, if you’re doing it right, you’re guaranteed to get billionaires. The question is not whether there are billionaires but whether the state is promoting the interests of the proletariat. Billionaires are a side show.
The 100-million-member CPC is predominantly farmers and blue collar workers. The party is constantly punishing the rich for corruption. They’ve literally executed the rich for harming the masses through negligence and profit-seeking.
Billionaires are not contradictory with the process of building communism. Billionaires will be impossible under communism since there won’t be money. The process of building socialism is what we’re all currently working through as a species.
There is being undogmatic and there is just doing capitalism but in red.
Almost sounds like you have a dogmatic problem with the capitalist mode of production that lacks an understanding of how capitalism emerges, what function it serves, and what the conditions will need to be to end it.
Cut a state capitalist and a fascist bleeds because that’s the goal of fascism
Very thoughtful theft of the well known aphorism. Tip of the hat to you.
Good luck in whatever you choose to prefigure.
https://impactwealth.org/chinese-stock-market-a-deep-dive-into-the-6-trillion-meltdown/
I mean, I can keep going, literally every article about investing in the Chinese stock market shows its risk. If this trace of propaganda has any truth to it, maybe its composition is just a reflection on who is being left and targeted. Yeah, yeah, I know, “West press is biased” (Al Jazeera?) but that’s what you get with such deeply rooted suppression of free speech in China. Even Trump era press is still better even if US press is rapidly dropping to that level.
