I didn’t define personal property, my bad. I didn’t think I needed to.
Personal property is anything that one can own that is used regularly for their daily lives. This wouldn’t include multiple residences that one rarely, if ever, uses. Those empty real estate “investments” all over every city in the US would be Private property and therefore abolished.
We aren’t talking about the kid’s toothbrush, but the kid’s lemonade stand. This is private property used to make an income, that the kid owns. This is what makes the kid petite bourgeoisie. If we were to say that the kiddo was giving away lemonade, then it would just be a personal hobby, but this is an income-generating asset for the kid.
You are correct, I’m taking a bottom up view as opposed to top down, because I find that method helps to manage the corruption of the ruling class. I don’t see the PRC controlling their ruling class as much as I see them controlling the lives of the workers. Same for the US. I HATE ALL the liars at the top that steal from the people, and enrich themselves to the detriment of us all.
The ruling class of the PRC is the working class. You even admitted earlier that capitalists that get too uppity are executed or punished. The working classes use state authority to advance their own interests.
I can see the argument that lemonade kid could be considered petty bourgeoisie in the current situation, especially in the US, since the other kids may not have the means to set up their own, but I assumed we were speaking in theory, not what is in practice for that bit.
I meant in both theory and practice, once the kid has a lemonade stand they are petite bourgeoisie. Worker-owners are petite-bourgeoisie.
I read the lengthy explanation, thanks. I can see that the outward explanation does try to align with socialist principles, in practice I have the same gripe about the PRC as I do of the US. They don’t need to know that much about you or me. No government ever does good things with that type of information, and it will always lead to suppression of the workers. I will give the PRC credit that they seem to be heading in the right direction, but let’s not pretend that it is a socialist utopia. As I said, from the outside, and speaking with a lot of your tourists and immigrants, the PRC looks a lot more capitalistic than socialist.
I’m not Chinese, I’m just a Statesian commie nerd, for clarity. As cool as it would be, I am not actually in the CPC nor paid by them, despite what some people have guessed on Lemmy. The key disagreement I have with you here is that you seem to placing too much weight on the existing private property and not on the actual backbone of the Chinese economy, the public sector. This sector isn’t as flashy, but it’s what drives China’s economy forward. Private merely fills in the gaps and helps speed along highly competitive industries.
I do agree that if they tried to go full on communist that is practically inviting the CIA to try to destabilize the country. I just think that if any country actually wanted to support their workers, they would get rid of their billionaires. I also don’t believe any of the governments have any incentive to change the status quo, unless we threaten to burn the whole place down. Peaceful protesting isn’t working. Shooting people seems to get more attention.
Like I said earlier, to get rid of billionaires you have to get rid of private property, which loses China’s position as one of the most integrated countries in the world. In exchange for heightened disparity, China gains:
Technology transfer from western countries producing in China
A deeply interconnected global economy
Western countries cannot war with China without destroying their own economies
The ability to rapidly develop, creating independence and a wide enough gap that the US Empire cannot risk war
These aren’t small gains! In exchange for allowing private property in the secondary industries, China has cemented itself as the deciding force of the 21st century.
We aren’t talking about the kid’s toothbrush, but the kid’s lemonade stand. This is private property used to make an income, that the kid owns. This is what makes the kid petite bourgeoisie. If we were to say that the kiddo was giving away lemonade, then it would just be a personal hobby, but this is an income-generating asset for the kid.
The ruling class of the PRC is the working class. You even admitted earlier that capitalists that get too uppity are executed or punished. The working classes use state authority to advance their own interests.
I meant in both theory and practice, once the kid has a lemonade stand they are petite bourgeoisie. Worker-owners are petite-bourgeoisie.
I’m not Chinese, I’m just a Statesian commie nerd, for clarity. As cool as it would be, I am not actually in the CPC nor paid by them, despite what some people have guessed on Lemmy. The key disagreement I have with you here is that you seem to placing too much weight on the existing private property and not on the actual backbone of the Chinese economy, the public sector. This sector isn’t as flashy, but it’s what drives China’s economy forward. Private merely fills in the gaps and helps speed along highly competitive industries.
Like I said earlier, to get rid of billionaires you have to get rid of private property, which loses China’s position as one of the most integrated countries in the world. In exchange for heightened disparity, China gains:
Technology transfer from western countries producing in China
A deeply interconnected global economy
Western countries cannot war with China without destroying their own economies
The ability to rapidly develop, creating independence and a wide enough gap that the US Empire cannot risk war
These aren’t small gains! In exchange for allowing private property in the secondary industries, China has cemented itself as the deciding force of the 21st century.
Removed by mod
No problem! I suggest you take a step back and try to study China from a less-biased angle. It’s so easy to get caught up in the news cycle.