I mean to me it’s a fine goalpost to say that a billion crosses the line from allowing capitalists to improve the economy etc. to unnecessary exploitation. If this Gang wanted a cap on a billion dollars or euros, I’m definitely down with Gang on this one.
For me, making massive socioeconomic decisions based entirely on vibes, feelings, and a sense of semi-religious purity is no way to run society. The Gang of Four, as I said, wanted to dogmatically collectivize everything, regardless of the level of development. They weren’t arguing for wealth caps. You keep focusing on arbitrary levels of taxation over the relations of production.
As for being against the Gang of Four, the reasons are fairly obvious if you’ve been following what I said. They were dogmatic and were perpetuating poverty in the name of purity. Reform & Opening Up is key to China’s success in eradicating poverty.
I don’t know if it’s some dogmatic purity since you’re still allowing wealth inequality and capitalists to hoard wealth, you’re just setting the limit somewhere.
I’d set it at wherever the necessary point is. If we believe that above billion isn’t necessary for the current strategy, I don’t understand why we can’t agree that maybe that could be one place for the cap tbh.
It’s dogmatism and purity politics because China already taxes capitalists. The level of taxation already reflects what the people of China deem to be necessary, without harming growth. Unlike capitalist economies, capitalists do not control the state, nor where capital can be allocated, and as such there is some degree of benefit to allowing capitalists to the extent that they facilitate development. Letting these arbitrary goalposts stand in the way of supporting China is nonsense.
You think there’s an economic benefit to allowing someone to hoard wealth above a billion? I mean in comparison if a bigger portion of the wealth from the company was distributed to the workers.
There’s clear economic benefit to allowing private property in secondary and highly competitive industries in the context of a socialist market economy. This accelerates and stabilizes growth, which speeds up development of the socialist economy in general. This comes with the tradeoff of having capitalists, which means coming with the tradeoff of the wealthy. You’re letting arbitrary minutia in how these capitalists are taxed pit you against the entire socialist system.
Why 1 billion and not 900 million? Why not 3 billion? I’m not against a wealth cap, I’m against arbitrary and vibes-based reasons for opposing China’s socialist market economy. I also support the DPRK’s economy.
I mean to me it’s a fine goalpost to say that a billion crosses the line from allowing capitalists to improve the economy etc. to unnecessary exploitation. If this Gang wanted a cap on a billion dollars or euros, I’m definitely down with Gang on this one.
Why wouldn’t everyone be?
For me, making massive socioeconomic decisions based entirely on vibes, feelings, and a sense of semi-religious purity is no way to run society. The Gang of Four, as I said, wanted to dogmatically collectivize everything, regardless of the level of development. They weren’t arguing for wealth caps. You keep focusing on arbitrary levels of taxation over the relations of production.
As for being against the Gang of Four, the reasons are fairly obvious if you’ve been following what I said. They were dogmatic and were perpetuating poverty in the name of purity. Reform & Opening Up is key to China’s success in eradicating poverty.
I don’t know if it’s some dogmatic purity since you’re still allowing wealth inequality and capitalists to hoard wealth, you’re just setting the limit somewhere.
I’d set it at wherever the necessary point is. If we believe that above billion isn’t necessary for the current strategy, I don’t understand why we can’t agree that maybe that could be one place for the cap tbh.
It’s dogmatism and purity politics because China already taxes capitalists. The level of taxation already reflects what the people of China deem to be necessary, without harming growth. Unlike capitalist economies, capitalists do not control the state, nor where capital can be allocated, and as such there is some degree of benefit to allowing capitalists to the extent that they facilitate development. Letting these arbitrary goalposts stand in the way of supporting China is nonsense.
You think there’s an economic benefit to allowing someone to hoard wealth above a billion? I mean in comparison if a bigger portion of the wealth from the company was distributed to the workers.
There’s clear economic benefit to allowing private property in secondary and highly competitive industries in the context of a socialist market economy. This accelerates and stabilizes growth, which speeds up development of the socialist economy in general. This comes with the tradeoff of having capitalists, which means coming with the tradeoff of the wealthy. You’re letting arbitrary minutia in how these capitalists are taxed pit you against the entire socialist system.
Clear economic benefit to allowing the capitalists to hoard above a billion?
Another thing I wonder if you’d be okay with some sort of wealth cap in some point
Why 1 billion and not 900 million? Why not 3 billion? I’m not against a wealth cap, I’m against arbitrary and vibes-based reasons for opposing China’s socialist market economy. I also support the DPRK’s economy.
Where would you put the wealth cap?