☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml to Socialism@lemmy.mlEnglish · 15 hours agoPeople are starting to get itlemmy.mlimagemessage-square106fedilinkarrow-up1374
arrow-up1374imagePeople are starting to get itlemmy.ml☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml to Socialism@lemmy.mlEnglish · 15 hours agomessage-square106fedilink
minus-squareSaapas@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 hours agoIt seemed like you had different positions. It’s hard to follow the discussion on my phone. Can you ask the thing you wanted me to answer again?
minus-square☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·2 hours agoI wasn’t asking you a question, I was providing an explanation of why China having billionaires is not at odds with China being socialist which seemed to be the argument you were making in this thread.
minus-squareSaapas@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·60 minutes agoBut I did engage with that. I said many probably don’t know the reasoning for having billionaires, hence they would be disappointed.
minus-square☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·59 minutes agoThen this discussion will be valuable to those people since it provides an explanation for that exact question.
minus-squareSaapas@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·9 minutes agoAssuming they see or agree with it, which at least for the former is a very big if
It seemed like you had different positions. It’s hard to follow the discussion on my phone. Can you ask the thing you wanted me to answer again?
I wasn’t asking you a question, I was providing an explanation of why China having billionaires is not at odds with China being socialist which seemed to be the argument you were making in this thread.
But I did engage with that. I said many probably don’t know the reasoning for having billionaires, hence they would be disappointed.
Then this discussion will be valuable to those people since it provides an explanation for that exact question.
Assuming they see or agree with it, which at least for the former is a very big if