To get terminology out of the way, they are building towards Communism through Socialism, ie an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. In other words, large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned, so the Bourgeoisie doesn’t have power over the state.
Now that terms are out of the way, you’re correct, China does have billionaires. Even though that number is decreasing in recent years while working class purchasing power and wages are rising, that isn’t enough of an answer as to why they still exist. Billionaires represent a contradiction the CPC must resolve. But how is the best way to go about that? What time scale? The CPC’s role is to gradually resolve contradictions within Socialism in favor of the Proletariat in any inter-class dispute. They have to erase the foundations for billionaires, not the billionaires themselves.
I recommend checking out China Has Billionaires. The important thing to understand is that contradictions exist in all systems, and it is the process of working out these contradictions that provides room for advancement.
Fair, I still have a lot of learning to do about Korea. I’m familiar with the basics of Japanese Imperialism, US intervention post-World War II, and then the general outline of the Korean War (including the devastation it brought on the Korean people) but beyond that I’m not very well-versed. It’s an area I’d like to study further.
Rhetorically and factually trounce, then? Destroy, in the marketplace of ideas? What term would you prefer to describe your use as a springboard for me to bounce pro-Marxist ideas off of?
To get terminology out of the way, they are building towards Communism through Socialism, ie an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. In other words, large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned, so the Bourgeoisie doesn’t have power over the state.
Now that terms are out of the way, you’re correct, China does have billionaires. Even though that number is decreasing in recent years while working class purchasing power and wages are rising, that isn’t enough of an answer as to why they still exist. Billionaires represent a contradiction the CPC must resolve. But how is the best way to go about that? What time scale? The CPC’s role is to gradually resolve contradictions within Socialism in favor of the Proletariat in any inter-class dispute. They have to erase the foundations for billionaires, not the billionaires themselves.
I recommend checking out China Has Billionaires. The important thing to understand is that contradictions exist in all systems, and it is the process of working out these contradictions that provides room for advancement.
you know I’ve been ignoring pretty much everything you say after you said that NK is a good country
Only shitlibs would proudly announce that they stick their fingers in their ears
do you think NK is a good country?
Do you think proudly announcing that you refuse to engage with anything that challenges your beliefs makes you look good?
do you think NK is a good country?
Do you think proudly announcing that you refuse to engage with anything that challenges your beliefs makes you look good?
you do think NK is a good country
Do you think proudly announcing that you refuse to engage with anything that challenges your beliefs makes you look good?
Feel free to keep letting me ratio you then 👍
Also, pretty sure you’re referring to me talking about the USSR, not the DPRK, so you can’t even get your talking points straight.
They’re the same picture.
Fair, I still have a lot of learning to do about Korea. I’m familiar with the basics of Japanese Imperialism, US intervention post-World War II, and then the general outline of the Korean War (including the devastation it brought on the Korean people) but beyond that I’m not very well-versed. It’s an area I’d like to study further.
https://archive.org/details/ellen-bruno-and-jacques-hersh-socialist-korea-a-case-study-in-the-strategy-of-ec
Thanks, comrade!
Its 2025. Language has evolved further than ‘ratio’
Rhetorically and factually trounce, then? Destroy, in the marketplace of ideas? What term would you prefer to describe your use as a springboard for me to bounce pro-Marxist ideas off of?