The former acted because he was personally affected by a person supporting exploitation within a liberal system, the latter leads an authoritarian regime that allowed their CEOs to do what they do until they got annoying for whatever reasons.
So if you want to talk objective results here, sure, one of them got a higher kill count. However, who has the moral high ground here is not even up to debate IMO
Luigi acted out of emotional response to individual trauma of a horribly cruel system, but very little will fundamentally change. The PRC punishes billionaires guilty of massive crimes, such as massive corruption. Which one does have the moral high ground, the one executing of his own volition in a manner that won’t change anything, or the justice system of another country repeatedly working in favor of the people?
I’d say neither, if you start framing it in terms of morals and not material improvements for the working class you accept that Luigi didn’t change anything, just did what we all want to do. I’m against the.death penalty either way but I’d rather the working class be empowered overall.
if by “annoying” you mean exploitative in ways that are tolerated in liberal systems but not in a sane, well-planned system that actually represents its people, sure
One has a 95% approval rate, which amounts to some 900 million working age adults alone, and is the leader of a party of over 93 million. His actions also don’t stop there, but rather continue in the monumental BRI uplifting hundreds of millions in Africa and Central Asia, as well as the total eradication of poverty in China and the development of twice as much green energy than the rest of the world combined.
I liked Brian Thompson getting his due, absolutely, but let’s fucking pipe down lmao. The point was if y’all want to really stick it to CEOs, you better start organizing so y’all can get em in a way the pigs would be helpless to stop.
allowed their CEOs to do what they do until they got annoying for whatever reasons.
Again, libs just going by vibes and absolutely zero investigation, let alone evidence.
Copying my comment over here, as it’s highly relevant:
It’s more that liberals like yourself directly ignore facts and statistics while blindly repeating vague and unsourced claims of “China Bad,” because it lets you remain comfortable in your pre-existing worldview. Communists do not have such luxury, which is why they seemingly always have endless sources on hand. In your comment here, as an example, you discredit the CPC’s approval with no source. However, if we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
You are directly decieving yourself because you license yourself to. If you actually looked at real sources and didn’t reject them reflexively, instead of accepting bourgeois media at face value, you’d sit much closer to where I do. You should read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Both are excellent examples of why people don’t change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn’t mean Communists don’t do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these “licenses” to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.
The authoritarian Harvard and Pew polls which reported such a number? Lmao yall are so stubbornly committed to chauvinism even if a million Chinese came up to you to tell you you’d be unconvinced. There’s literally dozens of western polls which confirm it, it’s not up for debate, denying it is as ridiculous as denying the existence of the moon.
Being incredibly adept at mental gymnastics isn’t critical thinking. What part of parroting the headlines you get from corporate media says “critical thinking” to you? I feel super bad for my American comrades trying to organize and make things better when half the country is somehow even dumber than this.
The one which has the high approval rate has a very good working relationship with billionaires which kisses the government’s feet, the type of government we will be seeing in the USA for the next four years.
So if the government is run by a party people greatly approve of and said party dominates billionaires, who otherwise run rampant in countries like the US, this is a good thing and the people love it. However, you also expect a Communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years? What on Earth kind of fanfiction is this? How on Earth is Trump going to wrangle billionaires under him when the entire US state apparatus is designed from the ground up to represent billionaire interests?
who otherwise run rampant in countries like the US, this is a good thing
Billionaires are not fine in any of the cases, neither when they run rampant or when they are subdued by the government to support their agenda and narrative. You can not take two bad cases A and B and then say B is not A therefore it is good. That is a logical fallacy.
you also expect a Communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years?
I don’t expect a communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years, all I am saying is that I expect them to subdue billionaires into obedience like China does. That is not communism to me. Whatever the overall arching goal of China and USA is for subduing millionaires, I think they meet in the common denominator: wanting have absolute control everything and I think there is a word for that kind of state.
How on Earth is Trump going to wrangle billionaires under him when the entire US state apparatus is designed from the ground up to represent billionaire interests?
Whether or not Trump will be able to achieve it we will see. But he can still do it in a way that represents billionaire interests: all he has to do is convince the billionaires that it is in their interest to support him. It will likely through mixtures of bribery and intimidation attempts. Of course billionaires might get threatened by him and try to burn him to the ground as well.
How do you get rid of Billionaires while remaining interlocked in a global economy and not suffer from Capital Flight and Brain Drain? Decouple and go the same way as the USSR? Ultraleftists like yourself reject Marx and let right take priority over what’s possible at the present moment, and risk the entire Socialist project.
What has given you the impression that the US government can subdue Billionaires, let alone will? The last time Trump was in power the opposite was the case, and that has consistently been true for every presidency.
This is silly. Trump is in this to get rich, his interests are in billionaires getting richer. He isn’t going to “subdue” anyone for those aims.
Interlocked in a global economy is an understatement for a country in which millions of its citizens work for US based multinational enterprises owned by billionaires. They are at this state organic extensions of each other, cut one out and the other likely dies. Very similar to clothing sector in India, Bangladesh etc but for other sectors (like electronics I suppose).
The question you asked is a difficult one I will give you that. I have no dreams (well I mean sometimes I do but don’t believe the practicality of it) of getting rid of all billionaires all at once. It is a bit like cancer I guess which must operated on surgically. Going to a billionaire free society is one of the many possible pathways that can lead from subduing billionaires. But at this point all you are presenting me with is the possible good-will of Chinese government. A more simplest explanation is that it simply is a very authoritarian government.
2
Can? I don’t know. I believe Trump will try. And he will try precisely because of the reasons you have presented. US is run by billionaires, if you subdue billionaires then you are the most powerful man in US. I think Trump is deluded enough to try this given that Elon likely also shares the same goal with him, perhaps even more enthusiastic than Trump about it. As I said above, there may be many reasons why a government tries to subdue billionaires, getting rid of them is just one of many such reasons.
3
Well after you subdue the billionaires, it is entirely up to you to decide how to use that power. Trump will %100 sure use it to get more powerful himself, might even try to change things so that he can be a president the next term as well. In the simplest cases, he will make forced deals that will immensely benefit the businesses he owns (well now his sons “own” them if you believe that).
You are correct that the PRC’s economy is tied with the rest of the world. This is by design. The PRC witnessed the fall of the USSR in real time, and decided to take the opposite approach while still working towards Socialism: make themselves the producers of the world so the US can’t directly oppose them. This has paid off in spades. Further, what is “authoritarian?” What mechanically gives rise to that, why does it exist, and why is it bad? Is there an arbitrary level where democracy turns to authoritarianism?
I would love to see any proof behind this other than vibes. Until then, the logical conclusion is likely the correct one.
Same as 2, I would love to see any proof that isn’t just vibes.
Why is it bad? Well most people who like authoritarian governments because they are allured its power and efficiency only do so until freedom to do something they really care about is taken away from them because it is deemed “harmful” to the society at large. So if you don’t realize why a very authoritarian government is bad, either you or your kids are yet to realize why.
The questions you have asked could probably fill text books and by no means by me and I would agree there is no red line which separates non-authoritarian from authoritarian. All law making states are authoritarian to some extent. I did however say “very” authoritarian, and in my mind there are more clear signs of such a government: holding state above the law, subduing sources of power by carrot and stick and amassing them by your side, subduing media to create your own narrative, creating the notion of “external and internal enemies” and using that as casus belli to declare war on parts of your own country that don’t agree with you. A succinct summary could be abusing power to stay in power.
2-3
I mean, to start with, obviously there won’t be any proofs but more likely clues, especially this early on. Here are some clues:
a- To start with he has (or thinks has) subdued Elon:
by probably promising him government contracts and a “say at the table”. Elon likely has his own plans and thinks this arrangement is temporary (given his extremely inflated sense of self importance I don’t think he will see him self as support billionaire to Trump forever). Even by US standards a billionaire being so intertwined with a president is a new low and is a sign of things that are going to change (for the worse).
b- Many companies that have previously withheld their ADs from twitter because of Elon’s misinformation campaigns and fascists rants are now coming back one by one:
This is a form of favour seeking and kissing the ring. This means, at least locally in time, they are subdued (or acting as if subdued). They might or might not have their own agenda we will see.
If when I say subdue you understand that Trump seizing a billionaires assets and companies then that is wrong. He is subduing them by saying “either side with me or you will lose a seat at the table filled by your rivals and they will make sure you will perish”.
d- Other tech companies have already started to lick his feet because they know if they don’t the consequences will be dire for them:
And I am not talking about the inauguration fund (which existed before Trump and is just a proof of what a circus US is). I am talking about the way CEOs of these companies are reacting to the election results:
“President Trump will lead our country into the age of AI, and I am eager to support his efforts to ensure America stays ahead,” Altman said"
Now again, to some extend all of these existed in the US before: rewarding billionaires who have supported the presidential campaign. But never before this directly, this early on and so fiercely. Trump hasn’t even taken office yet but people are scrambling to prove their loyalty to him. This is much different than the “favour seeking” that existed before in the US.
The former acted because he was personally affected by a person supporting exploitation within a liberal system, the latter leads an authoritarian regime that allowed their CEOs to do what they do until they got annoying for whatever reasons.
So if you want to talk objective results here, sure, one of them got a higher kill count. However, who has the moral high ground here is not even up to debate IMO
Luigi acted out of emotional response to individual trauma of a horribly cruel system, but very little will fundamentally change. The PRC punishes billionaires guilty of massive crimes, such as massive corruption. Which one does have the moral high ground, the one executing of his own volition in a manner that won’t change anything, or the justice system of another country repeatedly working in favor of the people?
I’d say neither, if you start framing it in terms of morals and not material improvements for the working class you accept that Luigi didn’t change anything, just did what we all want to do. I’m against the.death penalty either way but I’d rather the working class be empowered overall.
if by “annoying” you mean exploitative in ways that are tolerated in liberal systems but not in a sane, well-planned system that actually represents its people, sure
One has a 95% approval rate, which amounts to some 900 million working age adults alone, and is the leader of a party of over 93 million. His actions also don’t stop there, but rather continue in the monumental BRI uplifting hundreds of millions in Africa and Central Asia, as well as the total eradication of poverty in China and the development of twice as much green energy than the rest of the world combined.
I liked Brian Thompson getting his due, absolutely, but let’s fucking pipe down lmao. The point was if y’all want to really stick it to CEOs, you better start organizing so y’all can get em in a way the pigs would be helpless to stop.
Again, libs just going by vibes and absolutely zero investigation, let alone evidence.
Removed by mod
Copying my comment over here, as it’s highly relevant:
It’s more that liberals like yourself directly ignore facts and statistics while blindly repeating vague and unsourced claims of “China Bad,” because it lets you remain comfortable in your pre-existing worldview. Communists do not have such luxury, which is why they seemingly always have endless sources on hand. In your comment here, as an example, you discredit the CPC’s approval with no source. However, if we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
You are directly decieving yourself because you license yourself to. If you actually looked at real sources and didn’t reject them reflexively, instead of accepting bourgeois media at face value, you’d sit much closer to where I do. You should read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Both are excellent examples of why people don’t change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn’t mean Communists don’t do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these “licenses” to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.
The authoritarian Harvard and Pew polls which reported such a number? Lmao yall are so stubbornly committed to chauvinism even if a million Chinese came up to you to tell you you’d be unconvinced. There’s literally dozens of western polls which confirm it, it’s not up for debate, denying it is as ridiculous as denying the existence of the moon.
Being incredibly adept at mental gymnastics isn’t critical thinking. What part of parroting the headlines you get from corporate media says “critical thinking” to you? I feel super bad for my American comrades trying to organize and make things better when half the country is somehow even dumber than this.
stormfront.world users downvoting facts when they don’t fit their racist vibes smh
you hate to see it
The one which has the high approval rate has a very good working relationship with billionaires which kisses the government’s feet, the type of government we will be seeing in the USA for the next four years.
So if the government is run by a party people greatly approve of and said party dominates billionaires, who otherwise run rampant in countries like the US, this is a good thing and the people love it. However, you also expect a Communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years? What on Earth kind of fanfiction is this? How on Earth is Trump going to wrangle billionaires under him when the entire US state apparatus is designed from the ground up to represent billionaire interests?
Billionaires are not fine in any of the cases, neither when they run rampant or when they are subdued by the government to support their agenda and narrative. You can not take two bad cases A and B and then say B is not A therefore it is good. That is a logical fallacy.
I don’t expect a communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years, all I am saying is that I expect them to subdue billionaires into obedience like China does. That is not communism to me. Whatever the overall arching goal of China and USA is for subduing millionaires, I think they meet in the common denominator: wanting have absolute control everything and I think there is a word for that kind of state.
Whether or not Trump will be able to achieve it we will see. But he can still do it in a way that represents billionaire interests: all he has to do is convince the billionaires that it is in their interest to support him. It will likely through mixtures of bribery and intimidation attempts. Of course billionaires might get threatened by him and try to burn him to the ground as well.
How do you get rid of Billionaires while remaining interlocked in a global economy and not suffer from Capital Flight and Brain Drain? Decouple and go the same way as the USSR? Ultraleftists like yourself reject Marx and let right take priority over what’s possible at the present moment, and risk the entire Socialist project.
What has given you the impression that the US government can subdue Billionaires, let alone will? The last time Trump was in power the opposite was the case, and that has consistently been true for every presidency.
This is silly. Trump is in this to get rich, his interests are in billionaires getting richer. He isn’t going to “subdue” anyone for those aims.
Interlocked in a global economy is an understatement for a country in which millions of its citizens work for US based multinational enterprises owned by billionaires. They are at this state organic extensions of each other, cut one out and the other likely dies. Very similar to clothing sector in India, Bangladesh etc but for other sectors (like electronics I suppose).
The question you asked is a difficult one I will give you that. I have no dreams (well I mean sometimes I do but don’t believe the practicality of it) of getting rid of all billionaires all at once. It is a bit like cancer I guess which must operated on surgically. Going to a billionaire free society is one of the many possible pathways that can lead from subduing billionaires. But at this point all you are presenting me with is the possible good-will of Chinese government. A more simplest explanation is that it simply is a very authoritarian government.
Can? I don’t know. I believe Trump will try. And he will try precisely because of the reasons you have presented. US is run by billionaires, if you subdue billionaires then you are the most powerful man in US. I think Trump is deluded enough to try this given that Elon likely also shares the same goal with him, perhaps even more enthusiastic than Trump about it. As I said above, there may be many reasons why a government tries to subdue billionaires, getting rid of them is just one of many such reasons.
Well after you subdue the billionaires, it is entirely up to you to decide how to use that power. Trump will %100 sure use it to get more powerful himself, might even try to change things so that he can be a president the next term as well. In the simplest cases, he will make forced deals that will immensely benefit the businesses he owns (well now his sons “own” them if you believe that).
You are correct that the PRC’s economy is tied with the rest of the world. This is by design. The PRC witnessed the fall of the USSR in real time, and decided to take the opposite approach while still working towards Socialism: make themselves the producers of the world so the US can’t directly oppose them. This has paid off in spades. Further, what is “authoritarian?” What mechanically gives rise to that, why does it exist, and why is it bad? Is there an arbitrary level where democracy turns to authoritarianism?
I would love to see any proof behind this other than vibes. Until then, the logical conclusion is likely the correct one.
Same as 2, I would love to see any proof that isn’t just vibes.
Why is it bad? Well most people who like authoritarian governments because they are allured its power and efficiency only do so until freedom to do something they really care about is taken away from them because it is deemed “harmful” to the society at large. So if you don’t realize why a very authoritarian government is bad, either you or your kids are yet to realize why.
The questions you have asked could probably fill text books and by no means by me and I would agree there is no red line which separates non-authoritarian from authoritarian. All law making states are authoritarian to some extent. I did however say “very” authoritarian, and in my mind there are more clear signs of such a government: holding state above the law, subduing sources of power by carrot and stick and amassing them by your side, subduing media to create your own narrative, creating the notion of “external and internal enemies” and using that as casus belli to declare war on parts of your own country that don’t agree with you. A succinct summary could be abusing power to stay in power.
I mean, to start with, obviously there won’t be any proofs but more likely clues, especially this early on. Here are some clues:
a- To start with he has (or thinks has) subdued Elon:
by probably promising him government contracts and a “say at the table”. Elon likely has his own plans and thinks this arrangement is temporary (given his extremely inflated sense of self importance I don’t think he will see him self as support billionaire to Trump forever). Even by US standards a billionaire being so intertwined with a president is a new low and is a sign of things that are going to change (for the worse).
b- Many companies that have previously withheld their ADs from twitter because of Elon’s misinformation campaigns and fascists rants are now coming back one by one:
https://www.ft.com/content/34b6fc20-23f7-4e08-9ac4-ef05d5d66c13
This is a form of favour seeking and kissing the ring. This means, at least locally in time, they are subdued (or acting as if subdued). They might or might not have their own agenda we will see.
c- Trump’s pick for the cabinet:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/06/trump-us-cabinet-billionaires
If when I say subdue you understand that Trump seizing a billionaires assets and companies then that is wrong. He is subduing them by saying “either side with me or you will lose a seat at the table filled by your rivals and they will make sure you will perish”.
d- Other tech companies have already started to lick his feet because they know if they don’t the consequences will be dire for them:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/13/tech-companies-most-threatened-by-trump-donating-to-inauguration-fund.html
And I am not talking about the inauguration fund (which existed before Trump and is just a proof of what a circus US is). I am talking about the way CEOs of these companies are reacting to the election results:
“President Trump will lead our country into the age of AI, and I am eager to support his efforts to ensure America stays ahead,” Altman said"
Now again, to some extend all of these existed in the US before: rewarding billionaires who have supported the presidential campaign. But never before this directly, this early on and so fiercely. Trump hasn’t even taken office yet but people are scrambling to prove their loyalty to him. This is much different than the “favour seeking” that existed before in the US.