• @barsquid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1310 months ago

    That’s excruciating to read. Why would someone take an hour to read this as an answer to that comment? Only near the end does it conclude the whataboutism and try to address why “socialism” produces hundreds of billionaires.

    Apparently, “it’s fine because the proles have public transit and stuff.” Perhaps magical thinking seems compelling if it is disguised in an expensive vocabulary and hiding behind many citations.

      • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        1710 months ago

        If the means of production is owned by the people, why would there be people with more money than others, let alone billions?

      • @barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        1610 months ago

        Uh, yes, it is an argument, whether or not you want to close your eyes to reality. Billionaires do not occur without individuals using concentrations of capital or power to extract large amounts of value from laborers. The wealth inequality in China is very present, due to the fact that it is capitalism.

        You would do well to join the people capable of observing objective reality instead of scouring the web for essays that cite philosophers instead of data. That would require confronting your cognitive biases, though.

        • @PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1810 months ago

          They’re literally defending the existence of The People’s Billionaires as proletarian liberation. They’re a lost cause, like most tankies.

          • @barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            410 months ago

            Totally agree. The essay they posted has some funny magical thinking if you want to skim through it for a laugh. “Billionaires are good actually because we need them to be like a sort of USB plug so we can link into capitalist economies. Anyway the state can execute them as a scapegoat if the need arises. Here’s a few dozen quotes from philosophers. See? Still socialist.”

            • @PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1210 months ago

              As Mao also said, “let one hundred flowers bloom in social science and arts and let one hundred of view points be expressed in the field of science.”, and then promptly jailed and murdered those who expressed themselves. Not sure he’s the ideal champion of free thought.

          • @barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            1310 months ago

            Socialism is about control of the means of production.

            Oh, you’re closer to reality than I imagined. Ok, so the billionaires are receiving billions of dollars with whose means of production?

              • @barsquid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                910 months ago

                Workers who own the means opt to force billions in wealth they generated upon these unfortunate individuals who must act as lightning rods for criticism. Instead of distributing it amongst themselves or spending on infrastructure. Very realistic perspective, thank you.

          • @PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            610 months ago

            Socialism is not about wealth inequality. Socialism is about control of the means of production.

            “Chinese billionaires are just really well paid proletarians” said no one sane ever.