Interesting data, seems it isn’t consistent, while what is consistent is the rise in the amount of wealth owned by the working classes in proportion to capitalists. Even more interesting is the rate of billionaires, where China ranks very low. China still has billionaires because it still has private property, and it still has private property because the secondary and less developed industry is largely private while the commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned and driven. This isn’t counterintuitive at all, as markets do their thing and centralize, they are gradually folded more into the public sector.
Again, what class do you think controls the state? What do you think socialism even is?
Billionaires do exist in China, I clearly gave you an explanation for why this is the case. The rate of billionaires per capita is among the lowest in the world, with about half the billionaires of the US with 3-4 times the population. You’re relying on a single survey which runs dramatically contrary to global consensus. Further, a billionaire rate is a per capita metric, nothing I said was contradictory at all, and accusing me of relying on an LLM to translate to my native tongue is absurd and borders on racist.
As for socialism, it’s a system where the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. I didn’t ask you what I think, but what you think, and the fact that you continuously dodge my questions reeks of dishonesty.
I see you are totally correct and not moving the goal post at all. Per capita suddenly matters when you just said the number of billionaires in China is decreasing over time, which does not totally contradict what you just mentioned. Very astute analysis and a chef’s kiss debating skills from you 👍🤛👌🤌 big brain moment 🧠
As for socialism, it’s a system where the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy.
If the worker controls the state, according to you, then if the state controls the economy, according to you, then nationalisation?
If the stock market is red on one day, does that mean the trend is decreasing over time? Increase and decrease in billionaires is not a linear process. Further, you just tried to say it was contradictory for me to say that China’s rate of billionaires is lower than the US Empire’s, and accused me of not speaking English natively. This is just naked racism, and I’m a Statesian, lmao.
As for socialism, nationalization is not socialism itself. Nationalization in the context of a socialist economy is progressive towards higher development of socialism, but is not socialism itself, socialism itself is a society where the working classes control the state and public ownership is principal.
Why do you keep dodging my questions? What do you think socialism is, and what class do you think controls the state of China? You’ve been going on to non-sequitors and dodging these critical questions, likely because to answer them proves you wrong.
Can you teach me math? 800 more Chinese billionaires in seven years versus 120 more American billionaires in the same time frame is less, is that correct? Oh, you must be wise oh great one and can count all four fingers on his hand. Did your teacher give you stars in your kindergarten for being good at counting? Did you get the red lollie for being a good counting boy, have you?
but is not socialism itself, socialism itself is a society where the working classes control the state and public ownership is principal.
So according to your very own definition, socialism is nationalisation. Very good!
The 800 figure is provided by a single reference, I’ve given more sources pointing to the real number being ~500 total. As for the rate of billionaires, I of course have referenced this being a per capita number, ie since the US has double the billionaires and a quarter of the people, it has an absurdly high number of billionaires, with a much higher average wealth among them and a much larger portion of wealth concentration. Your ableism and ageism is certainly a pivot from your earlier racism, but none of them form a point.
Further, nationalism is not socialism itself. Nationalism in the context of a socialist economy represents an advancement in socialization, but in the context of a capitalist economy entrenches the capitalist class. This is because of the difference between the class nature of the state among both societies.
You also have not answered my point: what class is the ruling class of China, and what do you believe socialism is?
Interesting data, seems it isn’t consistent, while what is consistent is the rise in the amount of wealth owned by the working classes in proportion to capitalists. Even more interesting is the rate of billionaires, where China ranks very low. China still has billionaires because it still has private property, and it still has private property because the secondary and less developed industry is largely private while the commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned and driven. This isn’t counterintuitive at all, as markets do their thing and centralize, they are gradually folded more into the public sector.
Again, what class do you think controls the state? What do you think socialism even is?
Removed by mod
Billionaires do exist in China, I clearly gave you an explanation for why this is the case. The rate of billionaires per capita is among the lowest in the world, with about half the billionaires of the US with 3-4 times the population. You’re relying on a single survey which runs dramatically contrary to global consensus. Further, a billionaire rate is a per capita metric, nothing I said was contradictory at all, and accusing me of relying on an LLM to translate to my native tongue is absurd and borders on racist.
As for socialism, it’s a system where the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. I didn’t ask you what I think, but what you think, and the fact that you continuously dodge my questions reeks of dishonesty.
I see you are totally correct and not moving the goal post at all. Per capita suddenly matters when you just said the number of billionaires in China is decreasing over time, which does not totally contradict what you just mentioned. Very astute analysis and a chef’s kiss debating skills from you 👍🤛👌🤌 big brain moment 🧠
If the worker controls the state, according to you, then if the state controls the economy, according to you, then nationalisation?
If the stock market is red on one day, does that mean the trend is decreasing over time? Increase and decrease in billionaires is not a linear process. Further, you just tried to say it was contradictory for me to say that China’s rate of billionaires is lower than the US Empire’s, and accused me of not speaking English natively. This is just naked racism, and I’m a Statesian, lmao.
As for socialism, nationalization is not socialism itself. Nationalization in the context of a socialist economy is progressive towards higher development of socialism, but is not socialism itself, socialism itself is a society where the working classes control the state and public ownership is principal.
Why do you keep dodging my questions? What do you think socialism is, and what class do you think controls the state of China? You’ve been going on to non-sequitors and dodging these critical questions, likely because to answer them proves you wrong.
Can you teach me math? 800 more Chinese billionaires in seven years versus 120 more American billionaires in the same time frame is less, is that correct? Oh, you must be wise oh great one and can count all four fingers on his hand. Did your teacher give you stars in your kindergarten for being good at counting? Did you get the red lollie for being a good counting boy, have you?
So according to your very own definition, socialism is nationalisation. Very good!
The 800 figure is provided by a single reference, I’ve given more sources pointing to the real number being ~500 total. As for the rate of billionaires, I of course have referenced this being a per capita number, ie since the US has double the billionaires and a quarter of the people, it has an absurdly high number of billionaires, with a much higher average wealth among them and a much larger portion of wealth concentration. Your ableism and ageism is certainly a pivot from your earlier racism, but none of them form a point.
Further, nationalism is not socialism itself. Nationalism in the context of a socialist economy represents an advancement in socialization, but in the context of a capitalist economy entrenches the capitalist class. This is because of the difference between the class nature of the state among both societies.
You also have not answered my point: what class is the ruling class of China, and what do you believe socialism is?