Cruel comments on Solarpunk

[+] Cruel@programming.dev -8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm saying "if it looks and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck." You're saying "if it says it's not a duck, it's not."

How is the Chinese economy not fascist corporatism? Because they call it "public ownership"? The CCP mandates all corporations have CCP cells that align with their national interests. They still defer to private property owners who often become very wealthy. (see: Jack Ma). How does a socialist country have people worth almost $30 billion? This is no more socialism than Nazi's Nat Socs (or rather, it's equally socialism).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] Cruel@programming.dev -7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

Jack Ma was punished for speaking out against the government's bank lending policy which prevented people without capital from getting it. Almost the exact opposite of "acting against socialism". And again, he's still worth almost $30 billion. Yet you maintain this is somehow socialism, which would require rejecting the private property and capitalism which cornerstones China today.

His punishment further highlights the other tenet of fascism which permits such authoritarian control. If Trump admnistration seized all corporate control (citing their usage for "national interests" or for "the people"), then punished corporate leaders for disagreeing with public policy, would you also say this is somehow not fascism? I imagine you would say he's very much more fascistic than he is today.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] Cruel@programming.dev -7 points 9 months ago

At this point I’m not sure why you genuinely don’t seem to understand the difference between public and private ownership, and how that impacts the state and therefore helps us see what a system actually is.

This has come up multiple times, though I thought it was addressed. So I'll focus on this issue. Tell me which of these is wrong:

A core part of fascism is economic control and corporatism (nationalizing corporations and controlling private property).
Just because a fascist government takes control of it doesn't mean it ceases to be private property. They still defer to the property owners, who often become wealthy. This would not happen if the public owned it, as everyone would be enriched instead. People like Jack Ma could never be worth billions.
China permits and thrives on such government controlled private property.