Cowbee comments on The AI of Power

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago* (9 children)

Nobody said the Chinese state doesn't use surveillance, the primary difference is that China is socialist, and the working classes control the state. Nationalization in a capitalist context is under a bourgeois state, nationalization in a socialist context is under a proletarian state. These aren't vauge "sides," but concrete class distinctions.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (8 children)

Ah yes, I'm sure the Chinese working class who totally own the state love to use AI and technology to spy on themselves.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (7 children)

What class do you believe is in control of the state in China? Surveillance is used to cement proletarian control and root out infiltration and capitalist organizing. It's why China executes many billionaires, and is one of the only countries in the world where the number of billionaires is decreasing year over year despite increasing per capita wealth year over year. Sarcasm isn't a point.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Oh okay, sounds like everyone there is paranoid that their loved ones are secretly capitalists. Must have explained why from 285 billionaires in 2019, an additional 800 or so more billionaires have sprung up in China just last year. Did they eat the rich after finding out their neighbours and loved ones are capitalists, and then shat them out to produce 800 more billionaires? It sounds counterintuitive for a worker owned, socialist StAtE.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[+] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Nice, dehumanization added to ableism, ageism, and racism. Is that a bingo?

Either way, I cannot find any sources corroborating the 800 billionaires number, the data points to there being ~500 total in China. America has more billionaires per capita, with each billionaire having far more wealth on average than Chinese billionaires, and by most studies has more billionaires in total as well despite having a quarter of the population. You haven't proven anything, even your own Wikipedia link disagreed with you.

Further, this entire conversation was about whether a capitalist state nationalizing is a move towards socialism or not, and I answered definitively that it is not, explaining why. The US Empire nationalizing a part of the AI industry merely puts that under the collective control of the capitalist class, rather than individual capitalists, due to the capitalist dictatorship. If you're following what I'm saying, then you can understand that the US does not have a working class state, nor is public ownership the principal aspect of its economy.

What are you trying to do? Delegitimize your own points and make people agree with me more?