Cowbee comments on The AI of Power

[–] 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?