Love it when people prove they have gotten themselves into an argument way over their heads with someone who clearly knows a great deal more than them. They always start to act like actually addressing the points being made is beneath them. It’s the easiest to see who actually knows about a subject vs who is just good at regurgitating the tropes they read in billionaire-owned western media.
Comment on [deleted]
Jmdatcs@lemmy.world 5 days agoYeah, because I don’t want to. I’m not going to get involved in a discussion of definitions of words with someone that lives in a bubble with their own alternate definitions created to support their circular reasoning.
Their poverty is vanishing because they’re exporting it by exploiting others. If you look at China and honestly see “socialism,” or even “working toward socialism,” you’re either painfully ignorant or mentally ill.
DudleyMason@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
Cowbee is basically a telemarketer with a binder of rebuttals. Refusing to read from their script is reasonable.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Do you disagree with this? Is this an example of circular reasoning, or instead an acknowledgement that socialism is about working class control and socialized production?
Neoliberalism on the other hand focuses on low taxes, low government spending, and privatization of formerly state owned and run industry wherever possible. Given that China’s government spending is massive, the backbone of the economy is made up of massive SOEs and other publicly owned industries, and taxes aren’t exactly low, I don’t see how any of this applies to China.
I already explained, further, how China isn’t at all exploiting others. Trade and partnership with China over the US results in reduced poverty. For example, BRI has lifted 40 million people out of poverty, thousands of infrastructure projects, and tens of billions in bilateral trade. This is not imperialism in any capacity, it’s mutual cooperation for mutual benefit.
And you top it all off with an ableist attack, unsurprising.
Jmdatcs@lemmy.world 5 days ago
No. I know this is hard for people like you to understand, but you don’t control this conversation. If I don’t want to discuss your definitions, which range from strategically incomplete to just plain wrong, you can not force it.
And it’s not an attack. If you are genuinely delusional I have nothing but sympathy for you and honestly hope that you live somewhere with access to resources that can help you. If you don’t have an agenda furthered by posting half-truths and lies and you honestly believe all this, you should talk to someone that can help you.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Sure, I can’t make you make a coherent point, I’d just rather you do so we can have a discussion, rather than a series of me bringing good sources and information to the table and you shouting at me and defending ableism. I don’t see what you gain from any of this, all you’ve done is legitimize me.
Jmdatcs@lemmy.world 5 days ago
What points have you made? All you’ve done is fail to make any excuses for the staggering and growing wealth inequality in China and fail to drag me into an unproductive argument about definitions.
If I were an anti-communist (an actual anti-communist, not anti-whatever China calls communist)I would love it when people like you try to tie China to communism.