Comment on Lemmy.jpeg
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days agoYou certainly haven’t been able to demonstrate your theory here, and haven’t been able to disprove a single claim I’ve made.
Comment on Lemmy.jpeg
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days agoYou certainly haven’t been able to demonstrate your theory here, and haven’t been able to disprove a single claim I’ve made.
Jmdatcs@lemmy.world 2 days ago
None of your circle jerk “theory” will change the fact that hundreds of millions of Chinese live in poverty to fuel the grotesquely lavish lifestyles of a few, and that those few are turning their exploitative efforts outward to accumulate even more wealth, while letting a little “trickle-down” to keep the plebs calm.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
The countryside isn’t the backbone of the Chinese economy, the industrial base is. Poverty in the countryside exists because it’s less developed in comparison to the rapidly improving urban areas, due to the explosion in industrial production. By and large, the Chinese working classes are paid better and better every year, as I have shown with hard data, and the rural/urban gap is diminishing year by year. Chinese citizens live off of their own labor, and their trade and mutual agreements with other global south countries results in win-win economic development.
Not a single thing you’ve presented proves otherwise. All you have is your word.
Jmdatcs@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Win-win, where have I heard that before? Oh yes! It’s when imperial powers talk about the relationships with weaker “allies” that result in things like sweatshops. China will soon be getting their “fast-fashion” from African sweatshops raising their standard of living further and enriching the parasite class beyond their wildest dreams. China can teach them how to install anti-suicide nets in their factory dorms in return. A completely equal exchange.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Alright, there’s your thesis. Now back that up with facts, statistics, and other forms of evidence, as I’ve already done for mine. You cannot simply abstract a concept from one situation and dogmatically apply it to an entirely different situation with an entitely different context, this is just metaphysics at work and results in farcical conclusions. No need for me to rehash what I’ve already proven.