this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
803 points (90.2% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
39399 readers
5266 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, 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.
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.
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. I suspect I'm not the first person to tell you this.
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.
If I were an anti-communist, I'd be suspicious of you being an alt of me meant to legitimize my points by providing no meaningful counter and giving me every opportunity to coherently explain my points.
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.
China's inequality is shrinking, though. The urban/rural divide is being addressed through comprehensive social programs, including the aforementioned poverty eradication program but also including massive expansions in infrastructure and new jobs. Personally, anti-communists I've interacted with tend to hate both China and not believe it to be socialist. They can never seem to explain why, though, and nearly all major existing Marxist organizations recognize them as socialist for the reasons I gave.
I already said, I love China, it's great and getting better. It could get even better if it actually worked toward socialism instead of falling into the trap the people that used to exploit it did, trying to exploit other poorer countries.
You haven't done anything but list twisted versions of right-wing taking points. "Billionaires aren't a problem because poor people have refrigerators."
There is no defense for China's system, at least not from a communist.
Public ownership is the principal aspect of China's economy, and the working classes control the state. It's socialist, and you haven't disproven the prior claims nor are you willing to provide what you believe socialism to be so we can compare China to your vision. You haven't backed up a single claim of yours. You also haven't explained what "right-wing talking points" I have, and now you're inventing points I never made, such as the point about refrigerators. If you want to see a communist defense of China, scroll back a few comments and actually read what I wrote instead of lashing out relentlessly.
Last one then I got to go.
You try to excuse the wealth hoarding of China's parasite class in part by taking about the rising standard of living of the poor.
That is no different than right-wingers saying wealth inequality isn't a problem because poor people have a higher standard of living than decades ago. There was a famous example not too long ago (I guess not too famous because I forgot the details) where some republican in the U.S. minimized the struggles of the poor because they all had refrigerators now. What you do to minimize the struggles of the poor in China is no different.
I never did that, though. I explained that China has billionaires because they still have private ownership in secondary small and medium firms. This isn't permanent, however, it's a consequence of existing at a definite state of development. As these firms grow, they are folded into the public sector. Explaining the temporary existence of billionares in the transition between capitalism and communism called socialism is not a defense of the permanent and justified existence of billionaires that right-wingers try to do to justify capitalist economies where private ownership is principal.
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.
Cowbee is basically a telemarketer with a binder of rebuttals. Refusing to read from their script is reasonable.