Yesterday, July 29th, Sun Dawu, the Chinese agribusiness billionaire from Hebei province, was sentenced to 18 years in prison for publicly contradicting CPC’s policy, illegally occupying land, promoting riots and obstructing government work. Where would a bourgeois imperialist state imprison a billionaire?
Not that it would be unprecedented for bourgeois justice to condemn the bourgeoisie itself. The Brazilian billionaire Deusmar Queirós, owner of Pague Menos, was arrested in Brazil in 2018 for “crimes against the financial market.” But in the case of Brazil, this is more revealing of the dependent character of our bourgeois state, subservient to imperialism.
The “financial market,” as everyone knows, is a sector where US imperialism as is hegemonic. But the businessmen of the financial sector who were behind the 2008 crisis that produced unemployment, hunger and misery among the American people did not even generate one prisoner among the billionaires. Instead, they received trillion-dollar government subsidies. They committed terrible crimes, but went unpunished.
But in China, it is different. After Mao’s death, there was not a break against the socialist state of the 1949 revolution. There was a continuity, unlike what happened with the Soviet Union in 1991, which at the end of the capitalist restoration process there was an institutional break. Moreover, in China, unprecedented in any capitalist state is the execution of billionaires and big businessmen, as was the case of Liu Han in 2015. Liu Han had been arrested in 2013, months after Xi Jinping was elected to the post of general secretary.
These are events that make me doubt the theory of the bourgeois character of the Chinese state, and the “restoration of capitalism” in China. The bourgeoisie does not have control of the state, but it certainly struggles to have it. The class struggle in China is still alive, but the Chinese workers since 1949 have proved victorious in the battles.
Anyone else feel that when China punishes billionaires, the media always narrates it in such a way that makes it look like CPC is a bigger threat to us than billionaires? The coverage is always sympathetic towards billionaires.
But the businessmen of the financial sector who were behind the 2008 crisis that produced unemployment, hunger and misery among the American people did not even generate one prisoner among the billionaires.
I think ONE banker went to jail lmao
Anyone else feel that when China punishes billionaires, the media always narrates it in such a way that makes it look like CPC is a bigger threat to us than billionaires?
Yes, and I love it. It’s in moments like these that the media openly reveal their class character. It’s very enlightening.
I think ONE banker went to jail lmao
And he wasn’t even close to the top bankers. He was a supervisor of trading positions and earned at the time around $7 million a year.
For the Panama papers, they car bombed the reporter who discovered it.
The CCP are the billionaires, and more. The richest persons in China are part of the red leviathan xD
The fuck is the red leviathan?
Is that an example of the readings by “New Leftism”? You’ve just made an example of why this shit should be fought against. You’re echoing ideas which benefit the US empire, which, at all costs, wants China to lose support in public opinion. While seemingly unconscious of it, you’re being an agent of imperialism. Great job on showing the “wonders” of New Leftism.
Sigh
The problem is Gonzalo’s Maoism and Internet communism; all the SolidNet parties are for China. All the activists who are Marxist that are actually organizing are for China. Frankly, I think it’s mainly the social media Marxist-Leninists on places like Reddit and so on that treat this like a debate.
The problem is that Marxist-Leninists should be sectarian… against Maoists and New Left ideas.
Sectarianism only applies to the communist movement; we shouldn’t consider Maoists to be apart of the international communist movement.
IMHO
Frankly, it’s an idea, but I’m not 100% sure on how it is to be handled, if at all. But every time a communsit Internet space stresses being “anti-sectarian” it results in Maoists eventually taking it over. I saw this happen at least three times and heard about occasions were Maoists affected the bent of the community, all in the name of “anti-sectarianism.”
@muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml can give you the rundown, I suppose, about the Maoist mods on /r/com.
The problem is that Marxist-Leninists should be sectarian… against Maoists and New Left ideas.
I understand what you’re saying, and I thoroughly agree, but I think sectarian is a wrong term for what you’re describing. It’s fighting left opportunism, it has nothing to do with sectarianism. I have written a text in Portuguese about left opportunism and opportunism in general, unfortunately with references to the revolutionary movements here in Brazil which may be alienating to some, but in any case I’ll quickly translate them and post them here. I’ll link it in this comment once I’m done.
EDIT: Here you go.
You’re right.
Clicking the link rn.
And yes, that’s pretty much what I mean (what you clarified, more precisely).
I agree that internet communist tend to be influenced, if not controlled, by Maoism or the pseudo thinker Xi. But I totally disagree with rejecting new leftist ideas, the humanity evolve and ignoring current foughts is seeking for a world that doesn’t exist anymore. Equality treat to females is new leftist idea that we can’t ignore, there’s also all the critical theory that was developed in the first years of the past century.
Feminism and anti-racism was born out of Marxism and the socialist movement, such as Alexandra Kollontai and W.E.B. Du Bois. New Leftism should be fought against at all costs, and the “old ideas” should not be discarded if they all explain the phenomena we see today.
This, of course, does not mean we shouldn’t be open to new ideas, but New Leftism is nothing new, is the same old opportunistic and anti-Marxist ideas that have made their way through the revolutionary movements, every time in the name of “renewal”.
Equality for females is a Marxist idea developed in the 19th century.
Developed but not applied in its discourse, isn’t it?
It was.
