this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
668 points (97.9% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2575 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A top economist has joined the growing list of China's elite to have disappeared from public life after criticizing Xi Jinping, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

Zhu Hengpeng served as deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for around a decade.

CASS is a state research think tank that reports directly to China's cabinet. Chen Daoyin, a former associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, described it as a "body to formulate party ideology to support the leadership."

According to the Journal, the 55-year-old disappeared shortly after remarking on China's sluggish economy and criticizing Xi's leadership in a private group on WeChat.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I mean you can still have private property under communism, it's the capital making property that's more owned by the workers themselves, but you can still own things under communism.

Similarly, you can earn capital under communism too, it's just that the tools for earning said capital aren't owned by corporations under corporations under CEOs under the 1%. It's not a cornerstone for sure, but it's not like communism is anti capital and growth and owning things

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Directly from The Communist Manifesto:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Read a bit ahead if you may:

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Okay? That doesn't change the summary about private property, which is a thing in China. It wasn't under Mao, it is now.

[–] Fox@pawb.social -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And then the adherents fought over the means and meaning, and everybody else threw their hands up

[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Tbh Marx is intentionally questioning definitions and such so it makes sense, simplifying it down to terms we use isn't very productive in that sense, because what he argues for is the abolishing of "private property" as we know it, but without removing the fruits of labour from its people, so if you and your mates worked for your house you can have it, until the moment you start making a business out of it then it's less ok.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A bit nitpicky here, but personal property isn't Private Property. That being said, Marx and Engels maintained constantly that Private Property cannot be abolished in one sweep, that goes fundamentally against Historical Materialism. Socialism emerges from Capitalism, you can't establish it through fiat, hence why the Cultural Revolution wasn't a resounding success. Mao tried to establish Communism immediately, misjudged, and then Deng stepped in.

[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thank you you've put the difference in better terms than I did

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

No problem. Marxism is pretty difficult for most people to understand entirely without reading far more than you would expect, it isn't simply criticism of Capitalism or advocacy for Socialism and then Communism, but also Dialectical and Historical Materialism, which is where people can easily trip up.