R. Guyovich posted:

also there is still no such thing as private property in china, you can't own land. the most you can do is take out a long-term lease from the state

R. Guyovich posted:

fancy cars aren't a mode of production

R. Guyovich posted:

there are numerous controls on this tendency. the anti-corruption campaign is a lot bigger than a couple high-profile executions. over a hundred thousand indictments and hundreds of high-profile officials getting expelled or put in jail

there's also state control over top executive pay which, in recent years, has been cut drastically as a measure of curbing inequality. not to mention strict regulation on foreign investment. wages and benefits are also steadily increasing for the whole country.

the government still has ownership of the commanding heights of the economy and has accepted a certain level of inequality as necessary for economic growth. now, and in a few years once the poverty goals have been met, would be the time for that inequality to reduce. if it doesn't, you have a case

Jose posted:

what social safety net does china have

Crowsbeak posted:

Are there any good Christian Socialist works you guys could suggest?

GalacticAcid posted:

https://twitter.com/dongoehubaire/status/931192149365977088

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

"Shrek 2"
1 hour 45 minutes
2004
Gender bureaucrat enemy of the people "Fairy Godmother" lives a life of dogmatism following the scripts in "Cinderella," "Snow White" and such books that she keeps in her library. Living off the exploited workers, and selling hocus-pocus to the people like many other unproductive sector flim-flam artists we can think of today, Fairy Godmother spreads her poisonous visions of the future everywhere and lords over even the king himself.

Seeking to appropriate the sexuality of the king's daughter for her son, Fairy Godmother does her best to spread speciesist propaganda against ogres, one of which already married the king's daughter, thus making her unavailable to the Fairy Godmother's son. The evil speciesist propaganda finds fertile grounds in the king's mind and most of the people of the kingdom.

Highly class conscious characters including Pinocchio watching television immediately see through the pigdom's entertainment media, get off the couch and rush to help their compatriots locked up while filmed for a cop show. Once out of prison, our heroes rely on a toiling baker to launch on all-out assault on the bastion of reaction, the castle taken over by Fairy Godmother's plotting.

Using the past to serve the present as Mao instructed artists, the directors of "Shrek 2" rattle off cultural references like machine-gun fire. Making Godzilla sounds and tearing down Starbucks on the way to the castle, our heroes arrive in time to do battle with the Fairy Godmother. Borrowing a move from another movie, the king dives to absorb the attack from the Fairy Godmother and he ends up turning into a frog. By running the king-to-frog cultural reference in reverse and making a Godzilla type character a hero, the directors of "Shrek 2" show just how upside down and backwards our culture is.

Voices of Hollywood actors considered sexy go into "Shrek 2"---Antonio Bandera for example--but the rich and beautiful people do not appear in the film, which is an animation. The film explores the subjective notion of "cuteness" and ends up throwing the whole notion to the wind, much to the chagrin of the gender aristocracy and gender bureacracy everywhere. Even the cute, fluffy white dog died when Shrek dove into the concert pit, punk-style.

We only hope that there is a "Shrek 3," in which the newly-weds rampage through the rest of the society and culture. Otherwise the message will be that society has to be attacked just for the love of two people. Misguided people may watch this movie instead of doing something about the carnage in Iraq and when it comes their turn, they may lash out in violence "in the name of love." That's why there needs to be a "Shrek 3" in which the united workers of all species liberate themselves. We'd also point out to viewers that our heroes never killed anyone just for "love." Good riddance to the Fairy Godmother: she had it coming for a lot of reasons.

Top City Homo posted:

platzapS posted:

This sounds useful. Can you link the specific piece?

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/988450114514702337

reignonyourparade posted:

They are generally respectably competitive though, basically every study on them has shown this.

Karl Barks posted:

People like starting companies where they get all the profit and get to tell people what to do instead

Mondragon in Spain is a good example of a coop being competitive even on an international stage

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Yeah, the solution to the credit problem is political intervention, and that means electoral victory so - technically feasible but practically extremely difficult.

Anyway Yandat, you've probably done business in a co-op before. Grocery stores are the most common forms of worker cooperatives.

Karl Barks posted:

Why won't they get the capital?

Karl Barks posted:

Disclosure: I am [...] a cop

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

If a firm is owned and operated by its workers, and not by a proprietor or shareholders, then it's not capitalist.

rudatron posted:

Pener your ignoring my obvious objection - there will still be a capitalist class, they'll simply be members of firms that rent out capital. Class relations will still exist, but the fundanental unit will be the firm, not the individual.

Yossarian-22 posted:

at least one trotskyist party has to be good when there are so many out there

Clochette posted:

It's not "free"

It comes from the taxes paid overwhelmingly by the working class, the wealth producers. That tax money just goes towards war and corporate welfare right now instead.

Thug Lessons posted:

Nobody here accused Sakai of claiming modern concepts of race are eternal, so this is beside the point.

Prav posted:

but is it unnecessary as make-work or sinecures, or is it unnecessary but still done because organizing an efficient bureaucracy is hard?