this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
302 points (88.3% liked)
Memes
55965 readers
836 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Interesting data, seems it isn't consistent, while what is consistent is the rise in the amount of wealth owned by the working classes in proportion to capitalists. China still has billionaires because it still has private property, and it still has private property because the secondary and less developed industry is largely private while the commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned and driven. This isn't counterintuitive at all, as markets do their thing and centralize, they are gradually folded more into the public sector.
Again, what class do you think controls the state?
Billionaires do exist in China, I clearly gave you an explanation for why this is the case. The rate of billionaires per capita is among the lowest in the world, with about half the billionaires of the US with 3-4 times the population. You're relying on a single survey which runs dramatically contrary to global consensus. Further, a billionaire rate is a per capita metric, nothing I said was contradictory at all, and accusing me of relying on an LLM to translate to my native tongue is absurd and borders on racist.
As for socialism, it's a system where the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. I didn't ask you what I think, but what you think, and the fact that you continuously dodge my questions reeks of dishonesty.
I see you are totally correct and not moving the goal post at all. Per capita suddenly matters when you just said the number of billionaires in China is decreasing over time, which does not totally contradict what you just mentioned. Very astute analysis and a chef's kiss debating skills from you 👍🤛👌🤌 big brain moment 🧠
If the worker controls the state, according to you, then if the state controls the economy, according to you, then nationalisation?
If the stock market is red on one day, does that mean the trend is decreasing over time? Increase and decrease in billionaires is not a linear process. Further, you just tried to say it was contradictory for me to say that China's rate of billionaires is lower than the US Empire's, and accused me of not speaking English natively. This is just naked racism, and I'm a Statesian, lmao.
As for socialism, nationalization is not socialism itself. Nationalization in the context of a socialist economy is progressive towards higher development of socialism, but is not socialism itself, socialism itself is a society where the working classes control the state and public ownership is principal.
Why do you keep dodging my questions? What do you think socialism is, and what class do you think controls the state of China? You've been going on to non-sequitors and dodging these critical questions, likely because to answer them proves you wrong.
Can you teach me math? 800 more Chinese billionaires in seven years versus 120 more American billionaires in the same time frame is less, is that correct? Oh, you must be wise oh great one and can count all four fingers on his hand. Did your teacher give you stars in your kindergarten for being good at counting? Did you get the red lollie for being a good counting boy, have you?
So according to your very own definition, socialism is nationalisation. Very good!
The 800 figure is provided by a single reference, I've given more sources pointing to the real number being ~500 total. As for the rate of billionaires, I of course have referenced this being a per capita number, ie since the US has double the billionaires and a quarter of the people, it has an absurdly high number of billionaires, with a much higher average wealth among them and a much larger portion of wealth concentration. Your ableism and ageism is certainly a pivot from your earlier racism, but none of them form a point.
Further, nationalism is not socialism itself. Nationalism in the context of a socialist economy represents an advancement in socialization, but in the context of a capitalist economy entrenches the capitalist class. This is because of the difference between the class nature of the state among both societies.
You also have not answered my point: what class is the ruling class of China, and what do you believe socialism is?
Nice, dehumanization added to ableism, ageism, and racism. Is that a bingo?
Either way, I cannot find any sources corroborating the 800 billionaires number, the data points to there being ~500 total in China. America has more billionaires per capita, with each billionaire having far more wealth on average than Chinese billionaires, and by most studies has more billionaires in total as well despite having a quarter of the population. You haven't proven anything, even your own Wikipedia link disagreed with you.
Further, this entire conversation was about whether a capitalist state nationalizing is a move towards socialism or not, and I answered definitively that it is not, explaining why. The US Empire nationalizing a part of the AI industry merely puts that under the collective control of the capitalist class, rather than individual capitalists, due to the capitalist dictatorship. If you're following what I'm saying, then you can understand that the US does not have a working class state, nor is public ownership the principal aspect of its economy.
What are you trying to do? Delegitimize your own points and make people agree with me more?