@ThejhonJhonny @Phoenixcraft98 @SmashingUrFort @NgorongoroBoy @SuperealArcDoom@EdbieLigerSmith I'm actually happy I saw the extent of Marxian larping and pseudointellectualism you guys are capable of. I genuinely hope you don't go into academics.
@Phoenixcraft98 @ThejhonJhonny @SmashingUrFort @NgorongoroBoy @SuperealArcDoom@EdbieLigerSmith Or maybe all dialectical contradictions must resolve in revolution, not just resolution, because you don't understand how dialectics work
@Phoenixcraft98 @ThejhonJhonny @SmashingUrFort @NgorongoroBoy @SuperealArcDoom@EdbieLigerSmith Having a legal framework that allows SuperPacs literally buying leaders in the US, as opposed to having a legal framework that actively curbs the bourgeoisie, is the same thing... sorry, not dialectical enough...
@Phoenixcraft98 @ThejhonJhonny @SmashingUrFort @NgorongoroBoy @SuperealArcDoom@EdbieLigerSmith Thesis: The Rise of the Bourgeoisie in China
Antithesis: Contradictions Arising from Bourgeois Power
-contradictions: inequality, corruption, ideological & political threat
Synthesis: State Intervention to Curb the Bourgeoisie
- laws, wealth redistribution, regulation
@Phoenixcraft98 @ThejhonJhonny @SmashingUrFort @NgorongoroBoy @SuperealArcDoom@EdbieLigerSmith - the legal framework adopted by the CCP to curb the bourgeoisie has resulted in several executions of billionaires: Lai Xiaomin, Liu Han, Zeng Chengjie, etc. This is an example of the Chinese state and legal system being a master, not a servant of the Capitalist class.
@Phoenixcraft98 @ThejhonJhonny @SmashingUrFort @NgorongoroBoy @SuperealArcDoom@EdbieLigerSmith >> most CCP officials having been raised in misery, including Xi himself. So personal motivations apply to an extent.
- A legalistic framework: laws and traditions adopted by the CCP, such as 5-year plans guide policy and serve as a motivation. So do anti-corruption laws. >>
@Phoenixcraft98 @ThejhonJhonny @SmashingUrFort @NgorongoroBoy @SuperealArcDoom@EdbieLigerSmith I just clapped back at this -- we can proceed with dialectics if you wish, just don't claim to be judge and jury for what counts as correct material analysis.
@Phoenixcraft98 @ThejhonJhonny @SmashingUrFort @NgorongoroBoy @SuperealArcDoom@EdbieLigerSmith By saying "not every sentence has to be structured in a Marxian way", you reject the concept of a normal discussion. No one rejected dialectics in itself.