• InverseParallax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is exactly racism, there are numerous ethnic groups in China and Taipei.

    https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/01/29/2003772257

    Last month, Ko said that the goal of the forum is to jointly build the “Chinese dream,” as “the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one family” and “people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese of the same race and speak the same language,” a Central News Agency report said.

    They are the same race, and I am tired of your pathetic at a racist view in what is clearly a political issue, that’s bigotry, plain and simple!

    I am once again asking you to explain why an economy that is over 50% publicly owned and managed, around 10% cooperatively managed, and the remaing private sector has CPC control, is Capitalist. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.

    https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/international-relations-security/what-future-chinas-private-sector

    Private firms contribute approximately 60% of China’s GDP, 70% of its innovative capacity, 80% of urban employment and 90% of new jobs.

    I read das capital it had value as a lens to interpret historical narratives.

    It’s also 150 years old, and every attempt to follow it’s principles has ended in complete disaster, often starvation or other forms of genocide, because while it models the collective selfishness of the rich, it WHOLLY fails to model the individual, as his focus on the collective (which was quite popular in the 1800s, as a vague attempt to “Darwinize” and model sociology in terms of group motives) collapses instantly when confronted with modern systems analysis and game theory which shows exactly how people actually behave in groups, selfishly and often without thought of others.

    This is why it fails, every time, at the simplest attempt.

    You need something that takes into account individualism, which Marx was too early for, if he lived today perhaps he could understand. You’re acting like something we tried to figure out before we even imagined the concept of DNA is relevant to our modern world.

    Zizek is actually the closest to someone able to understand Marxism in a modern context, but Marx himself is as obsolete as a telegraph machine.

    And yet SMIC is gaining on TSMC.

    Yes, the founder is Taiwanese (fled the PLA), they bought Chiang Shangyi and other actual talent (in hindsight, maybe you’re right about race, the Taiwanese do seem racially superior to mainlanders in every way), and bought the same machines from ASML and others.

    It’s like me saying I’m gaining on Messi because I got off the couch and bought a ball.