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?
but is not socialism itself, socialism itself is a society where the working classes control the state and public ownership is principal.
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?
Crikey! This creature does not give non-sequitur answer at all! It seems like he does not indulge in moving the goalposts and mental gymnastics! He is great with counting minimally up to four fingers on his hand, and thinks 800 more billionaires in China is less than 120 more American billionaires in seven years! This bloke should win Nobel Prize and fifty cents for counting one to four on his hand!
You also have not answered my point: what class is the ruling class of China, and what do you believe socialism is?
I’ll follow your definition, creature. It’s nationalisation! Great stuff, mate!
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?
Crikey! This creature does not give non-sequitur answer at all! It seems like he does not indulge in moving the goalposts and mental gymnastics! He is great with counting minimally up to four fingers on his hand, and thinks 800 more billionaires in China is less than 120 more American billionaires in seven years! This bloke should win Nobel Prize and fifty cents for counting one to four on his hand!
I’ll follow your definition, creature. It’s nationalisation! Great stuff, mate!