One is a regular person taking out a person of huge authority, balancing power.
The other is the biggest authority taking out a smaller one to consolidate power.
Consolidate ? he's the leader of a 90 million strong party and been at the reins for more than 14 years lmao. I stg libs' understanding of politics can be directly mapped to Harry Potter.
great thread OP
It really hit the right balance, it prompted discussion in what is (hopefully) a productive manner by highlighting mass support for violence against billionaires compared to the actions of AES states. Hopefully people start reading Marx after this.
Wow this one really brought out the votes, both kinds 😂
Putting the agitation in agitprop
One isn't a corrupt dictator killing or imprisoning anyone who complains about him. If you think the little guy isn't getting hurt in China I want the drugs you're on.
Do you have any source on the PRC killing or imprisoning anyone who complains about it? Moreover, what do you think about 95%+ Chinese citizens supporting the CPC? If we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say "We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment." This directly goes against claims of "social credit" preventing this, moreover the "Orwellian Social Credit System" hinted at doesn't even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
There's 1.4 billion Chinese citizens. Do y'all think this is Star Wars and you can just jail tens of millions with nobody noticing or complaining? Terminally unserious.
I wonder if it has anything to do with PRC's punishment towards citizens who have been critical of their government. Who knows man.
I wonder that too. Do you have proof that it does?
I have shared some links further in the thread, here you go.
Thank you for your comment. From my skimming of the articles you sent, they seem to argue that the state has a track record of cracking down on dissent and protests.
I'm not sure this proves your initial claim though (that CEO executions were done to combat government criticism), unless there's a detail in these articles that I missed by skimming too fast. Please let me know if I missed it.
While your claim is plausible, it is also equally plausible that they are acting within the defines of their state ideology, and we would need more evidence to prove it is one or the other.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the articles and did not attempt to verify the evidence they present, as it didn't seem that they are addressing your initial claims.
I think you've misread my comment.
"Xi doesn't get the solidarity like Luigi, because his government has a track record of punishing citizens when they show dissent" was the point of my original comment.
I believe this context is important if we're to discuss the likability of a country's leader based on their actions. Additionally, "acting within the defines of state ideology" would permit a national head to practically do anything since they are the ones defining the state ideology.
~~With due respect, that's quite different than the claim you explained in the comment I replied to, so I hope you will edit it to clarify that.~~ edit: I seem to have misunderstood the original comment.
As to the point you stated in quotes in this comment (edit: which is what OP originally intended), I don't see how they're related. Criticizing China's crackdown on dissent must not mean you should deny their credit on executing CEOs.
That wasn't his point and he doesn't need to edit his comment because you misunderstood it.
Upon rereading, it looks like I misunderstood it due to conflating it with some other comments, so you're right. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will edit my comment accordingly.
All this comment section proves is that if the only thing that changed was that Thompson was a Chinese healthcare CEO called Zhao Qiang and got clapped by the government libs would be calling him a working class hero and a martyr like the fucking NYT.
