Maybe TWO things can be bad at once! Or even three or four! : tankiejerk

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

No, sorry, only one thing can be true at once. My working memory is really small.

[–] vsg@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Hell, the socialist aesthetics aren't even necessary. Just hating the United States is enough.

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Aesthetics is doing some heavy lifting in that statement.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Nuance is hard, yo...

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

Nah, think I'm going to boil down hundreds of years of history in to 280 characters, that's the best way to get my point across in the tiktok age.

[+] spacesatan@leminal.space -12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure why engage with the actual reasons that leftists express for (varying levels of critical) support for any given country when you can ignore all that and dunk on this vague and convenient strawman.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Would you like me to drag out quotes of the exact kind of fucking insanity I'm talking about, or will you dismiss those as made-up strawmen that I conveniently planted over dozens of accounts with thousands of upvotes over a space of years and across multiple platforms?

[+] AppleTea@lemmy.zip -7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It kinda doesn't matter what you call China, mixed economies outperform market economies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyUtYBz0v8

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Every major fucking country on earth today is a mixed economy.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Fair point, probably not the best term to use. In the video, Clinton uses "command economy" to describe them, and singles them out as member of the WTO that isn't a market economy.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

China hasn't been a command economy since the 80s, though. And command economies consistently underperform market economies, to a staggering degree.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I mean, they're everyone's largest trading partner. You'd expect a planned economy to under perform the evolutionary pressures of a market. The first time. But the second? Or the third? What about command economy that learns from what didn't work in the past?

If every country is a mixed economy, then they're just the far end of the spectrum. More command than market, at least compared to most other places.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I mean, they’re everyone’s largest trading partner.

They're also the largest country, by population, in the world.

You’d expect a planned economy to under perform the evolutionary pressures of a market. The first time. But the second? Or the third? What about command economy that learns from what didn’t work in the past?

Uh, but planned economies do underperform compared to a market. The spike in Chinese prosperity was because of intense market reforms in the 80s and 90s which significantly increased prosperity and turned the country from immensely backwards and impoverished to increasingly developed.

If every country is a mixed economy, then they’re just the far end of the spectrum. More command than market, at least compared to most other places.

Not really. The Chinese public sector of their economy is actually lower, as a proportion of GDP, than Sweden.

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I'm curious about the source of this statement

The Chinese public sector of their economy is actually lower, as a proportion of GDP, than Sweden

Can you provide source? Because for State Owned Enterprises I can only find metric ~40% (China) vs 10% in Sweden.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ITA/ZAF/IND/CHL/FRA/GRC/NLD/ESP/RUS

China's private sector has become much larger than in years past - from ~2% of the economy in the 1980s, to ~20% in the late 1990s, to a majority now (though there's some quibbling as to the exact numbers).

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

"Public sector of the economy as proportion of GDP" is "Government expenditure, percent of GDP" (what you linked) + State Owned Enterprises (public corporations owned by the country) so it's a little bit different.

In my previous comment I though you're misusing the term public sector to mean only SEO (as is commonly done), that's why I asked for source.

The source you linked, while good, is only showing government expenditure without SEO, so it does not cover your original claim though. Unless in the original comment you did misuse public sector to mean only government expenditure?

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 55 points 1 week ago (4 children)

that use the aesthetics of socialism

This isn't even a criteria for many

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] carrylex@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago (1 children)

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

Don't worry - this is tankiejerk. We're an anti-tankie comm. Bootlickers aren't tolerated here.

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's why they keep repeating the phrase "critical support". They support oppressive regimes in their fight against the US, but still remain critical of them (any criticism of their favorite dictatorship will get you banned).

[–] jjmoldy@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

It's actually more like "critical hit" in a video game. If they hit a critical support with their internet comment then North Korea gets +5 anti imperialism for 20 minutes. It's the meta bro

[–] Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (7 children)

"Whataboutism" is one of the most prevalent logical fallacies. It never makes any sense.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

If the much worse enemies of the USA have a lot to gain by the USA's downfall and are actively promoting said downfall, then it's not whataboutism to unmask them like a scooby doo villain.

Tankies don't give af about trans rights, Tankies don't give af about any human rights, Tankies don't want you to live and flourish in any capacity at all. Do not be fooled by their rhetoric all over Lemmy.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Another top contender is that all things with defects or drawbacks are equally horrible and unacceptable.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] Chee_Koala@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

But... dichotomy is best omy? Putin can't be lying, because other states bad.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Also, if we want to make progress in the world and not let billionaires play us against each other, maybe the best judgement process is to evaluate how things are working out overall instead of slapping a black hat on anything that isn't perfect enough for a white hat.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Everybody Sucks Here

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Spoiler: It's waaaay more than three or four.

The Democratic People's Republic of Tankiejerk