This is decreasingly true as economies decouple from the dollar. The world does not depend on Statesian exports either.

The opposite, actually, the advance of the world depends on the death of the US Empire.

I already said the concept of communism predates Marx. I am not redefining communism to Marxism. OP is asking about socialism and communism as they actually exist and are understood, and further “primitive communism” as described by Marx is misleading and instead is better described as “communalism.”

This is all incredibly hypocritical coming from you as well, considering you were adamant that China had abandoned communism over in this thread. Why are you now trying to say, essentially, that “communism is in the eye of the beholder?”

Why 1 billion and not 900 million? Why not 3 billion? I’m not against a wealth cap, I’m against arbitrary and vibes-based reasons for opposing China’s socialist market economy. I also support the DPRK’s economy.

There’s clear economic benefit to allowing private property in secondary and highly competitive industries in the context of a socialist market economy. This accelerates and stabilizes growth, which speeds up development of the socialist economy in general. This comes with the tradeoff of having capitalists, which means coming with the tradeoff of the wealthy. You’re letting arbitrary minutia in how these capitalists are taxed pit you against the entire socialist system.

Not all, but many are.

It’s dogmatism and purity politics because China already taxes capitalists. The level of taxation already reflects what the people of China deem to be necessary, without harming growth. Unlike capitalist economies, capitalists do not control the state, nor where capital can be allocated, and as such there is some degree of benefit to allowing capitalists to the extent that they facilitate development. Letting these arbitrary goalposts stand in the way of supporting China is nonsense.

For me, making massive socioeconomic decisions based entirely on vibes, feelings, and a sense of semi-religious purity is no way to run society. The Gang of Four, as I said, wanted to dogmatically collectivize everything, regardless of the level of development. They weren’t arguing for wealth caps. You keep focusing on arbitrary levels of taxation over the relations of production.

As for being against the Gang of Four, the reasons are fairly obvious if you’ve been following what I said. They were dogmatic and were perpetuating poverty in the name of purity. Reform & Opening Up is key to China’s success in eradicating poverty.

“Religious communism” is not a thing, and early communalism exists in micro-pockets. Neither is the same as what is understood as communism, the theoretical mode of production that predates Marxism.

China already taxes their capitalists, you have picked an arbitrary level based on vibes as a goalpost. Either way, it’s nice to know you now at least have solidly taken the side of the Gang of Four, that actually gives us ground to talk on that isn’t entirely arbitrary and vibes-based. The path out of getting rid of capitalists is developing out of the conditions that give rise to them. Following the Gang of Four’s plan would result in slower development and harm the process of socializing production.

The fact of the matter is that the “dirt poor” do not exist anymore in China thanks to the social surplus generated by the socialist market economy. Under the Gang of Four everyone was dirt poor. They would have developed out of that later than the PRC has been able to. The mass existence of the dirt poor combined with underdeveloped productive forces is the historical, material basis of Reform & Opening Up.

You disagree with capitalists, not billionaires. We already discussed how you feel that “billionaires” are arbitrary, and that your issue is with the “mega-wealthy,” ie capitalists. Capitalists are necessary for the socialist market economy, with privatization of small industries to accelerate socialization comes capitalists, and with capitalists come the comparatively wealthy. This is the tradeoff of the socialist market economy.

The Gang of Four preceded Deng Xiaoping and Reform & Opening Up. They tried to dogmatically collectivize as much as possible, regardless of the level of development, feeling that it was better to be poor in a more equal society than to accept some degree of inequality in favor of rapid development uplifting everyone.

So, to conclude, you do disagree with the socialist market economy of China, and instead would prefer a Gang of Four style economy based on equal poverty, and a rejection of Marxism in favor of dogmatic collectivization. You cannot have the socialist market economy without capitalists and therefore the creation of wealthy individuals, and without the socialist market economy China would be less developed and their working classes would be behind where they presently are. China already taxes, and already directs this towards social services and infrastructure.

Probably, but it would have tradeoffs, including lower rates of socialization of production due to restricting the flow of capital in underdeveloped industries. I already said I wouldn’t oppose China changing the taxation rate, especially as production does continue to socialize. You’ve repeatedly dodged my questions, though, which is extremely dishonest and clear evidence of bad-faith.

No matter what taxation rate China picks, the general strategy of marketization for competitive, small and medium firms as a method of socializing production persists. When you pick an arbitrary level to be satisfied with, you are making the judgment that the present level of taxation is insufficient. This requires concrete reasoning, reasoning you have not provided, and even said doesn’t actually matter.

Why is China’s current taxation rate bad?

What would be a good taxation rate, and why?

Stop dodging.

I already did, I said I wouldn’t oppose China changing their taxation rate. My point is that your issues with China are arbitrary and constantly shifting. It’s you that won’t answer my questions.

I already said I would not oppose China changing the taxation rate. I’m asking why you are fixating on an arbitrary level of wealth, and are now abandoning that goalpost in favor of the blanket point “China needs to tax at higher rates.” Do you know what China’s tax rates are? If they raised the tax rates 10%, is that enough to satisfy you? How would you know without knowing China’s tax rates?

My point is that your issues with China are arbitrary and constantly shifting.

Agreed! It’s very fun!

You’ve dodged most of my questions, I answered the important aspects of your question. Taxing capitalists at a higher rate would not qualitatively transform China’s economy. Do you have a reason for picking 1 billion USD/RMB/Francs/etc. as a wealth cap beyond vibes? Why is the taxation rate in China insufficient?"

Do you have a reason for picking 1 billion USD/RMB/Francs/etc. as a wealth cap beyond vibes? China already taxes them, and I wouldn’t oppose them deciding to increase taxation. I also know that at the rate they are going, the very existence of capitalists and therefore billionaires is being eroded. What would changing the taxation rate do to qualitatively transform China into a country you would be satisfied with?

I agree, which is why I am trying to center the conversation around why China has capitalists to begin with, by pointing out the arbitrary nature of picking “1 billion” as a wealth cap and using that as a cudgel to beat China with.