Since the beginning but not because that’s what capitalism is, it’s because the mercantilist lords wanted a rebrand when peasants started killing them
That’s not what happened. It was the burghers themselves who revolted against the feudal lords. The peasants didn’t revolt against the burghers: some were uninvolved and I assume some aided the burghers against the feudal lords who owned the land they tilled. These were bourgeois revolutions.
And capitalism is not a mere “rebranding,” it is a very different socio-politico-economic system from feudalism, though yes, it is still one based on class hierarchy. The ultimate goal of communism is to eliminate hierarchies: a classless society.
China having more inequality than Japan or South Korea also paints this
If a country decided to switch to communism, that elite rebrand would still happen.
Do you see CPC members boating around the world on megayachts? The “elite” in China—if you want to call the democratically elected representatives “elite”—are not fabulously wealthy, despite the fact that, if they wanted to, they could literally print as many Yuan as they pleased and pocket it. The billionaires are capitalists, in the constrained amount of capitalism the Chinese state currently allows.
Here’s a list of peasant revolts for you to browse through, take note of those through the 16-18th centuries
Do you see CPC members boating around the world on megayachts? The “elite” in China—if you want to call the democratically elected representatives “elite”—are not fabulously wealthy
As shown in proof above; China has bigger inequality than Japan and South Korea.
China also has the second most billionaires in the world
Here’s a list of peasant revolts for you to browse through, take note of those through the 16-18th centuries
The fact that peasant revolts happened is neither here nor there. The point is that capitalism was borne of bourgeois revolutions against feudal powers and not of peasant revolts against burghers who were a product of mercantilism.
As shown in proof above; China has bigger inequality than Japan and South Korea.
You’re even aware you don’t have an argument so you went after the author’s character which is irrelevant then started talking about the cia
As per the original point: you’re inability to understand that the rich are greedy doesn’t mean they aren’t
That’s not what happened. It was the burghers themselves who revolted against the feudal lords. The peasants didn’t revolt against the burghers: some were uninvolved and I assume some aided the burghers against the feudal lords who owned the land they tilled. These were bourgeois revolutions.
And capitalism is not a mere “rebranding,” it is a very different socio-politico-economic system from feudalism, though yes, it is still one based on class hierarchy. The ultimate goal of communism is to eliminate hierarchies: a classless society.
It is true that China has billionaires. It is also true that China has raised 800 million people out of poverty, “the greatest such effort in history.”
Do you see CPC members boating around the world on megayachts? The “elite” in China—if you want to call the democratically elected representatives “elite”—are not fabulously wealthy, despite the fact that, if they wanted to, they could literally print as many Yuan as they pleased and pocket it. The billionaires are capitalists, in the constrained amount of capitalism the Chinese state currently allows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts
Here’s a list of peasant revolts for you to browse through, take note of those through the 16-18th centuries
As shown in proof above; China has bigger inequality than Japan and South Korea.
China also has the second most billionaires in the world
This is just getting silly now.
The fact that peasant revolts happened is neither here nor there. The point is that capitalism was borne of bourgeois revolutions against feudal powers and not of peasant revolts against burghers who were a product of mercantilism.
Thanks for repeating yourself I guess?