China on Monday criticised European Union plans to shield key industries from Chinese competition, warning it would take countermeasures if the measures are adopted. The EU’s proposed “Made in Europe”…
Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.
It’s either that or being driven out of business altogether. They’ll happily accept - and it already is reality, as can be seen by the plans of the EU. The only ones complaining here are China and you.
one of the common pro-capitalist arguments are that competition benefits consumers - but here’s a case where competition is being impeded by the state to protect the interests of capital owners.
This here is not a case of competition, it is a case of skewed competition through fundamental Chinese state subsidies. This reaction actually re-enables competition again by levelling the playing field.
It wouldn’t. Again, I am not arguing for, or against, any of these protectionist policies. All I’m doing is trying to help people here gain class consciousness
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. You claim to want the abolition of worker exploitation, but then complain that protectionist policies will raise consumer prices. Why are those Chinese goods so cheap to begin with? Because of the very labour exploitation you say you oppose. You are demanding the perks of globalised capitalism (cheap goods) while claiming to be an anti-capitalist.
Furthermore, you are misidentifying the ‘contradiction’ here. China isn’t engaging in fair free-market competition; they are using massive state subsidies to intentionally bankrupt foreign industries. The EU pushing back isn’t a betrayal of capitalist ideals; it’s a defence against state-sponsored monopolies.
Retreating to ‘I’m just trying to build class consciousness’ doesn’t work when the economic logic you are using to build it contradicts your own stated goals. You can’t claim “the moral high ground” of protecting workers while advocating for a system that relies on dumping state-subsidised, unethically sourced goods into domestic markets.
I think you’re just fundamentally misunderstanding my entire argument, and it’s apparent to me that you just want to argue to prove me wrong, rather than discuss things with an mind open to potentially changing your views - that’s okay, but I’m not going to waste my time, so at this point I’ll wish you all the best, have a great day - solidarity forever.
That’s why I kept asking questions on things you said.
And yet, there’s not a single question in your previous comment, just a lot of weak arguments and claims that I hold positions I specifically stated I do not hold.
You don’t want to actually discuss and understand my position, you want to debate a pro-China strawman. You don’t need me to win an argument in your head. Take care.
"capitalists: competition is so good, it encourages innovation and ensures the best value for consumers!
china: competes
capitalists: 😡😡😡"
Various people here explained to you why this is not “competition”, but skewing competition.
Then you said:
“My point is, if the labor prices are so low, why should western capitalists benefit from them, through outsourcing, rather than us consumers and Chinese companies splitting the difference with cheaper Chinese goods?”
…which sounds(!) like an argument for “hey consumers, why should you not simply benefit from the cheap Chinese goods built on exploitation of workers?”. On top of that: no-one made an argument for outsourcing here, as specifically, this is an article about something aimed at achieving the opposite - and Chinas sour reaction to it.
Then you moved on to:
“I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation. I am just pointing out the contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric and meeting people where they are and trying to help them to the next rung on the ladder of class consciousness.”
What contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric are you referring to? Because the fallacy in your opening statement (concerning “competition” has already been pointed out.
Then you say:
“Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.”, to which I pointed out it is either that or being out of business completely. Somehow, I haven’t heard an answer from you on that.
If your position is more than trying to make some “gotchas” on “capitalism”, which in this case doesn’t work properly, I’d love to hear it, but looking at the journey from your initial comment to your last, it is a bit hard to follow what exactly you want your point to be. So, instead of cheap personal attacks, let’s rather exchange thoughts.
It’s either that or being driven out of business altogether. They’ll happily accept - and it already is reality, as can be seen by the plans of the EU. The only ones complaining here are China and you.
This here is not a case of competition, it is a case of skewed competition through fundamental Chinese state subsidies. This reaction actually re-enables competition again by levelling the playing field.
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. You claim to want the abolition of worker exploitation, but then complain that protectionist policies will raise consumer prices. Why are those Chinese goods so cheap to begin with? Because of the very labour exploitation you say you oppose. You are demanding the perks of globalised capitalism (cheap goods) while claiming to be an anti-capitalist.
Furthermore, you are misidentifying the ‘contradiction’ here. China isn’t engaging in fair free-market competition; they are using massive state subsidies to intentionally bankrupt foreign industries. The EU pushing back isn’t a betrayal of capitalist ideals; it’s a defence against state-sponsored monopolies.
Retreating to ‘I’m just trying to build class consciousness’ doesn’t work when the economic logic you are using to build it contradicts your own stated goals. You can’t claim “the moral high ground” of protecting workers while advocating for a system that relies on dumping state-subsidised, unethically sourced goods into domestic markets.
I think you’re just fundamentally misunderstanding my entire argument, and it’s apparent to me that you just want to argue to prove me wrong, rather than discuss things with an mind open to potentially changing your views - that’s okay, but I’m not going to waste my time, so at this point I’ll wish you all the best, have a great day - solidarity forever.
Indeed, I don’t understand your entire argument. That’s why I kept asking questions on things you said. If you don’t actually want that, fine by me!
And yet, there’s not a single question in your previous comment, just a lot of weak arguments and claims that I hold positions I specifically stated I do not hold.
You don’t want to actually discuss and understand my position, you want to debate a pro-China strawman. You don’t need me to win an argument in your head. Take care.
Yea… no.
This was your opening statement here:
"capitalists: competition is so good, it encourages innovation and ensures the best value for consumers!
china: competes
capitalists: 😡😡😡"
Various people here explained to you why this is not “competition”, but skewing competition.
Then you said:
“My point is, if the labor prices are so low, why should western capitalists benefit from them, through outsourcing, rather than us consumers and Chinese companies splitting the difference with cheaper Chinese goods?”
…which sounds(!) like an argument for “hey consumers, why should you not simply benefit from the cheap Chinese goods built on exploitation of workers?”. On top of that: no-one made an argument for outsourcing here, as specifically, this is an article about something aimed at achieving the opposite - and Chinas sour reaction to it.
Then you moved on to:
“I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation. I am just pointing out the contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric and meeting people where they are and trying to help them to the next rung on the ladder of class consciousness.”
What contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric are you referring to? Because the fallacy in your opening statement (concerning “competition” has already been pointed out.
Then you say:
“Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.”, to which I pointed out it is either that or being out of business completely. Somehow, I haven’t heard an answer from you on that.
If your position is more than trying to make some “gotchas” on “capitalism”, which in this case doesn’t work properly, I’d love to hear it, but looking at the journey from your initial comment to your last, it is a bit hard to follow what exactly you want your point to be. So, instead of cheap personal attacks, let’s rather exchange thoughts.