☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml to Socialism@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 month agoPeople are starting to get itlemmy.mlimagemessage-square152linkfedilinkarrow-up1569arrow-down14
arrow-up1565arrow-down1imagePeople are starting to get itlemmy.ml☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml to Socialism@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square152linkfedilink
minus-squareSaapas@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down3·1 month agoIt seemed like you had different positions. It’s hard to follow the discussion on my phone. Can you ask the thing you wanted me to answer again?
minus-square☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 month agoI wasn’t asking you a question, I was providing an explanation of why China having billionaires is not at odds with China being socialist which seemed to be the argument you were making in this thread.
minus-squareSaapas@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 month agoBut I did engage with that. I said many probably don’t know the reasoning for having billionaires, hence they would be disappointed.
minus-square☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 month agoThen this discussion will be valuable to those people since it provides an explanation for that exact question.
minus-squareSaapas@piefed.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 month agoAssuming they see or agree with it, which at least for the former is a very big if
It seemed like you had different positions. It’s hard to follow the discussion on my phone. Can you ask the thing you wanted me to answer again?
I wasn’t asking you a question, I was providing an explanation of why China having billionaires is not at odds with China being socialist which seemed to be the argument you were making in this thread.
But I did engage with that. I said many probably don’t know the reasoning for having billionaires, hence they would be disappointed.
Then this discussion will be valuable to those people since it provides an explanation for that exact question.
Assuming they see or agree with it, which at least for the former is a very big if