What are you trying to say with this graph? That distribution of wealth is better when it is distributed amongst less than 1% of the population of they call themselves proletarian? Or that it is somehow better if standard of living goes down for everyone just because the then nonexistent ressources are shared equally?

Where on Earth did you get those ideas? I am saying AES countries have dramatically reduced wealth inequality and have been very progressive forces. Read the graph.

In a perfect world a whole cake is shared equally by all 8 people. But if you smash half the cake, give a quarter to one person and the remaining quarter to the remaining 7 it is not better than 2 ppl having half a cake and letting the other 6 have the other half. Maybe not the best example but I hope you get my point.

You're right, that isn't the best example, because it's entirely non-applicable and horrible for representing the reality of AES states. Even then, the idea that resources should be shared equally is anti-Marxist, Marx specifically wanted resources distributed by needs in upper stage Communism, which is an extremely advanced form of Socialism. You're fighting ghosts.

If not having equal but good standard of living, what is it we are strivong for?

We are striving for continued improvements for the Proletariat. Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

I suggest this link as a good read. Because I think just strictly defending the existing socialist countries is actually hindering progress towards a both fair and high quality of life society.

This link is left-anticommunist nonsense that is utter idealism.

You're coming off as an ulraleftist that doesn't understand Historical and Dialectical Materialism, I have no idea what you're advocating for nor how you plan on achieving it.

[–] Malidak@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Funny how you just disregard the information without actually going into it at all.

Coming off as someone blindly following another form of oppression by a bourgeoise elite claiming to be proletarian.

I was hoping for some actual insights.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nothing you said had any substance. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "another bourgeois elite claiming to be proletarian?" What do you believe makes someone bourgeoisie? You have no analysis and lack critical understanding.

[–] Malidak@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

China has the 2nd most billionaires in the world and they are tied to "state owned companies". And you try to tell me it's a socialist country. Billionaires should not exist in a socialist country. If the economic gains of labour land in the hands of a few billionaires, this makes them bourgeoisie. Even though they claim to be socialist. But you seem to be as blinded by their propaganda as you claim the western people to be of capitalist propaganda because you can't seem to grasp what's wrong with these so called socialist countries.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

China has the 2nd most billionaires in the world and they are tied to "state owned companies".

Read China Has Billionaires. The fact that the PRC has a bourgeoisie class does not mean it is not Socialist.

"Q: Will it be possible for Private Property to be abolished at one stroke?

A: No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity."

-Engels, The Principles of Communism

And you try to tell me it's a socialist country. Billionaires should not exist in a socialist country.

Why not? I agree that wealth disparity is a bad thing, and can be dangerous if it is allowed to alter the course of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but you need to actually make a claim for why. Socialism isn't good because it follows an arbitrary condition of ideals to meet definitions, but because it elevates the proletariat as its focus.

If the economic gains of labour land in the hands of a few billionaires, this makes them bourgeoisie.

Not necessarily, nor is this true of what the distribution of production looks like in the PRC. The PRC does have a bourgeoisie, but this does not mean it isn't Socialist. By your logic, the US is Socialist because the Post Office is state run.

But you seem to be as blinded by their propaganda as you claim the western people to be of capitalist propaganda because you can't seem to grasp what's wrong with these so called socialist countries.

I am bombarded by western propaganda every single day, the idea that eastern propaganda, of which I am exposed to very little, is the driving factor of my analysis is absurd.

Read theory.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

and they are tied to “state owned companies”

"State Owned Enterprises" is the term. Anyway, is this actually true? My impression was that the billionaires had private companies (Alibaba, etc.) and SOEs did not produce them.