• happyfullfridge@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    i know this will be controversial here but both bad. Technological megacorpos and monopolies have too much power.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      Huawei is employee owned. Further, it exists in a socialist economy and is subject to state control, it isn’t Huawei that has power over the economy, but the state that has power over Huawei.

      • JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        China is definitely capitalist. How can they have competitive pricing? Slavery, like everyone else, and of course a shitload less regulation. Edit: Capitalism rewards abuse.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          The PRC has a socialist market economy. The large firms and key industries are thoroughly publicly owned, public owmershio is the principle aspect of the economy. They are at a developing stage of socialism. As for working conditions, they are improving over time, and general material conditiond have skyrocketed over the last century.

          Capitalism would be somewhere like the US Empire, where the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly privately owned.

          • JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Wow, It’s actually better, then unregulated capitalism, but I still wouldn’t call it socialism. Thanks for the info.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              No problem! What would it take for you to consider it socialist, though? The principle aspect of the economy is public ownership, so that should be enough by most standards to distinguish it from capitalism, where private ownership is the principle aspect.

      • Alteon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s “employee owned” but still has a CCP Party Committee that makes decisions. Chinese companies have historically created backdoors in both software and hardware, and have no issues with stealing proprietary data, code, or designs.

        Ignorance of security concerns is pretty much akin to the saying, “Well, I have nothing to hide. Who cares if the government spies on me.” It’s not just the US government saying it, it’s pretty much any security company or individual worth their salt saying it.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          I just said Huawei exists in a socialist economy and is subject to state control, I was quite literally referencing the CPC Party Committee that ensures Huawei cooperates with collective planning. Further, the CPC, even if we considered them to be evil (which I don’t, for the record), still would be preferable over US-based companies as I’m a US citizen.

  • eldavi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    this one hurts; i had to stop using my favorite redmi phone because american carriers have banned chinese phones.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        i think it’s less about failing capitalism and more about eliminating competition for for high end smart phones since you can get iphone level quality phones at chinese prices.

        my redmi was competitive with the $1k+ google pixel, but costed less than half; now it’s an expensive paperweight.

        • considine@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yes, that’s pretty much what I meant. In theory, the best brands would rise to the top under capitalism. So the US brands have failed without state intervention.

          Which model of redmi did you have? I currently use the Redmi Note 12. It’s… okay. I had a previous Xiaomi (can’t remember which model) that I thought was an excellent price for high quality.

          Definitely Chinese phones have better specs for their prices, as compared to US/Korean brands. Still, I’m looking for that special deal of a mid-tier-priced phone with flagship specs. Considering getting the Oneplus 13.

          • eldavi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            i had a redmi note 13 pro+ and it was definitely the closest you’re going to for mid-tier price that’s competitive with flagship tier specs; especially w the camera, screen and battery.

            Yes, that’s pretty much what I meant. In theory, the best brands would rise to the top under capitalism. So the US brands have failed without state intervention.

            it’s definitely capitalism since government intervention is not what banned the phones. the american carriers themselves colluded with each other to block the phones on their networks so it’s the worst form of capitalism; it’s monopoly capitalism and exactly like the type of capitalism that the american robber barons employed during the gilded age.

            there’s no need for the state to intervene and americans are too unaware that this happened for there to ever be a push to reject it; like with almost everything else.