Members of Kibbutz Hanita are suing the Chinese-controlled Ballet Vision fund for refusing to buy their remaining stake in an intraocular lens plant, citing losses and what it says is a Chinese government ban on new investments in Israel since the war

Members of Kibbutz Hanita near Israel’s northern border are demanding $11 million from Ballet Vision, the Chinese fund that controls 80% of the Hanita Lenses plant, accusing it of refusing to exercise an option to purchase the kibbutz’s remaining shares, according to a lawsuit filed in Tel Aviv District Court.

In a response letter attached to the lawsuit, the Chinese fund said that since the outbreak of the war in Israel, Beijing has classified Israel as a “high-risk area” and imposed a ban on any new Chinese investments in the country, making it impossible to carry out the option.

According to the lawsuit, in 2021 the kibbutz sold 74% of Hanita Lenses, which manufactures intraocular lenses for medical use, to Ballet Vision for $35 million. Of that sum, $25 million was paid to kibbutz members, with an additional $10 million injected into the company.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    2·
    2 hours ago

    Hoarding wealth is by definition antithetical to what you claim the PRC is trying to achieve.

    The presence of the bourgeoisie, and by extension private property, is in fact a contradiction, in the dialectical sense. This doesn’t mean it is antithetical for private ownership to exist within socialism, however, just that it is something that must be gradually negated. In the PRC, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Private ownership is about half sole proprietorships and cooperatives, and the rest governs secondary and medium firms.

    The purpose of this is that markets and private ownership naturally centralize into monopoly, ie they socialize as Marx says. As these firms grow, the CPC folds them into the public sector, negating them. To nationalize even the small and medium firms, dogmatically, before they socialize, is contradictory with Marxist analysis.

    It is just a wolf in red clothing; the class struggle remains

    Class struggle continues under socialism, that’s factually true. It is only when all of production and distribution have been collectivized globally that class struggle can truly be negated. Since we cannot jump straight there, the proletariat stands above the bourgeoisie by holding the state and the state controlling the large firms and key industries.

    just flavoured in a way that makes it easier for the Chinese people to swallow all while lacking any real input into the system itself and suffering the burden of social credit.

    China’s system is already democratic, as I explained. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.

    Further, the idea of a “social credit score” is a myth. The system was only partially implemented, and is about businesses, not the working classes. The fact that you claim I am the one “blasting propaganda at the expense of truth” as you quite literally are dogmatically spouting propaganda based on fabrications and exaggerations is peak hypocricy.

    I would challenge you, forgoing our current debate, criticise the CPC and Xi; surely they are flawed.

    Sure they are. I’m plenty critical of China for valid reasons, such as their presently poor LGBTQIA+ legislation (though it has been gradually improving) or their backing of Cambodia over Vietnam back during the time of Pol Pot. Your “criticisms,” more often than not, aren’t logically justified.