One isn’t a corrupt dictator killing or imprisoning anyone who complains about him. If you think the little guy isn’t getting hurt in China I want the drugs you’re on.
Do you have any source on the PRC killing or imprisoning anyone who complains about it? Moreover, what do you think about 95%+ Chinese citizens supporting the CPC? If we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
There’s 1.4 billion Chinese citizens. Do y’all think this is Star Wars and you can just jail tens of millions with nobody noticing or complaining? Terminally unserious.
My dude unironically replied to “they’re ethically clensing the muslims” with “oh no, anyway”
Yeah, because unlike Israel, Neon 🇮🇱, China has not and is not ethnically cleansing anyone.
Israeli flag in name
And me having a stance on a interstate-conflict makes is okay for you to advocate for the genocide of muslims how exactly?
This thread is funny because it’s filled with a bunch of libs criticizing but bringing nothing of value to the table except vibes, and communists and comrades providing extensive source material to support their arguments, while avoiding low-hanging fruit like ad hominem.
If you’ve ever done any sort of research into democratic socialism, you’d quickly learn that this is the way. Criticism and self-criticism are at the forefront of cadre training and will make you a better person. If you view a person trying to provide you with educational material as your enemy while you spout off vibe-driven nonsense, you’re not getting the picture and are still hindered by your country’s propaganda, as well your own apathy and ignorance. You’re criticizing people that are passionate because they see a chance to have a better world for all working class—you included—while responding with empty words.
Unchain yourself from the criticisms of figures your country has implanted in you over your lifetime, and think in terms of ideas.
Really, I thibk anyone considering themselves a Leftist needs to read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Both are excellent examples of why people don’t change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn’t mean Communists don’t do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these “licenses” to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.
Huh, I’ve come across this False Witness article before, years ago.
In retrospect, this desperate, shotgun appeal to religious authority demonstrated why the dossier itself was probably futile. It was an acknowledgment that the people they were attempting to convince were beyond the reach of mere fact or reason — people who did not find reality compelling.
This reminds me of the requisite Parenti quote:
During the Cold War, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
Exactly. I read it for the first time this week, and it’s made a pretty big perspective shift. The Parenti Quote is evergreen as well, and tying it together with the conclusions of False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels is a cool way to see people independently coming to similar conclusions of observed phenomena.
If you’re a glutton for this kind of stuff, I found philosophy prof. Hans-Georg Moeller’s YouTube series on the media to be illuminating.
I think philosophy prof. Jeffrey Kaplan’s video “Advertising doesn’t work the way you think it does” is good as well. It too hinges on what Moeller calls the “general peer,” which he gets deeper into in his series on “identity technology.”
Unchain yourself from the criticisms of figures your country has implanted in you over your lifetime, and think in terms of ideas.
Realistically, that’s not gonna happen for most people. Hear me out:
In 1500s when the printing press was invented, Martin Luther (not to be confused with Martin Luther King) saw the opportunity to print “bibles for everyone” to transform everybody into a priest - an enlightened being that always (or at least mostly) does the good/right thing.
We know from history that that didn’t succeed. Not everybody turned into a priest, not even close. Instead, he caused Evangelism, and is partially causal for the Thirty Years’ War.
Realistically, people thinking in terms of ideas is an inclination you’re born with (or so I believe). There’s just a lot of people who are not gonna do that. Especially if people see themselves at a (economic) disadvantage because of it. Most people just wanna live through ordinary life.
BTW, I guess something similar happened with the internet. When the internet was first invented, people guessed that it would lead to the total education of all human beings. Instead, it has caused smartphones, “social” media (which is more antisocial media tbh), and a lot of spreading dumb narratives. So i’m not sure it really “enlightened” the people.
and communists and comrades providing extensive source material to support their arguments, while avoiding low-hanging fruit like ad hominem.
sorry I’m late
In China, Xi is the CEO.
The CEO of a worker’s CO-OP.
What does this even mean?
It means the parent commenter thinks “socialism with Chinese characteristics” looks an awful lot like state capitalism.
Can you explain what Socialism is, and what “State Capitalism” is?
Not here to have an argument, I just thought I could help with understanding the parent comment. I thought it was pretty obvious what calling Xi the CEO of China was implying.
great thread OP
It really hit the right balance, it prompted discussion in what is (hopefully) a productive manner by highlighting mass support for violence against billionaires compared to the actions of AES states. Hopefully people start reading Marx after this.
The corporate media has been consistent in their response to both.
which is why it boggles my mind that liberals don’t connect the dots
just .ml things
What are you on about
i used to feel badly blocking accounts
If you’re that shook just from somebody mentioning the commies I don’t think you’re gonna provide much in the way of productive discussion anyway, so, by all means.
what XJP/beijing does is authoritarianism under the guise of communism. Lemmy of all places would be fine with actual communism but authoritarian regimes are a no go.
Pasting my comment from earlier:
Any “leftist” that thinks the fact that China has billionaires means it therefore isn’t actually Socialist needs to read Marx and Engels. There are many such liberals here in these comments. Marx predicted Socialism to be the next mode of production because markets centralize and create intricate methods of planning. As such, he stated that folding private into the public would be gradual, and by the degree to which industry would develop. From the Manifesto:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
In even simpler terms, from Engels in Principles of Communism:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
That doesn’t mean billionaires are good to have, necessarily, either. It remains a contradiction, but not an uncalculated one. I highly recommend anyone here read China has Billionaires. As much as Marxists want to lower wealth inequality eventually as much as possible (insofar as thr principle "from each according to ability, to each according to needs applies, Marx was no “equalitarian” and railed against them), in the stage of developmemt the PRC is at this would get in the way of development, and could cause Capital Flight and brain drain. Moreover, billionaires provide an easy scapegoat that the USSR didn’t have, and thus all problems of society were directed at the state. It’s important to consider why a Marxist country does what it does, and not immediately assume you know better. The CPC has an over 95% approval rate, you can’t just assume you know what’s best.
The phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is meant to depict higher stage Communism. Until that is possible, the answer becomes “to each according to his work,” because as Marx said in Critique of the Gotha Programme:
these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis. There are genuine Marxist critiques of the PRC that don’t rely on nonsense. If you consider yourself a Marxist, correct your study. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you need one.
At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis.
The PRC is not socialist because, it produces commodities (the commodity form), Has A Dictatorship of The Bourgeoisie, The Wage System, and an employer-employee distinction.
Which um, is in the passage you quoted:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour.
Socialism is a transitional status from Capitalism to Communism. There can be no immediate jump from one to the other, this jump must be gradual. Moreover, you cannot eliminate Wage Labor without eliminating Private Property, and you cannot eliminate Private Property overnight, but gradually, and by the degree to its development. Socialism is about which is primary, Public Ownership and Central Planning, or Private Property and Markets, not the mere existence of one in purity or the other. Such a stance is anti-dialectical and erases Marx’s analysis of Capitalism and Communism.
Furthermore, even Communism will have an “employer-employee” relationship, insofar as it still retains labor for labor vouchers. Communism is about Central Planning and Public Ownership, not horizontalism. The passage you reference is indeed the essential condition for the existance of the bourgeoisie, and its eventual elimination, but not the existence of Socialism.
Finally, the PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You can’t simply assert the opposite when it’s very clear that in the PRC the State is absolute over the Bourgeoisie.
All of these misconceptions of yours betray a deeply “Wikipedia-educated” notion of Marxism. If you want, you can start reading with my introductory Marxist reading list.
Socialism is a transitional status from Capitalism to Communism. There can be no immediate jump from one to the other, this jump must be gradual.
Agreed. As in, Capitalism is also a transitional stage to Communism. China is a decidedly capitalist society, as evidenced by their production of commodities.
Furthermore, even Communism will have an “employer-employee” relationship, insofar as it still retains labor for labor vouchers.
There will be no “employer” class under communism. A communist society is classless. China does not use labor vouchers even, it has a system of money.
Finally, the PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You can’t simply assert the opposite when it’s very clear that in the PRC the State is absolute over the Bourgeoisie.
The state is the Bourgeoisie in centrally planned economies. They extract surplus value from the Proletariat just like in a private market economy. The difference between the State Bourgeoisie and the Private Bourgeoisie, in China, is just aristocratic rank.
I am sorry, but none of what you have said makes any sense from a Marxist perspective.
- The presense of Commodity production does not mean the system is Capitalist. To that extent, if you have a 99% publicly owned and centrally planned economy, it must be Capitalist, and once that final 1% is absorbed, it becomes Communist. There is no Socialism by this definition, it’s a straight jump from Capitalism to Communism. Even in the PRC, the majority of the economy is Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned. Engels disagrees with your stance:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
You kill the Scientific and Dialectical aspects of Marxism and deny the existence of Socialism.
-
This is really 2 points in 1. “Employer” is not a class. Classes are not jobs, but relations to production. Communism will have managers, planners, and so forth to assist with economic production. The other point, on the PRC not using labor vouchers, that’s for when China reaches Communism, when they are currently Socialist.
-
This is entirely anti-Marxist. The State is an extension of the class in power. In a fully centrally planned economy with full public ownership, there is no state. The bourgeoisie is focused on competition and accumulation, it isn’t a “power dynamic” but a social relation to production. From Engels:
When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
Bolded the most relevant bits. The state ceases to exist when classes cease to exist, because when all property is public there are no classes. However, production remains administrated and directed! I think it’s quite obvious from reading the source material that Marx was no Anarchist, nor did he believe that Socialism was devoid of private property, nor could it be. This is a gradual process for Marx, one we call Socialism, as it works towards a fully Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned Economy, Communism. The government does not “extract surplus value” in a profit accumulating manner, but to pay for public services and infrastructure, directly spelled out by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme. The State is an extension of the dominant class, and the class which is dominant can be found through real analyzing of the trends and conditions of an economy. In the PRC, those trends are towards uplifiting the working class and continuing to fold Private Property into the Public Sector.
This is good agitation. Im not a blanket supporter but its been a good thread with a lot of decent links worthy of critical support. Lemmy world needed this lmao
When you see them seethe through the entire script and react to articles like you showed a cross to nosferatu you know they’re learning without their consent
I see people ask “what tankie shit” quite often
Thank you for the violently clear example to link to you blind idiot
At least this tanky turd is kinda funny
Ok officer
One is a regular person taking out a person of huge authority, balancing power.
The other is the biggest authority taking out a smaller one to consolidate power.
Consolidate ? he’s the leader of a 90 million strong party and been at the reins for more than 14 years lmao. I stg libs’ understanding of politics can be directly mapped to Harry Potter.
You think I’m a lib?
Hahahahaha
If you’re not a Marxist, you’re a lib
All that says is that you’re a Marxist (which I’m not saying is a bad thing).
Bet, it’s just been like a hundred comments of the same three talking points from liberals in .world. The reason it’s not just bad because it’s a “bigger authority” is because of the class character of the state, as well as the subject of the oppression. Lenin dedicated an entire book to the subject, State and Revolution.
It’s good that there’s a bigger authority than capital, the party rules through popular consent, and they chose Xi Jinping as well as the people that do the actual legwork of the anti corruption drive to be the executors of that will. If the US had a popular mandate that prevented corporate abuses, Luigi Mangione wouldn’t have needed to be incarcerated, he would have already gotten his surgery.
He’s going around calling everyone that especially when it doesn’t fit because he just learned it’s an insult.
Greed is never satisfied?
Please show your work. What is the proof that it was done to consolidate power?
This isn’t to mention that your use of the word authority is strange. How exactly do you determine who has more authority between a US house representative vs. a CEO?
It is indeed possible for a person/entity to do a good thing and a bad thing. Who would’ve guessed, it’s actually incredibly likely. I’m sure Luigi was no angel and can be criticized about many things, though he likely didn’t have the power to perform systematic human rights transgressions.
I bet he’s a shit surfer and just hangs out on his board looking cool, but bails when a big wave comes in.
Pretty damning if true. Paints him in a whole new light. Feeling betrayed.
Wow, so insightful!
Punching down vs punching up
Won’t somebody think of the corrupt billionaires 😭
Won’t someone think of the poor billionaires?! 😭
Nothing is more terrifying to liberals, than a government having capitalists under their thumb, and serving the people, rather than the other way around as is normal in their “superior” capitalist dictatorships.
Absolutely terrifying.
Working class rebel vs Elite class looking for more control
What the heck is an “elite class?” Where did Marx talk about it?
Believe it or not, things can exist independently of Marx having described them.
So which non-Marxist political economy or sociology defines this elite class? Usually class politics is attributed to Marx
When everyone is using Class in a specific manner, the addition of a “class” that doesn’t actually exist just for a quip is really odd. You have to make the argument that it even exists in the first place first.
This is your brain on a lack of class analysis
Please show your work. What is the proof that it was done for more control?
Are you asking for proof of Occupied China being a planned economy or that the party controls it?
The comment I replied to says:
Working class rebel vs Elite class looking for more control
Notice the part highlighted in bold. I am asking for proof of this. In other words, proof that the Chinese government executed CEOs only because they sought “more control”. Surely we are not expected to blindly trust this claim, right?
So it’s planned economy that you’re disputing
I really can’t think of any proof that you would believe if you’re disputing that
So it’s planned economy that you’re disputing
No.
My question is very clear, why can’t you address it without pretending I asked something else?
Again, you made the claim that CEO executions were made for the reason of seeking more control. Please provide proof that they were done for this reason and not any other reason. I have not asked for planned economy proof or anything else.
If it’s a planned economy then the government controls it
You’re just saying the same thing
How do you twist yourself up in knots to not even get in the general vicinity of an evidence-based position and not wonder "damn, do I really not know shit about the stuff I’m so loud about "?
Surely we are not expected to blindly trust this claim
Why not? They did when the CIA told it [to the journalists that repeated it] to them.
A tale of two countries
How many non billionaires do they execute?
Not sure. But the US just executed an innocent man, Marcellus Williams, just a few months ago.
Some more US legal system fun facts!
- The US currently operates a system of slave labor camps, including at least 54 prison farms involved in agricultural slave labor. Outside of agricultural slavery, Federal Prison Industries operates a multi-billion dollar industry with ~ 52 prison factories , where prisoners produce furniture, clothing, circuit boards, products for the military, computer aided design services, call center support for private companies. 1, 2, 3
- The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world. Even individual US states outrank all other countries.
- The War On Drugs, a policy of arrest and imprisonment targeting minorities, first initiated by Nixon, has over the years created a monstrous system of mass incarceration, resulting in the imprisonment of 1.5 million people each year, with the US having the most prisoners per capita of any nation. One in five black Americans will spend time behind bars due to drug laws. The war has created a permanent underclass of impoverished people who have few educational or job opportunities as a result of being punished for drug offenses, in a vicious cycle of oppression. 1, 2
- In the present day, ICE (U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement), the police tasked with immigration enforcement, operates over 200 prison camps, housing over 31,000 undocumented people deemed “aliens”, 20,000 of which have no criminal convictions, in the US system of immigration detention. The camps include forced labor (often with contracts from private companies), poor conditions, lack of rights (since the undocumented aren’t considered citizens), and forced deportations, often splitting up families. Detainees are often held for a year without trial, with antiquated court procedures pushing back court dates for months, encouraging many to accept immediate deportation in the hopes of being able to return faster than the court can reach a decision, but forfeiting legal status, in a cruel system of coercion. 1, 2
- Over 90% of criminal trials in the US are settled not by a judge or jury, but with plea bargaining, a system where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in return for a concession from the prosecutor. It has been statistically shown to benefit prosecutors, who “throw the book” at defendants by presenting a slew of charges, manipulating their fear, who in turn accept a lesser charge, regardless of their innocence, in order to avoid a worst outcome. The number of potentially innocent prisoners coerced into accepting a guilty plea is impossible to calculate. Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients. Plea bargaining is forbidden in most European countries. John Langbein has equated plea bargaining to medieval torture: “There is, of course, a difference between having your limbs crushed if you refuse to confess, or suffering some extra years of imprisonment if you refuse to confess, but the difference is of degree, not kind. Plea bargaining, like torture, is coercive. Like the medieval Europeans, the Americans are now operating a procedural system that engages in condemnation without adjudication.” 1
- A grand jury is a special legal proceeding in which a prosecutor may hold a trial before the real one, where ~20 jurors listen to evidence and decide whether criminal charges should be brought. Grand juries are rarely made up of a jury of the defendant’s peers, and defendants do not have the right to an attorney, making them essentially show-trials for the prosecution, who often find ways of using grand jury testimony to intimidate the accused, such as leaking stories about grand jury testimony to the media to defame the accused. In the murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice, all of whom were unarmed and killed by police in 2014, grand juries decided in all 3 cases not to pursue criminal trials against the officers. The US and Liberia are the only countries where grand juries are still legal. 1
- The US system of bail (the practice of releasing suspects before their hearing for money paid to the court) has been criticized as monetizing justice, favoring rich, white collar suspects, over poorer people unable to pay for their release. 1
Bro but they did it dictatorshiply 😭 in a real democracy you’d yell at them online, get a visit from the FBI, and politicians give them another 500 million in subsidies and tax breaks.
