Tbf China claiming Taiwan is pretty bad.
Imagine if US claimed Hawaii is theirs.A closer analogy would be: Imagine that after losing the Civil war, the Confederates flee to Puerto Rico, kill tens of thousands of people there for being “yankee sympathizers”, and establish 40 years of martial law while claiming to be the true and rightful government of the entire continental US.
It’s more akin to the US claiming the ex confederate southern states (which it does), and other countries being “strategically ambiguous” and selling the Confederate remnants weapons and promoting their independence while officially recognizing the US/Washington
Greenland as strategig against Rusia and China is anyway a stupid argument, due tthat Alaska is separated by 4 km from Rusia, in cold winters you can go walking from the US to Rusia, and China has only commercial trading interests with other countries, not imperialistic ones, like this orange piece of shit.
https://ian.macky.net/pat/map/nhem/nhemblu.gif
Greenland is way closer to way more of Russia than Alaska
Look on the map
China is still bad too
Russia is still bad too
Who good?
No good. Only interests.
If nobody good, then bad meaningless
You know that weirdo anarchist that keeps rambling about all nations being bad and by nature imperialistic constructs? They might be the good one
Eu is doing okay tho trending downward, India is trending upward but not there yet. Uruguay doing okay. Brazil doing okay. Vietnam is trending up. Thailand is good. Australia is doing okay but trending downward. I’m not saying they’re good just okay, but Better than China and US.
As a European, I can promise you the the EU isn’t good.
It’s a neoliberal cult that purposefully keep its poor eastern members down for the benefit of its wealthy western members; continues to meddle in and exploit Africa by any means at their disposal, including coups, invasions, funding and arming of death-squads and assassinations, even decades after so called “decolonization”; cultivate an attitude of horrific and bloodthirsty racism among their population, especially against migrants despite being the cause of most mass migrations in the first place, in order to keep migrants miserable and their labor cheap; fund and arms a genocide as we speak; has purposefully let overt and covert neo-Nazi factions gain power in every of its member states; stabbed their own economy for the benefit of the US, multiple times; and so on and so forth.
On the scale of “badness” the EU is right behind the US, they’re just more subtle and quiet about their evil than the US is.
The EU is imperialist though, and as the US Empire is falling they fall with it. China’s better than both, as it isn’t imperialist and instead is trending upwards. I agree with Vietnam, though, it’s similar to China in that both are rising, both are socialist, and neither are imperialist.
You’ll find all countries have engaged in imperialism in one way or another. China towards Tibet, Europe towards Africa, the US currently, well, everyone.
China is not socialist, either, it’s state-capitalist with socialist rhetoric. China is also currently lacking in some social features, particularly full universal healthcare coverage and strong worker rights. Vietnam, however, is quite steady and making great strides. Here’s hoping for more
China has not imperialized Tibet. Imperialism isn’t simply influencing, engaging with, or annexing territory, it’s a system of extraction on an international scale. Europe absolutely colonized Africa and currently imperializes it, and the US Empire as well, but the PLA liberating Tibet wasn’t an act of imperialism.
Imperialism is characterized by the following:
-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.
-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.
-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.
-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.
The global north, Europe included, uses this export of capital to super-exploit foreign labor for super-profits. It also engages in unequal exchange, where the global south is prevented from moving up the value chain in production, allowing the global north to charge monopoly prices for commodities produced in the same labor hours. This doesn’t at all apply to the relation of the PRC to Tibet. Tibet was a feudal slave society backed by the CIA. The PLA liberated Tibet.
Two excerpts from Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth:
Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries rested in the hands of small numbers of high-ranking lamas. Most ordinary monks lived modestly and had no direct access to great wealth. The Dalai Lama himself “lived richly in the 1000-room, 14-story Potala Palace.” [12]
Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, a member of the Dalai Lama’s lay Cabinet, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. [13] Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some Western admirers as “a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma.” [14] In fact it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served mainly as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order, protect their property, and hunt down runaway serfs.
Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeatedremoved, beginning at age nine. [15] The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers.
In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. [16] The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care. They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord’s land — or the monastery’s land — without pay, to repair the lord’s houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand. [17] Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners lease them out to work in a distant location. [18]
As in a free labor system and unlike slavery, the overlords had no responsibility for the serf’s maintenance and no direct interest in his or her survival as an expensive piece of property. The serfs had to support themselves. Yet as in a slave system, they were bound to their masters, guaranteeing a fixed and permanent workforce that could neither organize nor strike nor freely depart as might laborers in a market context. The overlords had the best of both worlds.
One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: “Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished”; they “were just slaves without rights.” [19] Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a “liberation.” He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord’s men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed. [20]
The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being cast into slavery. [21]
The theocracy’s religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.
Selection two, shorter: (CW sexual violence and mutilation)
The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation — including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation — were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. [22]
Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: “When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion.” [23] Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then “left to God” in the freezing night to die. “The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking,” concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. [24]
In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master’s cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who wasremovedd and then had her nose sliced away. [25]
Earlier visitors to Tibet commented on the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the “intolerable tyranny of monks” and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama’s rule as “an engine of oppression.” At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W. F. T. O’Connor, observed that “the great landowners and the priests… exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal,” while the people are “oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft.” Tibetan rulers “invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition” among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, “The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. […] The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth.” [26] As much as we might wish otherwise, feudal theocratic Tibet was a far cry from the romanticized Shangri-La so enthusiastically nurtured by Buddhism’s western proselytes.
-Dr. Michael Parenti
China is also currently lacking in socialist features, particularly full universal healthcare and worker rights. Vietnam, however, is quite steady and making great strides. Here’s hoping for more
Social programs aren’t socialism. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Both Vietnam and China are socialist.
You’re using Lenin’s definition of imperialism. Lenin’s definition focuses on economic domination, not military or territorial control, so for the PRC’s invasion, which was “liberation,” it’s better to use the modern definition of imperialism, which most people reading this will be doing anyway.
Tibet was also a serfdom, not a slave society, there is a distinct difference. Serfdom binds a person to land. Slavery treats them entirely as movable property. One is labour, one is chains. Calling it liberation is also extremely negligent and steeped in bias, the US military uses this excuse all the time, that they are liberators instead of imperialist forces.
But ultimately this all avoids the question of whether or not the Tibetan population wanted integration with China, that’s the crucial part that makes it imperialist, the inability for the Tibetans to decide for themselves.
Which, again, you’re making a false conflation. We’ve established that Europe is imperialist, yes. We’ve established that the US is imperialist, yes. But then you’re including the PRC in an attempt to make it appear anti-imperialist – Which it mostly wasn’t. It’s a very camp argument. Imperialism is imperialism, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it and for what reason.
Redsails is also not a good source, it’s openly from an ML perspective, so it’s not neutral, which you absolutely have to be when discussing history. It’s also under no pretence to be academic or accurate either, Redsails is ideologically driven rather than factually driven - so it won’t ever be critical of the ML perspective. You can use redsails to talk theory, absolutely, but not as a historical or factual source, it’s dishonest.
China is also not entirely socialist, either, it’s state-capitalist with socialist rhetoric. They still have private property.
Redsails is also not a good source, it’s openly from an ML perspective, so it’s not neutral, which you absolutely have to be when discussing history. It’s also under no pretence to be academic or accurate either, Redsails is ideologically driven rather than factually driven - so it won’t ever be critical of the ML perspective. You can use redsails to talk theory, absolutely, but not as a historical or factual source, it’s dishonest.
There is no such thing as a neutral historian. Every human has things they know and things they don’t even on topics they are experts in, every human has opinions on the things they know (or think they know) that will unavoidably taint what they say, even unconsciously, and therefore, everything written or said by a human is necessarily biased. And that’s saying nothing of financial interests, politics and other things that bias things even further.
This is not avoidable, the most you can do is be aware of biases and work with/around them.
If an historian or a journalist tell you that their work is “neutral” or “unbiased”, they are either lying to you or don’t know how biases work, and in either case you should be very skeptical of them because they are clearly not doing their job correctly.
You’re using Lenin’s definition of imperialism. Lenin’s definition focuses on economic domination, not military or territorial control, so for the PRC’s invasion, which was “liberation,” it’s better to use the modern definition of imperialism, which most people reading this will be doing anyway.
Your definition, which you call “modern,” is neither modern nor useful. As you already said, by your chosen definition, all countries have “imperialized” others, but that doesn’t explain the mechanisms of how some countries plunder vast resources from others, or how to stop this.
If we use the “influence” definition, then I don’t think “influence” is a bad thing in all cases, while this form of international extraction is what we communists specifically take issue with and are arguing against. If you’re trying to talk about a point I made using Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, it doesn’t make sense to try to change the definition to argue.
Tibet was also a serfdom, not a slave society, there is a distinct difference. Serfdom binds a person to land. Slavery treats them entirely as movable property. One is labour, one is chains. Calling it liberation is also extremely negligent and steeped in bias, the US military uses this excuse all the time, that they are liberators instead of imperialist forces.
Tibet had serfs and slaves. Go back and read the excerpts I linked from Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth. Calling it liberation is accurate, as Tibet has been uplifted and life metrics are skyrocketing, slavery and serfdom abolished, and culture preserved. Tibet is not having its resources extracted or labor super-exploited by the PRC. The US Empire destroys the countries it “liberates,” this is qualitatively different.
But ultimately this all avoids the question of whether or not the Tibetan population wanted integration with China, that’s the crucial part that makes it imperialist, the inability for the Tibetans to decide for themselves.
It isn’t actually what makes it imperialist or not, but Tibetans are quite happy to be freed from slavery and serfdom.
Which, again, you’re making a false conflation. We’ve established that Europe is imperialist, yes. We’ve established that the US is imperialist, yes. But then you’re including the PRC in an attempt to make it appear anti-imperialist – Which it mostly wasn’t. It’s a very camp argument. Imperialism is imperialism, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it and for what reason.
You’re changing the definition of imperialism to make your point. If your point is that imperialism is “influence,” and Lenin’s definition is “extractionism,” then my point is that every country is “influence imperialist” and not all “influence imperialism” is a bad thing, but all “extractionist imperialism” is bad. It isn’t camp, I oppose this brutal system of international extractionism, and you’re dodging it by taking issue with me calling that imperialism and not agreeing that influence can be good.
Redsails is also not a good source, it’s openly from an ML perspective, so it’s not neutral, which you absolutely have to be when discussing history. It’s also under no pretence to be academic or accurate either, Redsails is ideologically driven rather than factually driven - so it won’t ever be critical of the ML perspective. You can use redsails to talk theory, absolutely, but not as a historical or factual source, it’s dishonest.
Dr. Michael Parenti has well-sourced arguments and historical data. There’s no such thing as a neutral historian. Red Sails is merely hosting Dr. Michael Parenti’s work, which is both ideologically and factually driven. Dr. Michael Parenti is a Statesian historian, not really a theorist.
China is also not entirely socialist, either, it’s state-capitalist with socialist rhetoric. They still have private property.
Socialism is not the absence of private property, just like capitalism is not the absence of public property. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries. The US Empire is capitalist not because everything is private, but because private ownership dominates the large firms and key industries. No mode of production is “pure.” From a Marxist perspective, it simply doesn’t make sense to socialize the sole proprietorships and small industries, as the basis of socialist production is large scale industry, and to socialize the small firms as they grow. This is repeated by Marx and Engels.
Where are you getting your ideas of socialism from?
venezuela.
shit, the entirety of south america.
And middle east and some chunks of Africa and few strategic locations in far east and…
Missing Cucknadian flag
B-b-b-b-b-but China might, possibly, at some point in the future, try to reclaim Taiwan! Both sides! Two things true at once! Me speculating about something possibly happening is the exact same as the thing actually happening!
Hasn’t China stated that they intend to reclaim Taiwan? Don’t they claim Taiwan as part of their country right now?
Yes, as they have since the war, just as Taiwan claims China. Your point?
Peace with Taiwan has been maintained for nearly a hundred years, with a mutual understanding that nobody would try to force the issue too hard (look up “strategic ambiguity”). In recent years, the US has been recklessly deviating from that understanding and now people treat the status quo as “Chinese aggression,” because of propaganda.
Taiwan isn’t claiming the mainland anymore since the 90s
The power of just saying shit
Source? It’s in their constitution.
There is no “claim” to be made and there is no “reclaim” to be had against such a claim.
Taiwan is and always has been recognized as part of the country of China. That’s why the losing army in the civil war went there - because it was part of the country they were a party of.
China has stated for 70 years that the island province of Taiwan will be integrated into the rest of the governance of the country. For 50 years it has explicitly stated it will be integrated peacefully, because the CPC recognizes that doing it forcefully would actually be contradictory and create a constant guerilla warfare situation as well as invite the world’s militaries to intervene. The CPC has no intention of forcing Taiwan to integrate except if Taiwan works with foreign governments to establish a substantial and real threat to the security of the mainland.
If China waits long enough, the Western economies will collapse and Taiwan will very quickly and easily realize that the West just can’t support them anymore and when they look to see who they depend on for nearly everything, and who their relatives are and who their dominant trading partner and who can protect them militarily, it’s going to be an easy process of integrating the provincial government of Taiwan into the government of the mainland - especially since the CPC is committed to One Country Two System meaning the provincial government of Taiwan can continue operating with the same structure and same politicians and same processes as it has now.
Is that integration supposed to be a good thing?
Yes. Integration means less conflict, more collaboration, less redundancy, more dynamism, less wasteful military build up, fewer threats from the US.
One country two systems means that China provides for national defense of the entire space while Taiwan maintains a substantial amount of governing autonomy.
Think of it like Greenland choosing to be a part of Denmark to keep itself safe from the US military, except in this example Greenland would be historically part of Denmark for centuries and have a population of 99% Danes and have some parts of Greenland only 4 miles off the coast of Denmark with US troops already stationed on it training Danes on Greenland to fight the mainland.
China seeks to reclaim Taiwan as part of China for the same reason Taiwan seeks to reclaim the mainland as part of China.
Yeah these guys are dreaming that China won’t invade Taiwan.
China is not the good guys now… America is just fuckin worse
If you believe in good guys and bad guys as an adult I’ve got a fuckin Harry Potter wand to sell you
Not every country in the world is as corrupt as the the US.
You let your politicians trade shares, what else do you all expect to happen?
No capitalist country can have a good democracy, some have just way better PR than others. Hell, the crackdown on pro Palestinian protests in western liberal democracies proves that.
You should try basing your beliefs on facts and evidence sometime.
China was just talking recently about how Taiwan is there’s…
What world do you live in where China won’t invade Taiwan eventually…
When it becomes untenable for the US to maintain a global military hegemony Taiwan will reluctantly submit to being in the Chinese orbit because of geographical realities and then be firmly on a path to reunification. It’s very likely the only blood that will be spilled will be by the chud protestors.
They’ve been “just recently” talking about how Taiwan is theirs for the past 70 years and haven’t done shit.
I live in a world where basic pattern recognition exists.
Also Taiwan is a staging ground for a US invasion, claims sovereignty over China, has it’s airspace go far over mainland China, and so much more. Somehow China not being a fan of this is the same as when the United States coups another country because it elected someone that doesn’t align 100% with us policy.
Is it possible for more than two things being true at once? Is it in fact possible that reducing everything to “both sides bad” isn’t some supreme insight, but instead just a mantra that allows libs to support the status quo of us imperialism?
Is it possible for more than two things being true at once?
Scientists recently managed to get three things to be true at once, but it only lasted for a couple seconds. It may be possible for as many as four, even five things to be true at the same time, but that’s purely theoretical at this point.
Incredible
Okay this one is perfect.
Speculation? China has set a deadline for this to happen! And they’ve already taken territory of several other countries by force, including all of Tibet.
several other countries by force, including all of Tibet.
Tibet has historically been part of China for a long time, which is probably why Taiwan claims it along with the rest of China (in fact, Taiwan’s claims go further and include Mongolia). Tibet broke away along with a bunch of other warlord states in the chaos following the fall of the Qing dynasty, and was never internationally recognized as an independent country. Its people were freed from the tyrannical, slave owning theocracy and rejoined the country, which led to the doubling of their average life expectancy (along with the rest of China). China’s claim to Tibet is about as valid as the US claim to the Confederate States.
All of that happened over 70 years ago under Mao, before the country shifted focus with major reforms in the 80s. Though to be fair to you, there aren’t exactly a lot of recent wars involving China for you to choose from, are there? Not your fault you have to go back 70 years.
So Russia has a right to control Ukrain too by that logic?? What year exactly should we all revert world borders back to and why?
Hmm? I think you’ve got that backwards. Ukraine is the one trying to reclaim lost territory that’s currently under Russia’s control, is it not? What year exactly should we revert world borders back to and why?
I wonder if you can see the problem with the naive solution of trying to “lock in” whatever the present borders are. If a country seizes territory, even without any justification, that territory is now part of the present borders, and therefore would be “locked in” by that standard, suggesting that anyone who tried to take it back is the aggressor (until they succeed in reclaiming it).
I think that what you’re asking is a very complicated and valid question, even if you didn’t mean it in earnest. The question of what makes a country legitimate is quite complicated. I would argue that the “north star” of legitimacy is what outcome is best for the people. In the case of Taiwan, I think the best outcome is to maintain the status quo of de facto independence without rocking the boat with things like formal independence. It’s not worth starting world war 3 over a formality.
But when you have a “country” like the Confederacy or Tibet, which keeps people in bondage under horrible conditions, then obviously the best outcome is for them to be defeated and taken over by someone else. Slavery and serfdom are automatically delegitimizing.
There’s also another reason why reunifying Tibet was justified, which is explained very succinctly by the 1944 US War Department film, “Why We Fight: The Battle For China:” (around 8:20)
But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it’s population, think of conquering China, much less the world?
Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation.
The part of China’s history where it was broken up into these warlord states was part of what they call, “The Century of Humiliation,” when Chinese people were subject to imperialism and aggression from many different countries, worst of all being Imperial Japan. Because the country was so fractured, it was difficult to mount an organized, collective defense. This was understood by basically everyone, by the US, by the communists, and by the nationalists. That’s why the communists and nationalists were willing to form a unified front against the warlord states despite their major ideological differences, because it was obvious to everyone at that time that a unified China - a “One China Policy” - was important and necessary. Even today, both the PRC and ROC formally agree on the idea of a One China Policy, and the US has (in the past at least) as well.
But again, today, I personally believe in maintaining the status quo, where Taiwan is de facto independent. There’s significant precedent that this can maintain peace and keep everyone relatively satisfied. The same precedent did not exist in Tibet or in any of the other warlord states. Furthermore, Taiwan has significantly better human rights and conditions in general than Tibet where you’d die a serf at age 30. The whole “Free Tibet” thing is pure propaganda, only followed by people who are completely ignorant of the actual facts of what life was like there before, and of the history in general.
Authoritarian is a nothing-word used to describe enemy-nations. It’s like calling their government a “regime” or their intelligence agencies “secret police” or the vice-president the “hand picked successor”.
I’ve never seen a definition - neither academic or by some farthuffing Redditor - that wasn’t so broad as to just be describing a state or so specific it wasn’t just a longer way of spelling “China”.Every state is authoritarian. Reducing political analysis to wether a state does stuff and not what it does, why it does it, or with what amount of popular support, is top-tier liberal winecave apparatchik intelligentsia thought. No actual insights, but it makes you seem like you know stuff, if you don’t think about it at all. And going against the concept makes you seem like a villain because who wants to defend “authoritarianism”?
The definition came out in the fucking 60’s while the US was busy beating the shit out every protestor it could, yet somehow that wasn’t authoritarian.[1]
Running around with HUAC screaming about authoritarian communism. Funding death squads, secretly approving money to royal families, forcibly relocating the poor and marginalised, all the shit the west did in Africa, all the crackdowns in west Germany, the ongoing colonialism, Robert Moses and his European copycats, shit like the syphilis and LSD experiments; all this occuring in the nations decrying the USSR - and now China - for being “authoritarian”.
Britain is a police state today; the US is a modern Prussia, but the army is replaced with 17 different types of cops; the EU is funding concentration camps for refugees abroad and I can tell you from experience the cops have pretty free reign here too. We’re all surveilled up the ass and out again, but somehow China is an authoritarian danger? I’m supposed to be afraid that TikTok tells Xi Jinping knows when It take a shit, but its completely fine that my own overlords get the same info from the billion other trackers that are everywhere? People say “two wrongs don’t make a right” in response to this, but it seems like they think one of the wrongs is pretty right, and it’s the wrong that’s hanging over our heads - while the one around the globe is something to worry about[2]Its the same shit as totalitarianism - incidentally both concepts popularized by Hannah Arendt - which was just a fuckass way for dumbasses to sound smart when they uniquely observed that both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union used state power to do stuff - What stuff they did apparently having no matter at all, what percentage of approval from the populace or involvement mattering neither. No, what was important was that both states Did Stuff and that meant they were the same.
Now what if you pointed out that the US Did Stuff too? Well that’s whataboutism, a clever Russian ploy to make you want to have a consistent ideological throughline in your geopolitical critique.
What if you pointed out how old colonial powers like France were still Doing Stuff?[3] Well that’s Old Stuff so it doesn’t matter. Or it doesn’t matter because they aren’t superpowers or whatever.Here’s someone else shitting on her better than I could https://mirror.explodie.org/Losurdo___Critique_of_Totalitarianism_(2004).pdf
If you’re not a commited anarchist then I will not hear you utter a word in favour of Authoritarianism as an academic concept.
If you claim to be one then I am going to need to see some serious dissertation on leftist theory from you, as well as proof that you actually organise in the real world, because I know there’s enough larping lemmitors who don’t want to admit they’re just libs, because they can’t stand the thought of not being a special smart little kid.
Even then I am going to shit in your mouth if you’re an anarchist and you’re more concerned or preoccupied with what china is doing rather than whatever hellhole of a nation you live in yourself.
Incidentally from the early 50’s and onwards the soviet gulag system had a lower recidivism rate, lower death rate and overall higher QoL than the US system. ↩︎
Did you know the “social credit system” only ever applied to businesses? Fuck i wish the yeomen farmers back home were kept half as responsible as they are in China ↩︎
and are still Doing Stuff, did you know they control the monetary policy of several African nations? ↩︎
Take your meds.
Libs
12-year old maladjusted kidsResorting to chauvinism whenever someone disagrees with them.
Read a book
Removed by mod
It’s the ableism in your comment, throwing neurodivergent people under the bus for a quick jab.
It must be exhausting, getting offended by everything that way.
Trying to dodge responsibility for your ableism by flipping around to how annoying you percieve those that call you out for it doesn’t work. Just take ownership and do better, it isn’t particularly difficult to do either and it results in personal growth and development.
Probably not half as exhausting as being as obtuse as you
What an odd thing to write
There should be an Australian guy who is still just hating on China in the 2nd panel anyway.
Are two things true at once in this thread by the way? I looked for someone saying it yesterday, but no one ever said so.
I’ve got a liberal bingo I am trying to fill out.
I’m also looking for someone writing in speech affectations a la “ummm… Wo-wow did you just say that? Haha that’s uhh crazy” and if you’ve got an checks notes then that’s nice tooChinas military stays in and around china as far as i know…
But the us is everywhere interfering in everyones business
Yes comrades, that is 100% correct. Assuming you also accept chinas definition of where its territory ends.
Where does the US territory end, Palestine? Vietnam??
Eventually it will end at Chinas border.
Yes let’s support le Taiwan independence!! (But don’t look up what territory the ROC has in their constitution btw)
Personally, I’m just waiting for the aggressive, expansionist country of Switzerland to end it’s occupation of Zurich.
Yes Bud, that’s hella correct. Assuming you accept the Canadian definition of where its territory ends. Glad you don’t accept the FLQ’s tankie claims that Montreal is a “Quebec” city.
Sorry but no. Tibet, South China Sea, they’ve even got patrols to intimidate Australia
Tibet, South China Sea
These are ‘in and around China’ whether you like it or not.
they’ve even got patrols to intimidate Australia
Good, lmao.
I do know China meddles in Africa a lot. I think because they are interested in resources, maybe mining or oil?
I read in the past that a lot of the Sudanese groups that pillage and fight with a lot of South Sudan are funded and given firearms or something by China or Chinese groups. I think this was more prominent around 15 years ago when South Sudan was trying to be independently recognized.
Side note: I also remember reading that George Clooney used to fund some kind of satellite thing that helped South Sudanese track movements of North Sudanese so they could preemptively avoid attack.
China definitely meddles. But yeah, probably nowhere near the degree the US does.
Gyude Moore: “China in Africa: An African Perspective” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5uzxV8ub9k
Are you comparing economic collaboration with installing military bases?
China has exactly one foreign military base. It’s in South Africa. They are very happy with it and there’s no contention.
By contrast, US military bases in Japan are notorious for raping, kidnapping, and other abuses of locals.
No. China does not also “meddle” in the rest world.
I do know China meddles in Africa a lot
Oh you know that? That’s something you know? How exactly do you know that? Did it come to you in a dream?
China has mutual development projects in Africa, the reason is because in the long run mutual development benefits everyone.
These are soft power projection projects. You would recognize them as such if it were the US doing it (which we used to before Trump decided it was woke), so why do you stick to the Chinese state narrative here?
Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, genuinely helping poor countries develop is a pretty good way to gain soft power.
No one here, and I do mean no one, is saying that China isn’t gaining anything from doing that. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad for the other party or hides some nefarious secret purpose either. Diplomacy isn’t a zero sum gain where if China gain from a deal therefore the other party has to lose to compensate, that’s not how international relations work.
Because China isn’t imperialist, it isn’t dominated by finance capital and isn’t super-exploiting the global south. Imperialism isn’t a policy preference, it’s what happens when capitalism reaches its domestic limits. China doesn’t have the same economic forces that push the US Empire into imperialism.
China does gain international credibility from these mutual cooperation projects, sure, but since they are mutually beneficial that isn’t a bad thing. Further, Trump still exerts soft power, it wasn’t because it was “woke” but because it’s expensive and imperialism is declining. The US Empire is pivoting towards hard power now that US soft power is dying.
While it does have benefits, the overarching Chinese plan is to own everything, and have countries on the debt hook.
USA is the world bully by might, China does it by strategy
I love unsourced conspiracy theories
“My source is that I’m incredibly racist.”
This isn’t true though, as I elaborate on over here. China doesn’t seek to own everything, nor does it debt trap. In fact, it frequently forgives billions in debt. China’s goal in Africa is mutual, win-win development, as long term cooperation benefits everyone more greatly than western imperialism does.
The US, Canada, Europe, etc, in being dominated by finance capital and the profit motive, are ecomomically compelled into the strategy of keeping the global south underdeveloped so as to super-exploit them for cheap labor and resources. The PRC is socialist, though, and the finance industry is dominated by the state, meaning long-term planning and mutual development is not only possible, but economically compelled.
There’s lots of other links that discount your denial of their plans and how they leverage. USA is like 5 year plan, 10 year plan. China has 100 year plan and 1000 year plan.
China has 100 year plan and 1000 year plan.
More evidence free assertions
I’m honestly most baffled by the idea that the USA has 5 or 10 year plans.
China does have long-term planning, I’m not disputing that, I’m disputing the idea that China is predatory towards the global south. These narratives are largely pushed by the west in order to scare the global south away from pivoting to China, whose mutual cooperation programs are proven to result in dramatic and rapid development.
I just don’t want to confuse capitalism vs socialism, with Global Domination strategy of USA or China.
They are “socialist” but they aren’t doing it out of the idea of greater good of all humankind, they are a dictatorship (currently) and this is self interest so they can be a global logistic player and their port building also includes military access. This is a longterm goal to be the only superpower.
No. Its not. Go read about their lease agreements. Theyre doing the same thing just through financial means.
“go read this thing I haven’t read, I assume it supports my argument”
Me telling people to read Capital
Join comrade @oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 2026 Capital reading group! They just started, you can absolutely catch up!
You have the perseverance of a saint
I have read, and China is absolutely not doing “the same thing just through financial means.” Financial domination secured with millitant means is the western method. China is not debt trapping poor African nations. We can see that this isn’t the case when we can observe countries in BRI engaging in rapid development and industrializing, and this is confirmed by China forgiving tons of debt. The goal of China isn’t to make countries reliant on them, or to earn money from debt, it’s because China gains personally through mutual development. Here are some articles debunking the “debt trap” myth:
There are many more examples I can use. China isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their own heart, but because they stand to gain from mutual development. A more developed global south means China is less reliant on the US Empire as a customer, provides new avenues to facilitate trade, and creates more markets for customers. The west harvests the global south for cheap labor and resources, and we can see hard comparisons in data between BRI participants and those imperialized by the west to see fundamentally different results.
It’s clear at this point: participation in BRI results in sustained and rapid development and mutual cooperation, and working with the west results in sustained impoverishment. It appears that you believe any cooperation between more developed and less developed countries is inherently imperialist, and impossible to be mutually beneficial. I’d like to see proof.
As a side-note, this is also why I hate the “go read” argument in online discourse. Reading very well can be the answer, but the other user isn’t going to do it unless they have a compelling reason to take your advice. This goes for Marxists that tell other users to read as well.
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/china-port-development-africa/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Ek6HZ5nD4&t=670
The only thing clear is if yoy do business with them they will take control of whatever it is they build. And acti g like they wont use it for military means when needed is a childs mentality.
Linking a bunch of people fearmongering about China’s increasing presense in Africa doesn’t actually mean this is to take away sovereignty from African countries. China gains from this mutual cooperation, but so do African countries, and unlike the west China doesn’t force trade at the barrel of a gun. That’s part of why it’s mutally beneficial, and results in development in Africa, vs underdevelopment and western enrichment.
All this really proves is that you have a deeply chauvanistic view of China, assuming that every country is as evil as the west. The simple reason why China isn’t economically compelled to imperialize is because it isn’t dominated by finance capital, and thus prioritizes long-term results. It’s simply better for everyone for there to be mutual cooperation, but western countries are dominated by the profit motive and finance capital, which compels them to take short term gains via looting the global south.
I suggest you read the articles I have already linked, they help debunk the fearmongering from your gish-gallop.
Your articles keep talking about “increasing Chinese millitary domination” despite a whopping 3 millitary bases overseas. China has a defensive millitary and benefits from stability and development in the global south, while NATO has hundreds of bases and installs compradors, coups, forces austerity, and more.
meanwhile in the real world https://jasonhickel.substack.com/p/is-china-doing-colonialism-in-africa
Construction projects =/= military occupation, try harder
I think it is more that Americans are so used to extractive austerity and warfunding/fighting that we’ve completely forgot that economies can build civil society.
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/china-port-development-africa/
I dont have to try. Theyre selling everything to the chinese already. Acting like china wont use these for military opperations when needed is just stupid
Chinese firms are present in over a third of all African port developments, some of which COULD be used for expanded Chinese naval presence on the continent.
wooooow it could be used jesus christ we need to stop that.
Your car could in theory be used to run over 100s of pedestrian and commit manslaughter! THAT MAKES YOU A TERRORIST!!!
This does absolutely nothing to support your dumbass claims, try again
It does if youre literate. Thats a tall ask on here though.
China gains as much as $13 in trade revenues for every $1 invested in ports. A firm holding an operating lease or concession agreement reaps not only the financial benefits of all trade passing through that port but can also control access
Chinese firms hold operating concessions in 10 African ports. Despite the risks over loss of control, the trend on the continent is toward privatizing
Ports in which Chinese firms have equity arrangements provide similar leverage over port operations. Notably, under China’s technical standards for “military civil fusion” (junmin ronghe; 军民融合), many Chinese state owned commercial shipping and civilian air cargo capabilities meet military specifications for defense logistics purposes.
Imagine if China went crazy and started claiming territory. Oh wait Tibet, South China Sea, Taiwan…
That’s typical modern empire behavior. Claiming land entire fucking ocean accross is still colonization shit. Don’t get me started on US companies establishing literal slavery overseas.
- Tibet has been part of China for several centuries.
- So weird that China would claim territory off its own southern coast in a sea named after it.
- Taiwan is already part of China, as even the Taiwanese will tell you.
The tanks are rumbling nicely this morning.
The tanks are necessary when people like you show up to chop off children’s hands for not harvesting rubber fast enough
Western nazis cannot comprehend a military defending its own people instead of enslaving others.
.uk
Go take an opioid
The libs are triggered as always
Weird that you did not address South China Sea…
The number of USA bases in that area maybe has something to do with that. Maybe they want to monitor the area for safety reasons but what do I know.
The American bases are there out of the hosting countries’ permission. Weird that tankies never mention what Vietnam and Philippines think of the Chinese navy bullying their fishermen, or China not leaving the shoals that is within the 200 nautical mile from Philippines, despite the International Court of Justice ruling that China’s presence in that shoal is illegal. But you know, got to keep flipping the script as an NPC…
“The countries the US occupies militarily agreed to it voluntarily” lol right, definitely didn’t have anything to do with the extremely obvious threat of being invaded and overthrown if they don’t comply
Are you from that part of the world? Are your fishermen being driven away by Chinese navy despite having centuries long friendly relations with Chinese fishermen? Did Philippines allow China to set up base within their maritime shores? Did you guys actually ask Vietnamese and Filipinos apart reading pre-prepared script?
The US has literally militarily occupied the Philippines, Japan and South Korea. As for Vietnam, the reason they had historical beef with China was due to the sino-soviet split, but that beef has been largely resolved and the Vietnamese are not as anti-china as you think they are.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up kiddo
- Tibetans were invaded by force, displaced, hate China and want their country back.
- The South China Sea is south of China, not part of China. Many other nations draw important food and income from the area and China is kicking them out to starve. Please do a google search at least before spreading assumptions.
- Taiwan claims to be an independent nation ready to resist China, so I’d love to know which Taiwanese say that.
So why the love for China anyway? What’s your background here?
Tibetans were invaded by force, displaced, hate China and want their country back.
Tibetans were not displaced. They’re still there. What got displaced was a feudal theocratic dynasty. Of course they want their country back: they miss ruling over desperate, illiterate feudal serfs.
Many other nations draw important food and income from the area and China is kicking them out to starve.
Several countries have overlapping claims, but for some reason Westerners are only interested in China’s claims, because Western media has one specific narrative it wants to tell. Maybe Westerners should mind their own business and let countries on the other side of the world sort out their own disputes.
Taiwan claims to be an independent nation ready to resist China
And yet only a dozen UN member states recognize it as an independent state.
I’d love to know which Taiwanese say that.
Pretty much all of them? It’s even in the ROC’s constitution. Both the ROC and the PRC claim all of China, including the island of Formosa.
What’s your background here?
My background is anti-imperialism.
Several countries have overlapping claims, but for some reason Westerners are only interested in China’s claims, because Western media has one specific narrative it wants to tell. Maybe Westerners should mind their own business and let countries on the other side of the world sort out their own disputes.
You’re forgetting to tell the commenter previously, these islands were previously occupied by France and Japan,
one colonizer kicked out of Asia and the other being the loser of world war II.If you’re anti-imperialist, wouldn’t it make more sense for China and Taiwan to be recognised as two, separate independent nations?
Opposition to imperialism implies opposition to enforced absorption, regardless of who is doing it. If you’re truly anti-imperialist, you shouldn’t take a stance of either side absorbing the other.
There’s a book called “Imperialism” that you should read in order to be on the same page as the other people using the rigorous definition instead of the common sense one as you are
-
The Taiwanese themselves do not unanimously want independence and there is a huge split of this position in taiwan, just like there is a split in America between Democrats and republicans.
-
“Enforced absorption”, there is no class analysis in this concept whatsoever. Which class benefits from reunification, and which class benefits from separation? It is the American imperialists and Taiwanese monopoly capitalists who benenfit from separation.
Can you not use US defaultism? To me, there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans, they’re all the same creed of politicians.
Ok, it’s just an example.
-
Can we just have like a couple of years of everyone just getting on with their own shit
Wtf of course china is authoritarian. China is all about total surveillance and total control by one party.
Imagine making totalitarian arguments about surveillance and repression of US enemies in the era of Palantir and ICE.
I’m sure glad it isn’t libertarian or it would have been overrun by bears decades ago
Surveillance in China is no greater than in western countries, though, and the decisions made by the CPC are made through constant polling and consensus building. This is why a much larger portion of Chinese citizens support their system and believe it represents their interests:
It’s still a centralized system, which is undemocratic. I agree that the majority of chinese citizens seems happy with how it works.
Who is doing this consensus building? Who decides what questions to poll?
Its surprising that you claim that the surveillance of chinese citizens by the CCP is on the same level as let’s say Germany. Hard disagree. I thought the CCP is proud of the surveillance.
Which states do you consider democratic?
Centralization doesn’t mean a lack of democratization, that’s why socialist democracy centers cohesion and unity over endless fragmentation. In China, for example, local representatives are directly elected, and then these representatives elect from within them the higher rungs of government. The CPC itself has over 100 million members, has a presence in every major company, and thus has its finger firmly on the pulse of what people actually want.
Progress is slow but extremely stable, and as such China has been able to consistently outperform other countries when it comes to improving the lives of the citizens of China. The CPC conducts this polling, and you can see this in action when looking at how Five Year Plans are made. You can read more about this system in Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
I don’t see what you are saying by claiming Germany spies on its citizens less than China. Both Germany and China are better than Five Eyes countries, sure, but Germany absolutely is spying on its citizens, not to mention privatized spyware. China isn’t “proud of the surveillance,” I don’t know what you mean by this in a way that makes it different from western surveillance.
Imagine being so utterly delusional to think that number of parties has anythign to do with how democratic the country is.
I do think explaining the difference between democracy and competing parties can be helpful, because it’s so thoroughly ingrained into people that democracy means voting between competing parties and not reflecting the will of the people.
It’s one of the more subtle propaganda narratives I find. On the surface it almost makes sense, but once you apply materialist analysis the whole thing falls apart because the whole discussion of democracy is meaningless when the means of production are privately owned. This arrangement takes away from public debate the key question of who governs our common economic life and to what ends?
Genuine democracy must include the power to shape the material conditions of our existence. The nature of labour, the distribution of its fruits, and the purpose for which we can produce are fundamental decisions we make as a society. When these are decided by a capitalist class alone with the absolute authority of private property, then political democracy becomes merely an ornamental competition on secondary issues. Citizens vote to choose politicians, but not regarding the structure of industry or finance, or the necessity for maximum profit which places all social and ecological considerations in a subordinate position. This creates an inherent contradiction where citizens are called equals politically, yet remain subordinates economically.
Any system where there is a private dictatorship over industry is not democracy but a carefully staged charade which legitimises the rule of money through the hollow ritual of elections. So you can have as many parties as you like, but there’s no actual democracy to be had.
Agreed, my point is that it’s helpful to explain that rather than jumping to insult right off the bat. Bloodsport is fun and all, but at the bare minimum I think it’s helpful to showcase why the point is bad, not just claiming that it’s bad. I know it isn’t as fun, and we do explain time and time again, but that’s the task we have as communists, to help bring the working class to more correct ideological lines.
Fair, I should work on being a bit more patient. It’s just so tiring when people keep regurgitating these same tropes that have already been addressed time and again. Kudos on your patience dealing with this sort of stuff and actually explaining things.
Believe me, I sympathize with the monotony of dispelling the same myths and tropes regularly. It’s why I usually reference prior comments of mine before making a bespoke comment or post, and tweak to better suit the context, similar to what you do. I’m a firm believer that simply explaining and refusing to take cheap rhetorical wins results in long-term ideological cohesion in internet communities, raising the general average understanding of those who use these forums, and results in reduced work load in the long run by increasing the number of people that can actually respond well.
For sure, even if the person making the original comment is just trolling, an explanation helps other people reading the thread.
China is very vocal about taiwan being theirs.
it is tho, it’s been a part of china since the qinq dynasty in 17th century, the people in taiwan are exactly alike the ones in mainland china. It’s also in the best interest of both to reunificate, the US just wants to turn them into chinese ukraine for their geopolitical goals.
And Taiwan is very vocal about having airspace that goes several hundred miles over mainland China. Taiwan is also very vocal about being a part of china, so what are you gonna do?
Also, why would I be against a full incorporation of Taiwan into China, if it has popular support? The island was occupied by the fascist Kuomintang, the party carried out a genocide on the native population and it’s only around to day because it can function as a military launching ground for the US.
What’s the actual rational explanation for why Taiwan should become an independent nation when that’s not what Taiwan wants nor what China wants and doing so would only be in the interest of the imperialist US?
If this is the kind of stuff you actually care about, then why not start with all the national sovereignty that whatever place you’re from doesn’t respect? You know, something you can actually influence, instead of doing something that just so happens to further imperialist interests?
Popular support where? Taiwan is a healthy democracy and last I heard they will die before accepting Chinese dictatorship. And why would the US start a war with China that they’ll never win?
Taiwan is a dictatorship of capital, not a working class democracy, and was an outright dictatorship for decades when the KMT retreated from the mainland to Taiwan and declared martial law. Taiwan considers itself to be the legitimate government over all of China, not as a distinct island from China, which is why this is a remnant of the Chinese Civil War.
The US would rather sacrifice Taiwan to contain and damage China, because as China develops the US Empire decays. That’s why the US Empire has millitary bases all surrounding China, to keep it boxxed in.
Further, the PRC is democratic, the vast majority of people say the government reflects the will of the people:
Both the PRC and ROC (Taiwan) claim sovereignty over all of China. Neither considers the island of Taiwan to be distinct from China, the question is over which government has legitimate sovereignty over all of China, and the overwhelming consensus globally is that it’s the PRC. Taiwan’s government is made up of the ones that lost the Chinese Civil War and fled to the island, slaughtered resistance, and have been protected by the west.
Legitimately asking, not trying to make a point; how long ago was that?
1949 was when the KMT retreated to Taiwan and declared martial law.
Oof, okay.
Yep, it coincides with the founding of the PRC in 1949, because that was when the CPC won the civil war against the KMT. Here’s a good background.
And Republic of China—aka the government of Taiwan Island—is very vocal about China, Mongolia and old Qing Dynasty territories being theirs.
old Qing Dynasty territories
Would be real funny to watch the US and friends do a 180 on freeing Tibet
If Tibet was actually ever “freed” (it already is free) then that is sort of what would happen
Do you have a reasonable explanation of why it should be the US’s and not theirs?
Can’t it just be Taiwan’s?
Taiwan exists only because the US intervened to stop the fascists it supported in the civil war from being wiped out, so it’s necessarily a US protectorate/puppet.
And to circle back again to your question, no it couldn’t be; they killed the people who were there before they moved in.
Taiwan claims the mainland is theirs, the mainland claims Taiwan is theirs, because both claim to be the legitimate government of all of China, and Taiwan is a part of China.
It is theirs. If you support Taiwanese separatism then you should be consistent and support all separatist movements. There’s plenty in Europe you should support them.
I refuse Taiwan separatism but support European separatist movements. What does this makes me?
Morally correct on my book.
Your moral book shall be kept on based library of fully-automated gay space communism.
There’s so many Types Of Guy that could make you, it’s hard to count.
I’m available if any libs for fashes wanna throw hands.
I haven’t looked into all European separatist movements, but afaik that makes you based
Brexit/ukip is/was an independence movement of sorts and pretty shit.
Anything against britbong interests are good.
There used to be strong anti-EU movements on the left, but they’ve all died out. It’s a shame
Yeah, a shame. Now the so called Euro-left is filled with left anti-coms, and they would rather side with imperialists than MLs.
I checked the list and I think I’m against separatist movements in Russia and Serbia for now because of their obvious impcore-led origins.
Probably because it clearly is
It’s possible for two things to be true at once.
Hell, I think 3 or 4 things can be true at once. I just remembered that bunnies have two ears. That is another thing that can be true, so 4 or 5.
- Or neither
- Or one
- Or the other
- Next time make an actual point instead of blurting out thought-terminating clichés
It’s possible for you to not talk solely in rote, word for word, recitation of thought terminating cliches, and yet you don’t.
It’s also possible to try using your brain instead of just regurgitating imperial propaganda uncritically, but here we are
Could you restate this?
like fix the grammar?
“try using whatever your brain instead of”
Does not parse
I was gonna be snarkier, and forgot to delete whatever :)
I would love for you to actually make a claim rather than this meaningless bullshit.
True.
- European nations gleefully join with USAmerica-led invasions against other countries and talk about Freedom n Democracy
- But they think it’s against Freedom n Democracy when USAmerica just mentioned an invasion directed against them
Both true
Even better, some Danish politician was citing their nation’s gleeful involvement in USAmerica-led invasions as a reason why it’s bad to invade Greenland.
The World isn’t the West. China is an enemy of choice for the West due to racism, otherwise it poses no threat.
China is a threat to Africa, trying to buy land for military bases from African countries. China is constantly trying to expand and dominate its culture. If that isn’t the definition of imperialism, I don’t know what is.
It must be so nice being an anti-communist. You can just make up whatever unsourced bullshit you like and expect people to believe it
I am pro communism. China is not communist, it is authoritarian and state-capitalist.
I wonder what the alternative to authoritarian is and why it involves getting overrun by bears
Is China State Capitalist?
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
- Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
- Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
- Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
- China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
- Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
Care to explain what this is?
Try reading
It’s a list of links that you can click on, you should try it.
No one is claiming China achieved communism, we just believe its policies reflect an attempt at building it. It’s also silly to slander a socialist state as “authoritarian” if you have read the bare minimum of Engels. If you’re earnest on supporting communism I encourage you to look into the compatible left and seek non western perspectives more broadly.
And yet you accept anti-communist slander as true without question.
Have you ever, even just once, asked yourself where those accusations come from? Who made them? Who propagated them? Why they did?
The PRC has a socialist market economy. The working classes control the state, and the large firms, key industries, finance sector, are all dominated by public ownership. Public ownership is the principle aspect of China’s economy. State capitalism as a term more fits the Republic of Korea, where the state is controlled by capitalists and private ownership dominates the economy, but with heavy state influence.
Where are you getting your ideas about communism from that leads you to believe that China isn’t building towards communism? Roland Boer’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is a great place to start with learning about China’s socialist system.
You clearly don’t know. I suggest you read about France’s parasitic relationship to Central and Western Africa that continues to this day, it even controls the issuance of the currency for eight West African nations and six Central African nations. Nothing China does even in your imagined worst case scenario comes close. And that’s just France.
No sources for that claim of course, as usual.
To my knowledge the only military base China has in Africa is the one in Djibouti, and literally every country who can afford to have a base there has a base there.
If that isn’t the definition of imperialism, I don’t know what is.
Indeed, you don’t have a clue what it is. Try looking up “unequal exchange”, or better yet reading a book on the subject. Lenin’s Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism and Fanon’s How Europe underdeveloped Africa are good reads on the subject.
Walter Rodney wrote How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Frantz Fanon’s most famous work is The Wretched of the Earth, which is also a banger. Here’s Lenin’s Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism and the Prolewiki page on unequal exchange, for reference.
If that isn’t the definition of imperialism, I don’t know what is.
Yeah, its clear you have no clue what that is. Trade and development are not imperialism.
China is not trying to expand nor dominate its culture. China has mutual development projects with African countries, it isn’t dramatically expanding its millitary presence. The US Empire has hundreds of overseas millitary bases, China has 3. This is just the typical western projection of its own sins onto China.
I thought they only had one, in South Africa. Where are the other 2?
I only knew of the anti-piracy base on the coast of Djibouti.
Wikipedia lists 3, but it’s Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt. It might be fewer, but rhetorically it’s easier to just say 3 so nobody can come in with Wikipedia to say I lied.
It’s obvious bullshit:
have been characterized by some as a base for the People’s Liberation Army Navy
“by some” who? .Citation needed, while there are 4 citations for Cambodia govt saying it’s under Cambodian control. I would expect something like posession and usage of naval base would be easy to prove, especially in the age of satellites and cellphones, but alas.
The Chinese and Tajik governments deny the existence of one base, while the other was under construction as of 2024. China funds but does not directly own the bases. According to reports they are intended to support joint operations in response to the security situation in Afghanistan.[17][18][19]
If we say that “joint operations” are the same as direct ownership then by the same logic applied to USA would skyrocket their number of bases to something like every single military base in every NATO country.
I agree, it’s almost certainly bullshit.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
deleted by creator
Sadly, sh.itjust.works can’t see grad comments.
Oh, right. I forgot.
The reason this cliché is utterly unconvincing to me is because it’s incomplete. Nobody seems to be able to genuinely prove how both statements are true, whenever hypocricy is pointed out. It isn’t at all grand and revealing to say that 2 things can be true, what matters is investigating the truth of the 2 things.
thx you filled my liberal bingo card for this week :)
‘Liberal’ really just does mean anyone you disagree with, huh?
O7
Wow, another word for word recitation from the book of tedious shitlib cliches.
Are you actually capable of forming a sentence of your own? Or just repeating the ones you’ve had programmed into you?
Covfefe, authoritarian, Ruthkanda forever, if Kamala had won we’d be having brunch
No, I usually use this term to describe people who e.g. use cookie cutter sentences which just empower the powers that oppress us and which stay in the frame of the general western (especially EU-centric) propaganda doctrine.
You suck at this
It’s possible for your entire hand to fit in your ass
Oh yeah? PROVE IT
I can’t, I have large hands and a small ass
