“Authoritarianism” essentially means the use of state power, all states are therefore “authoritarian.” However, states are not neutral in the class struggle. Instead, they are active participants, and subjugated to a definite class. In China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. Fighting against the socialist state undermines socialism, rather than aiding in socialist construction. Over 90% of the population of the PRC supports the government, this is a useful indicator for knowing that the state serves the people, not wealthy capitalists.
Not all states commit genocide forced re-education or run a draconian nation-wide internet censorship program.
In fact the latter point is a pretty good example of how these polls you’re using as a source are not reliable. The substack article you link says that
When given the statement “Everyone in my country can freely express their opinion on political and social topics”, only 18% of people in China disagreed (compared to 27% in the US).
It’s a well known phenomenon that people raised under authoritarian systems with heavy thoughts control will frequently answer the “socially acceptable” thing even on anonymous polls – this is what the state has trained them from birth to do. Another effect that explains the incongruity in e.g. a larger proportion of Chinese respondents thinking their system is democratic than French respondents is that words like democracy do not mean the same thing in China as they do in France.
The PRC isn’t committing genocide against Uyghur peoples in Xinjiang, just like South Africa wasn’t committing “white genocide,” nor is there “christian genocide” in Nigeria. These are all examples of atrocity propaganda, where the west heavily distorts and often fabricates narratives in order to foment resistance and to give their own populations free excuses to not support anti-imperialism, in essence supporting it.
In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of “genocide.” Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens. I highly recommend Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation for more on this subject, but on to your main points.
It’s funny that you mention that the polling in China, despite consistency and often being gathered by western orgs like the Ash Center, is unreliable. The same journalist, Jason Hickel, wrote Support for China: Is the data accurate? showing that, yes, it is. The PRC does employ censorship, but this is directed against that which undermines socialist construction, including liberal and pro-capitalist narratives.
The west practices censorship too, it’s just more evenly spread out between state and private sector. Tik Tok, for example, is now censoring pro-Palestinian views, after being purchased by a western company. The west widely reports on Chinese censorship while obfuscating its own, often citing “free speech” paradoxically in the instance of private corporations doing so.
It’s a well known phenomenon that people raised under authoritarian systems with heavy thoughts control will frequently answer the “socially acceptable” thing even on anonymous polls.
This phenomenon is well-known, yes, but not actually true. “Brainwashing” as in “thought control,” does not actually exist. People rationally agree with what they percieve is in their self-interest. We all do this. China does not have the ability to control thoughts, nor is it any more “authoritarian” than capitalist countries. China uses its authority in favor of the working classes, while the west uses it in favor of capitalists and imperialists.
Another effect that explains the incongruity in e.g. a larger proprotion of Chinese respondents thinking their system is democratic than French respondents is that words like democracy do not mean the same thing in China as they do in France.
This is actually a decent point. What does democracy mean in China? Rule by the majority, and the state acting in the interests of the majority. In, say, France, it usually gets reduced to vulgar methods of liberal democracy. Candidates are largely pre-approved by the capitalist system, filtered by campaign expenses and the capitalist media, preventing meaningful working class representation.
In China, they have direct elections for local representatives, which elect further “rungs,” laddering to the top. The top then has mass polling and opinion gathering. This combination of top-down and bottom-up democracy ensures effective results. For more on this, see Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
China has the superior system for working in the interests of the working people, while France has the superior system for protecting corporate, imperialist interests.
The PRC does employ censorship, but this is directed against that which undermines socialist construction, including liberal and pro-capitalist narratives.
So in other words not everybody in China can freely express their opinion on political and social topics. Glad we agree on this objective fact. Now what, except for people not answering polls honestly and/or being brainwashed, explains 86% of Chinese respondents thinking that China has freedom of speech on political and social topics?
There is no country where everyone can freely express their opinions on political and social topics, though. The west also practices censorship on communists and anti-imperialists, the difference is that China censors the wealthy and reactionary instead of magnifying them.
Did you read Jason Hickels article on western skepticism towards Chinese citizens answering these polls honestly? Using a variety of sources, the conclusion is quite explicit:
In other words, people in China do not seem to self-censor based on fear. The authors conclude: “Across a variety of studies using different methodologies, a good deal of evidence suggests that the Chinese people are willing to answer politically sensitive questions in a truthful manner.” (emphasis mine)
What’s happening is that working class speech is relatively free, while capitalist and corporate speech is not. That’s why the vast majority say they have freedom of speech, while we know the state censors private, capitalist speech.
There are a lot of elements of the firewall that are something Europe should consider emulating, because it’s also keeping US slop out of the country and protecting domestic industry and stopping US meddling through electronic warfare. It allows for China to develop its own internal economy rather than be hollowed out and made dependent on Silicon Valley. It’s tech sovereignty.
Imagine if Europe replaced Facebook, Instagram, Xitter, and Youtube with its own internally developed and regulated platforms. No more tech dependency! China made the right choice and it’s becoming more clear as enshitification ruins the internet.
The Firewall is for domestic inrernet and infrastructure development. VPNs aren’t punished, and the Firewall doesn’t stop you from saying what you want, it just prevents foreign spyware like Facebook from becoming popular in China. There isn’t actually meaningful bias in the surveys, the fact that foreign spyware isn’t allowed doesn’t mean Chinese citizens don’t know about freedom or anything.
Secondly, the idea that “I don’t want to work the 996 work week” is censored is laughable. People in China are allowed to complain about working conditions, that’s part of how they’ve been able to rapidly improve them year over year for decades.
It’s a well known phenomenon that people raised under authoritarian systems with heavy thoughts control will frequently answer the “socially acceptable” thing even on anonymous polls – this is what the state has trained them from birth to do. Another effect that explains the incongruity in e.g. a larger proportion of Chinese respondents thinking their system is democratic than French respondents is that words like democracy do not mean the same thing in China as they do in France.
“During the cold war, the anticommunist 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.”
Hey dawg quick question what the fuck is “authoritarianism” and what does it entail? Because everyone is have ever asked has only been able to say something that boils down to “state”.
I do think “smooth-brained” is a bit ableist. Westerners believe bourgeois narratives due to complicity, rationally, not out of lacking mental faculties. Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” is a good article explaining that process. The masses aren’t stupid, gullible, intelligent, or righteous, but rational, including acting in what they percieve to be their self-interest.
I’m loath to admit it, but I do think that if we don’t hold ourselves to extremely high standards, reactionaries will exploit any crack in rhetoric to obfuscate the logic of our beliefs and arguments. We should take no easy victories.
Let’s go with credulous then. I agree that ultimately it comes down to these narratives working because it’s what these people want to believe already. It’s just confirmation bias. All that said, I do think ridicule has a place as well. Engaging with obvious trolling ends up validating them, as if the point they’re making has enough merit to be engaged with.
That works much better, I agree. I’m not in favor of tone-policing, just reigning in what can be ableist and making sure we don’t leave narratives logically uncontested. Ridicule has its place, ableism does not, and I think credulous is a much more useful term rhetorically as it doesn’t repeat Yogopnik’s recent critical error.
If we leave weak arguments uncontested, then we lose out on a learning opportunity for onlookers, even if the one raising the argument has no intention of changing their mind.
Or just authoritarianism and all that entails.
“Authoritarianism” essentially means the use of state power, all states are therefore “authoritarian.” However, states are not neutral in the class struggle. Instead, they are active participants, and subjugated to a definite class. In China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. Fighting against the socialist state undermines socialism, rather than aiding in socialist construction. Over 90% of the population of the PRC supports the government, this is a useful indicator for knowing that the state serves the people, not wealthy capitalists.
Not all states commit
genocideforced re-education or run a draconian nation-wide internet censorship program.In fact the latter point is a pretty good example of how these polls you’re using as a source are not reliable. The substack article you link says that
China doing heavy censorship of public discourse is objective reality – a few years ago they heavily suppressed the social media trend of “laying flat” for example, because they were afraid of the public questioning the rat race.
It’s a well known phenomenon that people raised under authoritarian systems with heavy thoughts control will frequently answer the “socially acceptable” thing even on anonymous polls – this is what the state has trained them from birth to do. Another effect that explains the incongruity in e.g. a larger proportion of Chinese respondents thinking their system is democratic than French respondents is that words like democracy do not mean the same thing in China as they do in France.
The PRC isn’t committing genocide against Uyghur peoples in Xinjiang, just like South Africa wasn’t committing “white genocide,” nor is there “christian genocide” in Nigeria. These are all examples of atrocity propaganda, where the west heavily distorts and often fabricates narratives in order to foment resistance and to give their own populations free excuses to not support anti-imperialism, in essence supporting it.
In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of “genocide.” Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens. I highly recommend Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation for more on this subject, but on to your main points.
It’s funny that you mention that the polling in China, despite consistency and often being gathered by western orgs like the Ash Center, is unreliable. The same journalist, Jason Hickel, wrote Support for China: Is the data accurate? showing that, yes, it is. The PRC does employ censorship, but this is directed against that which undermines socialist construction, including liberal and pro-capitalist narratives.
The west practices censorship too, it’s just more evenly spread out between state and private sector. Tik Tok, for example, is now censoring pro-Palestinian views, after being purchased by a western company. The west widely reports on Chinese censorship while obfuscating its own, often citing “free speech” paradoxically in the instance of private corporations doing so.
This phenomenon is well-known, yes, but not actually true. “Brainwashing” as in “thought control,” does not actually exist. People rationally agree with what they percieve is in their self-interest. We all do this. China does not have the ability to control thoughts, nor is it any more “authoritarian” than capitalist countries. China uses its authority in favor of the working classes, while the west uses it in favor of capitalists and imperialists.
This is actually a decent point. What does democracy mean in China? Rule by the majority, and the state acting in the interests of the majority. In, say, France, it usually gets reduced to vulgar methods of liberal democracy. Candidates are largely pre-approved by the capitalist system, filtered by campaign expenses and the capitalist media, preventing meaningful working class representation.
In China, they have direct elections for local representatives, which elect further “rungs,” laddering to the top. The top then has mass polling and opinion gathering. This combination of top-down and bottom-up democracy ensures effective results. For more on this, see Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
China has the superior system for working in the interests of the working people, while France has the superior system for protecting corporate, imperialist interests.
So in other words not everybody in China can freely express their opinion on political and social topics. Glad we agree on this objective fact. Now what, except for people not answering polls honestly and/or being brainwashed, explains 86% of Chinese respondents thinking that China has freedom of speech on political and social topics?
There is no country where everyone can freely express their opinions on political and social topics, though. The west also practices censorship on communists and anti-imperialists, the difference is that China censors the wealthy and reactionary instead of magnifying them.
Did you read Jason Hickels article on western skepticism towards Chinese citizens answering these polls honestly? Using a variety of sources, the conclusion is quite explicit:
What’s happening is that working class speech is relatively free, while capitalist and corporate speech is not. That’s why the vast majority say they have freedom of speech, while we know the state censors private, capitalist speech.
Removed by mod
There are a lot of elements of the firewall that are something Europe should consider emulating, because it’s also keeping US slop out of the country and protecting domestic industry and stopping US meddling through electronic warfare. It allows for China to develop its own internal economy rather than be hollowed out and made dependent on Silicon Valley. It’s tech sovereignty.
Imagine if Europe replaced Facebook, Instagram, Xitter, and Youtube with its own internally developed and regulated platforms. No more tech dependency! China made the right choice and it’s becoming more clear as enshitification ruins the internet.
The Firewall is for domestic inrernet and infrastructure development. VPNs aren’t punished, and the Firewall doesn’t stop you from saying what you want, it just prevents foreign spyware like Facebook from becoming popular in China. There isn’t actually meaningful bias in the surveys, the fact that foreign spyware isn’t allowed doesn’t mean Chinese citizens don’t know about freedom or anything.
Secondly, the idea that “I don’t want to work the 996 work week” is censored is laughable. People in China are allowed to complain about working conditions, that’s part of how they’ve been able to rapidly improve them year over year for decades.
Let’s see your evidence of that
Removed by mod
“During the cold war, the anticommunist 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.”
We need a parentiposting community cause this shit is fire
Hey dawg quick question what the fuck is “authoritarianism” and what does it entail? Because everyone is have ever asked has only been able to say something that boils down to “state”.
Can you name a non “authoritarian” country?
authoritarianism is just a propaganda term fed to
smooth brainedcredulous westerners by the three letter agencies https://tankie.tube/w/kJtjV5rjaHZEZSNtmQpTgtI do think “smooth-brained” is a bit ableist. Westerners believe bourgeois narratives due to complicity, rationally, not out of lacking mental faculties. Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” is a good article explaining that process. The masses aren’t stupid, gullible, intelligent, or righteous, but rational, including acting in what they percieve to be their self-interest.
I’m loath to admit it, but I do think that if we don’t hold ourselves to extremely high standards, reactionaries will exploit any crack in rhetoric to obfuscate the logic of our beliefs and arguments. We should take no easy victories.
Let’s go with credulous then. I agree that ultimately it comes down to these narratives working because it’s what these people want to believe already. It’s just confirmation bias. All that said, I do think ridicule has a place as well. Engaging with obvious trolling ends up validating them, as if the point they’re making has enough merit to be engaged with.
That works much better, I agree. I’m not in favor of tone-policing, just reigning in what can be ableist and making sure we don’t leave narratives logically uncontested. Ridicule has its place, ableism does not, and I think credulous is a much more useful term rhetorically as it doesn’t repeat Yogopnik’s recent critical error.
If we leave weak arguments uncontested, then we lose out on a learning opportunity for onlookers, even if the one raising the argument has no intention of changing their mind.
yeah that’s a fair call out
Yep, I really enjoy your comments and posts, this was just a bit of hopefully useful critique so that we can better expand.
The critique is very much appreciated, and on point as always.
Thanks, comrade! Keep up the good work! 🫡