Where’s the “very easy” mode half of the US takes?
Yellow Peril
I’m reasonably certain the two are not mutually exclusive
They’re not, but most westerners won’t accept that
I don’t mind the criticism as long as it’s prefaced by something like "I know I live in a murderous imperialistic Western country and I hate it too, but… ". But when does it? Quite rarely.
Prefacing your criticism with criticism of the west doesn’t really change the function of your criticism. In the end you’re still legitimizing western agitprop.
I think they meant actual good faith criticism, not the usual 100 billion dead nonsense
Of course, propaganda is effective, and well-meaning people might repeat propaganda unintentionally because it’s easy to take something you know as “fact” for granted. It’s good practice, not just in political topics, to trace back where you’ve learned something from.
Sure, but that’s besides my point. Whether their criticism comes from a place of good faith has no bearing on whose interests that criticism serves.
Learning and critique are the same thing. If you look at China and go “this is perfect in every way and we should copy it,” then you aren’t actually learning anything at all. In my experience MLs don’t get angry with anarchists and others critical of China because they don’t learn from Chinese socialism, but because they don’t like the conclusions they’ve made.
If you look at China and go “this is perfect in every way and we should copy it,” then you aren’t actually learning anything at all
MLs do not hold this view. China isn’t perfect, and copying their model completely wouldn’t work at all. The Soviet Union, China, and the DPRK all use different models of socialism.
You say this, but I have met MLs (not on lemmy) who tout the DPRK as a utopia and shut down all of my criticism as western brainwashing.
I feel both our perspectives are anecdotal and the real answer lies between our observations.
Care to share some examples?
I have met MLs (not on lemmy) who tout the DPRK as a utopia and shut down all of my criticism as western brainwashing.
Again, MLs don’t hold the view that the Soviet Union, China, the DPRK, Cuba, Vietnam, or any socialist country is perfect. Here’s an example of criticisms brought against Stalin (thanks Dessalines for compiling an excellent resource list). We absolutely do critique past and present failures and contradictions and try to do better.
But you’re talking to MLs right now…
deleted by creator
The Great Firewall is unequivocally authoritarian
Like the tooth fairy, there’s no such thing as “authoritarianism”, but even if there was, you’d have a difficult time making the case that allowing the US surveillance state to operate within your borders, is “anti-authoritarian”.
The US is more likely than any other country to harm you psychologically (or physically), coup your government, misinform you, or push far-right propaganda, all based on the information they gain about you and your peers through their spying platforms. India’s most popular social network for example, is Facebook, meaning the US controls nearly the entire social media and information landscape of a country many times larger than itself.
You can watch a vid here on why the PRC is not naive enough to do this.
Thank you for claiming that authoritarianism literally does not exist. It makes it very easy to know that you are a fundamentally unserious person who I don’t need to listen to at all.
All your yap tells me is that you lack critical thinking or you’re a fed. Good day
Thank you for claiming that Badguyism literally does not exist. It makes it very easy to know that you are a fundamentally unserious person who I don’t need to listen to at all.
Go back to reddit
Authoritarian in the modern day is only used by westerners to denigrate countries that build alternatives models outside the western order (Cuba, Vietnam, PRC, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, etc), so much so that it basically means: “when you tell white people they can’t do imperialism”.
Somehow, this country is excluded from its definition:
No you don’t get it, by redefining common words we can make society doubleplus good
Go back to reddit
deleted by creator
That doesn’t mean the Chinese government and Chinese oligarchs aren’t also exercising an unjust degree of control over their own citizens. The Chinese government surveilling its citizens and tightly controlling the flow of information is not being done out of benevolence.
Just vague, unsourced orientalism. You only feel this “in your gut”, because your are propagandized by western media to hate the enemies of the US.
Removed by mod
Western country bad, and has veritably lied about their enemies to continue their hegemony. Hence, it makes no sense to uncritically believe everything Western countries say. But I’ll continue to do so anyway.
FTFY
western country bad, therefore China good
Nope.
China has AI models for me. The power of intelligence in my own computer. Pretty futuristic. The west hasn’t made anything futuristic for me in my whole lifetime.
Then there’s more cool future stuff over there, like democracy, that people where I live can only dream of.
…that’s your selling point? this kinda proves my point
That’s my buying point. It debunks your claim that we only like china because it’s not in the west.
You don’t need to buy it. In fact, I specifically chose democracy and AI because I know the average radlib hates both xD
The joke here is calling China “socialist”, right?
Edit: Be honest. How can you call a country socialist if it has billionaires?
If China had no billionaires, you’d be saying “how can it be socialist if it has millionaires!” If it had no millionaires you’d complain about people having thousands of dollars.
The PRC is a mixed economy, with the state-planned, socialist sector commanding the heights of the economy, and a smaller sector for capitalist development.
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
- How the State runs business in China.
Sorry, but this amount of links in one post is kind of flooding the zone with shit. You can’t expect someone to go through them all, analyze them and prepare a response. That would take a week. Since many of those links are reddit disussions and youtube links, I’m inclined to say that you posted filler links to shut up any discussion. At least one news link is even paywalled. Whatever I answer now, you can say I haven’t read all of your links. Some links are Chinese domestic opinions, which don’t really help - we all already know that China sees itself as socialist. And the majority of the news articles don’t point out that China is socialist. They only show that China isn’t a free market economy. Sentencing private businessmen to death for transgression, for example is not a trait of socialism. Having party members in your private multinational companies doesn’t make them owned by the people. Why does the country have private businessmen owning large companies at all? China has domestic billionaires. Billionaires that have grown fat on the backs of their workers. This is not socialism.
Some links are Chinese domestic opinions, which don’t really help - we all already know that China sees itself as socialist.
Chinese people’s analysis, views and opinions on our country its guiding ideology and political system are irrelevant in your eyes? This stinks of western chauvinism. Is it only real socialism when white people agree it is?
China has domestic billionaires. Billionaires that have grown fat on the backs of their workers. This is not socialism.
Please define socialism. If a workers state lead by a vanguard party managing the transition out of capitalism and defending revolutionary gains isn’t socialism because contradictions remain then I venture to say no state will ever be socialist.
Chinese people’s analysis, views and opinions on our country its guiding ideology and political system are irrelevant in your eyes? This stinks of western chauvinism. Is it only real socialism when white people agree it is?
It is a bit early for playing the racism card, isn’t it? No, it doesn not matter at this point because it’s self-labeling. The Chinese people have a right to label themselves however they want.
Please define socialism. If a workers state lead by a vanguard party managing the transition out of capitalism and defending revolutionary gains isn’t socialism because contradictions remain then I venture to say no state will ever be socialist.
The most simple definition. A socialist state is one where the workers own the means of production.
Let’s try your own definition: Workes state - China is not led by workers. It has a class system and workers do not own the means of production. It is mainly owned by individuals - those are capitalists. Vanguard party - this is not something a socialist society should have, but merely a perversion that every state trying to be socialist developed. Parties are for democracies, a socialist state does not need parties. managing the transition out of capitalism - it cannot be called transitioning out of capitalism when some individuals gain unimaginable wealth while others don’t. This is a concentration of wealth and exactly the same is happening in “capitalist” countries. China is transitioning out of socialism.
I venture to say no state will ever be socialist.
Bleak, but possible.
It is not “playing the racism card” to point out racism when it appears. You treated Chinese people’s own analysis of our country, revolution, party, state, and social formation as irrelevant unless it is validated by your approved sources, which in practice most likely means Western, liberal, Trotskyite, anarchist, NGO-adjacent, or white academic sources. That is chauvinism. Disliking the word does not change the content.
Your definition of socialism as “a state where workers own the means of production” is not a definition. It is a slogan. What does “workers own” mean concretely?
Does every worker become a petty bourgeois small proprietor? Does every enterprise become a cooperative competing in the market? Does ownership mean legal title, political power, control over investment, planning authority, abolition of capital as the commanding social force, public ownership of the strategic sectors, or the dictatorship of the proletariat? You have not specified any of this. You have taken a phrase, emptied it of historical content, and analytical value and used it as a purity test against real revolutions.
A serious definition must begin from transition. Socialism is not communism. It is not classlessness, statelessness, or the immediate disappearance of contradiction, commodity forms, inequality, bourgeois right, or inherited backwardness. Socialism is the transitional form in which the proletariat holds political power, public ownership is primary, the commanding heights are controlled by the state, planning stands above capital accumulation, and remaining capitalist elements are subordinated to the strategic direction of the workers’ state. It exists under pressure from the capitalist world system, sanctions, military encirclement, technological dependence, uneven development, and contradictions inherited from the old society.
That is why socialism has contradictions. If those contradictions had vanished, it would no longer be socialism. It would be communism.
Your claim that China is “not led by workers” is asserted, not demonstrated. China is not a liberal parliamentary market where parties compete for donors, media access, and bourgeois legitimacy. It has people’s congresses, mass organisations, party leadership, consultation, supervision, cadre evaluation, local elections, and planning. The roughly three million deputies to people’s congresses are overwhelmingly drawn from workers, peasants, technicians, professionals, cadres, soldiers, ethnic minorities, and other strata of the working class. Around two and a half million of those are directly elected at county and township levels.
You may reject it because it does not resemble your idealist puritan utopian notions of how “it should be”, but that only exposes the poverty of your framework. On which class rules, which class commands the state, which class directs development, and which interests discipline capital, China is not ambiguous it is the working class wielding the state in their interest.
Your statement that China’s means of production are “mainly owned by individuals” is simply false. Land is publicly owned. Finance, Energy, telecommunications, transport, heavy industry, strategic infrastructure, defence, banking, and the decisive commanding heights are publicly owned or state controlled. Even outside the core state sectors, the firms with serious macroeconomic weight are disproportionately public or under decisive public discipline. Private capital exists, but it is secondary. It does not command the state. It operates within limits set by the socialist state and can be cut down when it exceeds them. This is the decisive distinction: under capitalism, finance disciplines the state. In China, the state disciplines finance.
That is why Jack Ma and Ant Group were checked when they attempted to push China toward capitalist financialisation, consumer debt expansion, and parasitic fintech power. In a capitalist state, that sort of figure is protected, celebrated, and integrated into policy (just look at the capitalist nations reaction to the incident). In China, he was reminded that capital does not rule the republic. That example alone tells you more than a hundred abstract slogans about “worker ownership.” (not to mind how it’s far from an isolated example)
Your dismissal of the vanguard party as a “perversion” is pure idealism. Class consciousness does not magically arise from suffering. A revolutionary programme does not spontaneously appear because exploitation exists. The working class is fragmented by region, skill, nationality, gender, wages, imperialist bribery, religion, media, trade-union economism, and every ideological weapon the bourgeoisie possesses. Without organisation, theory, discipline, continuity, and a party capable of concentrating the advanced experience of the class, the working class remains trapped in defensive struggle.
A vanguard party is not a bourgeois party with red flags. It is not a club competing in a marketplace of opinions. It is the organised political form through which the most conscious elements of the working class and oppressed masses lead the struggle for state power, defend the revolution, suppress counter-revolution, coordinate development, and prevent the bourgeoisie from restoring its dictatorship.
Every successful socialist revolution required such an instrument. Russia required it. China required it. Vietnam required it. Cuba required it. Korea required it. This was not an accidental deformation. It was the organisational answer to class struggle under real historical conditions. You have no real alternative only fantasy. Eight billion people do not spontaneously become revolutionary strategists. Workers scattered across global supply chains do not spontaneously defeat imperialism. A peasantry emerging from semi-feudal relations does not spontaneously build socialist industry. A revolution without a leading political centre is not “more democratic” or “more pure”. It is merely easier to destroy.
Your idea that “parties are for democracies” is equally confused. Bourgeois parties administer capitalist dictatorship behind a pluralist curtain. A communist party in a socialist state has a different function: securing proletarian leadership, maintaining revolutionary continuity, disciplining capital, and coordinating the transition. Socialism needs mass participation, supervision, criticism, rectification, planning, local election, cadre accountability, and organised proletarian leadership.
On wealth concentration: yes, China has billionaires. Yes, this is a contradiction. No, the existence of contradictions does not automatically make a society capitalist. Again, socialism is a transition. The question is whether capital is sovereign or subordinated. Does private wealth command the army, land, banks, party, courts, planning system, currency, and state? In China, it does not.
Chinese billionaires are not sacred political subjects. They are regularly investigated, disciplined, removed from public life, or have entire business models destroyed when they threaten social stability and state direction. Under capitalism, billionaires buy media, elections, legislation, housing, universities, infrastructure, and foreign policy. Treating these systems as identical because both contain wealthy individuals is simply surface-level moralism with academic pretensions.
The claim that China is “transitioning out of socialism” is especially absurd. A country transitioning out of socialism does not keep land publicly owned, strengthen state planning, discipline finance capital, expand public infrastructure at historic scale, eliminate extreme poverty, build world-leading public transport for a financial loss, expand party cells in private firms, centralise strategic industries, subordinate billionaires to political authority, and maintain communist party leadership over the army and state.
That is not a transition out of socialism. It is a socialist state using markets, capital, and uneven development as instruments within a broader strategy of national development, proletarian state power, and long-term transition.
You are confusing markets with the rule of capital. You are confusing private firms with capitalist state power. You are confusing inequality with capitalism as such. You are confusing socialism with the immediate abolition of every inherited contradiction. Above all, you are confusing an abstract moral image of socialism with the actual historical process of revolution, construction, retreat, correction, struggle, and development.
This is not a serious critique of China. It is a critique of a China that exists mostly in your head.
Socialism is not proven by aesthetic purity. It is judged by the class character of the state, ownership and control of the commanding heights, the subordination of capital to political power, the direction of development, and the organised capacity of the masses to exercise power through institutions built by their own revolution.
By those standards, China is not “capitalist because billionaires exist.” It is a socialist society with serious contradictions, operating inside a capitalist world economy, using controlled capitalist mechanisms under the leadership of a communist party and a workers’ state.
Why does the country have private businessmen owning large companies at all? China has domestic billionaires. Billionaires that have grown fat on the backs of their workers. This is not socialism.
You’re right, you didn’t read even a few of the links, and you’re proving the post correct.
You’re right, you didn’t read even a few of the links, and you’re proving the post correct.
I just wrote:
Whatever I answer now, you can say I haven’t read all of your links.
You obviously didn’t look at even a few of these links either! These links include pages and pages of discussions in several formus, inclunding reddit. There are several hours of youtube videos. There’s paywalled content! There are sites flagged by my virus protection. This not sharing information, this flooding. This is a way of shutting up any kind of disussion.
You obviously didn’t look at even a few of these links either!
The fact that they get memory-holed or paywalled after a few years isn’t my fault, but I’d be happy to update any ones that aren’t working with archived links.
This not sharing information, this flooding. This is a way of shutting up any kind of disussion.
Just silly. For one person its “too much info”, for another its “not enough”. AI really broke people’s brains. If they actually have to read some things and can’t be given a short summary, they call it “shutting down discussion”.
Just silly. For one person its “too much info”, for another its “not enough”. AI really broke people’s brains. If they actually have to read some things and can’t be given a short summary, they call it “shutting down discussion”.
I would accept this argument if you’d sent me one or two links to well-researched sources that were just very long. But you didn’t do that. What you provided is a mess. Most of the links I read through do not even provide any information about whether or not China can be called socialist. For example the news items about China executing businessmen. Others even contradict the argument of China being a socialist country. Take this link https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/91liw2/comment/e2z3kzu/
It basically says that the Chinese economy is 50% socialist at maximum. This would support my opinion that China is actually transitioning away from socialism by its growing private sector. Having basic workers’ rights does not help this. Some capitalist countries have those too.
So face it: It’s not me being unable to process information. It’s you being unable to provide relevant information. You obviously can’t see the difference between what’s relevant for your argumentation and what is not. And expect others to sort it out.
Also I don’t use AI.
By reading a book.
Oh “a book”? And what is this magical book that contains all truth about this subject matter?
That’s the actual hardest challenge for most westerners to pass.
Harry potter doesn’t count btw…
Harry Potter counts as -1 books.
One time I said something about China and a man on the internet told me to stick China in my urethra.
What is .ml obsession with defending China ?
The richest country in the world has homelessness, poor infrastructure, malnutrition, terrible education, stagnating wages, etc. Meanwhile China was able to go from an agricultural society to an industrial powerhouse. There are a few lessons to be learned here if we’re willing to learn them.
Meanwhile V China was able to go from an agricultural society to an industrial powerhouse.
Because of the rich men from the U.S. essentially stealing our jobs and giving them to cheap laborers overseas.
Seems like China’s version of socialism won’t work without the capitialist hegemony in place. Which makes me wonder ‘Is that really socialism?’
Seems like China’s version of socialism won’t work without the capitialist hegemony in place.
E:Clarifying critique. My, a classic projection. Never mind their built up industry.
Yeah I’m not gonna use ChatGPT to summarize essays to prove my point like your .ml heroes. You can look up what happened in Detroit in the 50’s and 60’s, actually most manufacturing areas have followed the same trajectory. Something like two-thirds of our manufacturing potential has been lost since ww2 — the reason is consistent for every sector. Globalization allowed for cheap labor overseas to arrest manufacturing from capitalist countries. China as it is never could have existed without capitalism.
Some of what you said is true, actually. Previously:
China wouldn’t have made it this far without “opening up,” the purpose of which was to accelerate the development of the productive forces by importing capital, technology, and knowledge from advanced capitalist states.
The capitalist states didn’t realize this at the time, though. They thought China’s “opening up” was the “liberalization” of China, as happened to the USSR. China punked them. The West de-industrialized itself for “cheap” labor, and now China holds the cards.
What’s different about China is that, unlike in capitalist states, the capitalists don’t run the state.
It’s extremely fucking telling that when shitlibs can’t even imagine someone being able to actually make a compelling argument themselves. “I could never do that, so they must have used ChatGPT!”
Removed by mod
Go back to reddit
Your points on what happened in the US are fair, and I refined my specific critique. That being said,
Yeah I’m not gonna use ChatGPT to summarize essays to prove my point like your .ml heroes.
Wild take with no evidence. I question whether you’re even arguing in good faith.
China as it is never could have existed without capitalism.
Elaborate. Do you refer to their policies or the inflow of capital to the country?
Wild take with no evidence. I question whether you’re even arguing in good faith.
I guage the time it takes for them to respond with their essays. Something strikes me as off when I respond to someone and within 5 minutes I get an essay with 10 sources all neatly formatted. Is it AI? Are they canned templates tuned for individual threads? Don’t know, I do know something is off and I don’t trust it — you clearly don’t think the same.
Elaborate. Do you refer to their policies or the inflow of capital to the country?
I refer to their transition from an agricultural society to an industrialized one. If you think that China is where it is today without the effects of globalization then we don’t really have anything to speak about.
I guage the time it takes for them to respond with their essays. Something strikes me as off when I respond to someone and within 5 minutes I get an essay with 10 sources all neatly formatted. Is it AI? Are they canned templates tuned for individual threads? Don’t know, I do know something is off and I don’t trust it — you clearly don’t think the same.
Hove you considered the fact that anti-communists such as yourself tend to revolve 5-6 talking points/narratives which means whenever you recycle it many people can simply search the keyword in their own histories and copy paste a reply with minimal edits. If you were more creative you’d definitely see less fast replies.
Are they canned templates tuned for individual threads?
Chances are this is what you’re seeing. Essays and sources made and compiled, kept on hand. I do the same for the latter at minimum.
I refer to their transition from an agricultural society to an industrialized one. If you think that China is where it is today without the effects of globalization then we don’t really have anything to speak about.
The industrial base formed by Mao remains completely intact. State-owned Enterprises have always had full or near-full control of all critical industries. Let’s not forget the Soviets industrialized without any of those benefits. Moreover, while what happened under Deng Xiaoping sped up development, China was never capitalist nor state capitalist.
Jeff J. Brown, a China analyst, details this further in this excerpt from an interview about his book China Rising: Capitalist Roads, Socialist Destinations:
“The greatest misunderstanding about China is that when Deng Xiaoping came out with his reform, everybody thinks that China became a capitalist country. Only part of the economy was turned over to capitalist practices, the vast bulk of the Chinese economy is still very much Communist. Let me explain why, first off China has no private real estate, every square inch of this country is owned by the state, people are not buying land, they’re buying long-term leases up to 70 years, this has a powerful impact on keeping people from amassing tremendous wealth. Secondly, the economy, all the big heavyweight industries are all state-owned. They only allow maximum 30% ownership by non-state owners, and they have very strict stock concentration laws that prevent anybody from amassing more than a tiny percentage. That’s the bulk of the economy, the rest of it is the small business entrepreneurial sector that is almost all privately owned. What the Chinese do is they turn these consumer goods, these high volume, low margin industries over to the people and let them fight it out, helping keep prices and inflation down. With the government owning all the land and the huge industrial sectors, it is still very very Communist. The other thing that makes it Communist is they still have the Five-Year Plan, just like Lenin set out. The reason why China is kicking the butt off of Europe and North America is because the government has already planned to have X number of products. This is why the mixed model of a predominately government-owned economy mixed with a vibrant lower economy in the private hands is working wonders.”
A lot of us are communists and China is an existing socialist state.
I think I got my answer. Thanks
There’s nothing wrong with thinking highly of a country, especially one on an upward trajectory in so many ways: working to end world poverty, end dependence on fossil fuels via a green energy revolution, and put a stop to the low-wage trap that US imperialism has imposed on the global south.
The only reason these seem offensive to you, is that you’re propagandized to hate the geopolitical enemies of the US police state (and its vassals), so anyone saying something positive about them must be heresy that demands a public condemnation.
If I spoke highly of any other US enemy (like Cuba or Venezuela or the DPRK), it’d likely evoke the same reaction, but if I spoke highly of a neutral country like Tanzania, Malaysia, or Switzerland, it wouldn’t need the same condemnation.
I’m not from the US, nor do I endorse capitalism. Also I educate myself a lot on non market based political systems. And I know of positive changes over the last few decades. And STILL I think glorifying China while brushing over the many human rights violations happening in China is absolutely not it.
many human rights violations happening in China
The “many human rights violations” are part of the imperial propaganda that needs to be deprogrammed
Short version is EVERYTHING you have been told about Tibet, Xinjiang and Tiananmen is a thinly sourced lie propped up by Western intelligence.
I’ve lived in China and this sounds like propaganda. So much so I honestly can’t tell if you’re trolling.
So when you lived in China, did you witness these human rights violations firsthand? Did you hear about them second hand from your contacts?
Are you another one of these people who thinks propaganda is limited to Bad Country, therefore Our Noble Liberal Democracy could never do such a thing? Do you understand that propaganda could be true or false, and is usually a mix of both?
Here’s some fun examples for posterity:
- Have your trusted media sources ever told you about the brutality of the feudal slave society in Tibet before Mao liberated it?
- Have you even been to Xinjiang? A coalition of Muslim majority nations did and found no evidence of a genocide. It’s honestly laughable. What land are they being driven from and driven to? How can the population of Uyghurs continue to increase year after year while this genocide is supposedly happening? Did you know that all ethnic minorities in China (including Uyghurs) enjoy special privileges under their system?
- How do you think the militarized police in the United States would respond to a flood of agitators literally burning police alive? Do you think they would show the same restraint as the Chinese did?
Give us some examples of these human right violations, would ya?
for one, china has never done anything against my country while the US has and continues to do a lot of harm to us.
What is .worlds obsession with defending zionist nazis?
i think china is pretty neat :-D
Why do you(liberals/westerners) have an obsession with spreading/lies/rumors/exaggerations and sinophobia? And before you do the hate the government not the people white saviour nonsense even according to harvard the government satisfaction rate is in the 90%s the CPC has over 100 million members (over 1/14 people) the government is made up of and vastly supported by the people they’re not separable in that manor.
I didn’t join Lemmy for politics so I usually read these discussions from the sidelines, but there are some points that maybe you guys can help me with.
As someone against US’s imperialism and capitalism, I seem to be a prime candidate to support the Chinese worldviews, but it’s really difficult for me to get past my concerns. First of all I always see these rebuttals to criticism about China that compare it to the US or say that “westerners” are in no position to criticise. Which from my Eastern European point of view is just annoying because I’m far more critical of these anyway and the whataboutism doesn’t actually address anything.
I had 3 “personal experiences” with Chinese people. One back when I was at university and was studying with a Chinese exchange student. We were talking about university stuff for days being all buddies, when I was helping him with some app not working on his phone, which turned out to be due to the lack of Google services. Being relevant to the topic, I asked about the Chinese firewall. I expected anything between “It’s not a problem, we use Chinese services anyway”, or “It’s not a problem, it’s easy to work around”, or “I think it’s good, it protects against X and Y” or even “I prefer not to talk about it”. But instead he looked at me as if I just insulted his grandma, left, and never interacted with me again.
A few years later I was talking with a Chinese acquietance at a bar, there were some local political news on the TV and he cracked a joke about the politician shown, I joked back about the CCP. He looked insulted and stopped talking to me. Come on you started and it’s all in good heart… Maybe these 2 people were just weirdos and not representative, but that’s my experience.
Then there was a Chinese person making science videos online, posted on BiliBili and YouTube that I watched for a long time. One time they made a different video about how they are disillusioned about life in China and it was critical of some aspects of Chinese politics. After years of making content, it was their last video and all their social media were deleted shortly after. I’m not saying it’s government intervention, maybe they did want to just randomly stop making content without saying a word, everything is possible.
But all these experiences tell me Chinese society is not accepting of even apparent criticism, which does not look like a free society to me. Someone else under this post says all criticism, even if constructive and in good faith, serves western propaganda interests. Which… Sure I don’t disagree, but how can anyone buy in to an idea if they are not allowed to question it? I personally never got into these communities because I know I’m more likely to be accused of being US-paid bot or whatever than to get a good faith answer to my questions.
I don’t know where I’m going with this. I guess I’m just telling you lot that you could be more approachable because I think you are pushing back on would-be allies.
Not just China, no country on earth should be naive enough to let the US surveillance corporations operate within their borders. Here’s a good video on why the PRC keeps them out.
But all these experiences tell me Chinese society is not accepting of even apparent criticism, which does not look like a free society to me.
The PRC doesn’t just allow criticism and freedom of speech, it acts on it, unlike western countries where everyone (arguably) has the freedom to shout into the void and change nothing. The CPC is the world’s biggest pollster, which constantly gets feedback from its citizens, and acts on them.
On your first issue I can’t really talk on this as I don’t know what specific criticisms you’re talking about and people who are on here and in general are not a hive mind and believe different things for different reasons. However if I were to make an educated guess I would say most of it comes down to stick in your eye Vs speck in ours as you fall sort of generally under the status of US client state and at current most of Europe, the US and their client states are sliding fast and hard towards fascism once again.
On your first experience that sounds like an extreme reaction by any chance do you remember what you said specifically? On the firewall more generally: The firewall was created to foster and protect China’s fledgling digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. China built its own ecosystem instead of depending on foreign companies. We have seen what happens when foreign platforms operate with impunity: Facebook facilitating genocide in Myanmar, coordinated anti-vax disinformation campaigns in Southeast Asia, algorithm-driven radicalization. The firewall makes those kinds of external influence operations far harder or close to impossible to run at scale. I support it and so do many others as the alternative is plain to see.
On the second experience again I’d have to hear the joke it is possible you said something racist bigoted or otherwise harmful without realising due to possibly lacking context. Also it’s CPC not CCP. CCP is the acronym pushed by the US to attempt to pull it closer to the CCCP in people’s mind so they can reuse coldwar/redscare propaganda.
Then on your third experience again hard to say without knowing exactly what their criticism was but sounds like they had their own issues.
On your closing paragraph I think 3 anecdotes really doesn’t give a good view of a society of 1.4 billion people, in reality criticism is extremely common from didi drivers to friends to colleagues and smalltalk. Not to mind the local party offices whose entire purpose is recieving feedback and criticisms and then acting on them to build up merit to be able to run for higher office.
On communist Lemmy communities I really rarely see people being called US bots, in fact I have never once seen it. If you come in regurgitating propaganda with a smug attitude and doubling down in the face of facts contrary to your narrative you’ll definitely get some sharp responses, however people seem to generally prefer to educate than deride so long as you ask in good faith and are polite (communists also appear to want to minimise ableist or dehumanising language even against people they don’t like as opposed to the more “liberal” instances). On the other hand what is extremely common and has happened to me personally many times is non communist Lemmy instance users calling me and others a bot, brainwashed, shill, government agent etc. when its pointed out that reality doesn’t actually match with the narratives they have internalised.
I think if you have genuine curiosity and questions you should try asking around on communities like AskLemmygrad or any other other lemmy.ml, hexbear, lemmygrad communist communities that take questions and you’ll likely be pleasantly surprised.
On your first experience that sounds like an extreme reaction by any chance do you remember what you said specifically?
It was many years ago now, but your explanation of the firewall makes much sense to me. Not sure why wouldn’t they just said something similar.
Also it’s CPC not CCP. CCP is the acronym pushed by the US
I knew both acronyms are in use, but good to know CPC is preferred, I will keep that in mind.
On your closing paragraph I think 3 anecdotes really doesn’t give a good view of a society of 1.4 billion people
I completely agree, but I assume any media is biased, so it’s hard to know what to trust without ultimately only relying on personal experiences, even if these are obviously not representative.
Thank you for the response, I appreciate the time.
Do note that these three anecdotes, particularly without complete context, do not paint an accurate nor complete picture on their own.
That being said, you’re replying to a very knowledgeable Chinese user who I’m sure can help clear things up if you’re open for it.
The average westerner has their entire concept of reality built upon the idea that capitalism is “as good as it gets” and that people are divided roughly 50/50 into two separate camps, therefore a government with broad approval is impossible. They can’t see that their culture wars are manufactured precisely to keep them from ever questioning that system. They throw aside any high approval rating as manufactured. (Nevermind the fact that those states that do have manufactured approval ratings are imperial puppets and China is obviously not one of those.)
To those libs who love to talk about the 99%, I posit the following: if a government actually were made by and for the 99%, wouldn’t you expect it to have high approval ratings?
Im sorry for the dislikes. Sometimes lemmy reminds me of reddit when people ask genuime questions yet get disliked.
Sadly I’m use to it. I have my theories to why . But it is what it is. And I know it’s not all communities and people on here.
