The treatment of the Uyghur people can definitely be discussed critically, but I think we should follow the UN’s consensus on it, which is that it shouldn’t be considered a genocide. I think calling re-education camps “genocide” despite no mass killings or steralizations makes light of ongoing genocide like that in Palestine. Further, we should be critical of claims of genocide that exclusively originate with Adrian Zenz, a Christian Nationalist that believes China is the antichrist and works exclusively as a myth-making anticommunist. He’s also a documented liar, his claims of forced steralization (paid for by the BBC) come from misrepresenting 8% of annual new IUDs going to Uyghur people for 80%, for a people that were exempt from the One Child Policy due to their status as Ethnic Minorities.
The CPC does practice censorship. I believe this matter should be left to the people of China to decide, however, as their system appears to be percieved as more democratic and beneficial than the US system is for its people.
I am not sure what you mean by saying the CPC isn’t Communist anymore. What do you believe a “true Communist” CPC would be doing now, that disqualifies them from being Communist? They are running a Socialist Market Economy where heavy industry and large firms are almost entirely state-owned and controlled, as the meme shows it represents the people over Capital.
Overwhelmingly it looks like the CPC represents the people and is working towards bettering the lives of the working class, such as dramatic expansions in poverty elimination and healthcare cost reductions. They have a long way to go, however, so there is a lot to criticize accurately without holding to the US State Department consensus. One would have to be ignorant to overlook the issues in the PRC, but one would also have to be ignorant to take US State Department lines at face-value when we know they lie all the time. Remember Iraq’s WMD?
The CPC is Communist as in they are a Communist party operating on Marxist understanding and analysis. The PRC is Socialist, what the CPC calls Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Communism as the ideology, not the late-stage, stateless, classless, moneyless society bit.
Yea it’s extremely unintuitive, people also use Capitalist for those who support Capitalism in liberal circles so that even further ruins communication. It all ends up relying on contextual clues, which shouldn’t be the basis of communication IMO.
Its really difficult when a communism means two things and both meanings are regularly used in the same context (e.g. a comment), and why the fact that there is at least a distinction between liberalism and capitalism is nice (even if some dont know what liberalism means)
Yep, it stems more from Communism emerging as a prediction for a future society, whereas Liberalism was a post-hoc justification for a society that was already rising.
China isn’t a one-party state, it has 8 other parties than the CPC that function in cooperation, each with different special interests. Moreover, many officials are democratically elected. The structure is democratic, and the people support its system. Moreover, political engagement in the US is lower because it doesn’t actually impact anything.
No problem!
The Chinese people do have an impact on policy, quite a dramatic one. I think you need to do more research in how China’s structure works, it’s best desribed as “top-down, from the bottom-up.” As for why people may support “censorship,” the people of China may believe it is in their best interests to restrict the private influence on information that allows the Bourgeoisie to have a dictatorial control over the press, as is the case in Capitalist countries.
This is going to take a while, so please bear with me.
The idea that Socialism means full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of “one-drop” rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on “purity” while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.
Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized.
For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.
For the latter, this “one drop” rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism.
What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.
As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.
Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn’t mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn’t some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.
Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like “true Socialism” treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx’s analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation. When taken consistently, AES states do in fact fit into the categorization of “Socialist,” even your original definition would categorize them as such.
1.Those parties are subservient to the CCP and officially cannot form opposition to it, reducing their role to merely advisory. It is similar to how the US system is described as “two-party” despite there being some other parties that influence next to nothing (and even then, they are allowed to be in opposition to the Dems and Reps)
3.I have hard time believing that, but discussing it is a thing in itself.
That isn’t the same thing, it would be closer to having Super-PACS as parties than controlled opposition. The US is an elaborate illusion of choice, the actual levers of change are easier to access in China.
If you question it, try asking Chinese people what they think, and read Marx’s position on the press.
If you’d like, I can offer suggestions on readings from Marx and Engels that supports this.
I’d recommend Principles of Communism (specifically question 17, though the whole pamphlet is tremendously useful) as well as Socialism: Utopian and Scientific from Engels if you haven’t engaged with Marxist theory before. S:UaS does a great job of elaborating on Historical and Dialectical Materialism in a short form-factor, elaborating on the why of Communism to begin with, essentially working with analysis of present systems and predicting forwards, as opposed to coming up with a “utopia” and working backwards.
If you want a Marxist analysis of Capitalism and why it will prepare the foundations for Communism, I recommend Wage Labor and Capital as well as Wages, Price, and Profit if you want the short version and don’t want to read Capital.
Removed by mod
Western man please enlighten us about the systemic issues in China 😂
One thing you notice with all these “my own vibes-based-orientalist” analyses, is that they never have any sources.
Hey now that’s not fair, they often cite Zenz.
I don’t know what “blatant authoritarianism” is, materially. What does that look like? Over 90% of people approve the government, and 83% (compared to 49% in the US) believe they live in a democracy.
The treatment of the Uyghur people can definitely be discussed critically, but I think we should follow the UN’s consensus on it, which is that it shouldn’t be considered a genocide. I think calling re-education camps “genocide” despite no mass killings or steralizations makes light of ongoing genocide like that in Palestine. Further, we should be critical of claims of genocide that exclusively originate with Adrian Zenz, a Christian Nationalist that believes China is the antichrist and works exclusively as a myth-making anticommunist. He’s also a documented liar, his claims of forced steralization (paid for by the BBC) come from misrepresenting 8% of annual new IUDs going to Uyghur people for 80%, for a people that were exempt from the One Child Policy due to their status as Ethnic Minorities.
The CPC does practice censorship. I believe this matter should be left to the people of China to decide, however, as their system appears to be percieved as more democratic and beneficial than the US system is for its people.
I am not sure what you mean by saying the CPC isn’t Communist anymore. What do you believe a “true Communist” CPC would be doing now, that disqualifies them from being Communist? They are running a Socialist Market Economy where heavy industry and large firms are almost entirely state-owned and controlled, as the meme shows it represents the people over Capital.
Overwhelmingly it looks like the CPC represents the people and is working towards bettering the lives of the working class, such as dramatic expansions in poverty elimination and healthcare cost reductions. They have a long way to go, however, so there is a lot to criticize accurately without holding to the US State Department consensus. One would have to be ignorant to overlook the issues in the PRC, but one would also have to be ignorant to take US State Department lines at face-value when we know they lie all the time. Remember Iraq’s WMD?
The CPC has never been communist.
It’s socialist.
The CPC is Communist as in they are a Communist party operating on Marxist understanding and analysis. The PRC is Socialist, what the CPC calls Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Communism as the ideology, not the late-stage, stateless, classless, moneyless society bit.
If you “support” communism you are a Communist.
But if you “support” capitalism you aren’t a Capitalist.
Whoever came up with this shit needs to reevaluate some things.
Yea it’s extremely unintuitive, people also use Capitalist for those who support Capitalism in liberal circles so that even further ruins communication. It all ends up relying on contextual clues, which shouldn’t be the basis of communication IMO.
Yea…
Its really difficult when a communism means two things and both meanings are regularly used in the same context (e.g. a comment), and why the fact that there is at least a distinction between liberalism and capitalism is nice (even if some dont know what liberalism means)
Yep, it stems more from Communism emerging as a prediction for a future society, whereas Liberalism was a post-hoc justification for a society that was already rising.
Removed by mod
No problem.
China isn’t a one-party state, it has 8 other parties than the CPC that function in cooperation, each with different special interests. Moreover, many officials are democratically elected. The structure is democratic, and the people support its system. Moreover, political engagement in the US is lower because it doesn’t actually impact anything.
No problem!
The Chinese people do have an impact on policy, quite a dramatic one. I think you need to do more research in how China’s structure works, it’s best desribed as “top-down, from the bottom-up.” As for why people may support “censorship,” the people of China may believe it is in their best interests to restrict the private influence on information that allows the Bourgeoisie to have a dictatorial control over the press, as is the case in Capitalist countries.
This is going to take a while, so please bear with me.
The idea that Socialism means full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of “one-drop” rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on “purity” while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.
Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized.
For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.
For the latter, this “one drop” rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism.
What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.
As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.
Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn’t mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn’t some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.
Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like “true Socialism” treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx’s analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation. When taken consistently, AES states do in fact fit into the categorization of “Socialist,” even your original definition would categorize them as such.
1.Those parties are subservient to the CCP and officially cannot form opposition to it, reducing their role to merely advisory. It is similar to how the US system is described as “two-party” despite there being some other parties that influence next to nothing (and even then, they are allowed to be in opposition to the Dems and Reps)
3.I have hard time believing that, but discussing it is a thing in itself.
4.I see where you’re going with it.
That isn’t the same thing, it would be closer to having Super-PACS as parties than controlled opposition. The US is an elaborate illusion of choice, the actual levers of change are easier to access in China.
If you question it, try asking Chinese people what they think, and read Marx’s position on the press.
If you’d like, I can offer suggestions on readings from Marx and Engels that supports this.
I always welcome the suggestions
I’d recommend Principles of Communism (specifically question 17, though the whole pamphlet is tremendously useful) as well as Socialism: Utopian and Scientific from Engels if you haven’t engaged with Marxist theory before. S:UaS does a great job of elaborating on Historical and Dialectical Materialism in a short form-factor, elaborating on the why of Communism to begin with, essentially working with analysis of present systems and predicting forwards, as opposed to coming up with a “utopia” and working backwards.
If you want a Marxist analysis of Capitalism and why it will prepare the foundations for Communism, I recommend Wage Labor and Capital as well as Wages, Price, and Profit if you want the short version and don’t want to read Capital.
I also have a beginner Marxist-Leninist reading list I curated for easy sharing.
Thanks!
Removed by mod