- 50 Posts
- 36 Comments
193·11 hours agoThere are 10s of millions of muslims, christians etc in the PRC, one private underground church group bring restricted is not the CPC cracking down on religion as msm would have you believe
Be skeptical, reuters founding is tied back to Thomas Reuters, who in the 1850s had a monopoly over mines, tobacco and railroads in Iran, their hearts are not in the right place
Yes, there are indeed, among others, muslims like Uyghurs in Xinjiang. China’s genocide there is well known.
You should always being skeptical when consuming media, but thank you for the reminder.The founder’s activities in 1850 have, of course, nothing to do with the current agency stance, though. And a certain “Thomas Reuters” has nothing to do with it. The agency’s founder was Paul Reuter. The company has been called Thomson Reuters after Canadian media company Thomson acquired Reuters.
Do yourself a favor and stay away from wherever you receive your information. Your statement is out of touch by any means.
I don’t hate a country or an individual. This is your weird interpretation.
Here is practically the same article, posted less than three weeks ago. It’s the same narrative posted by the same user.
A few weeks ago there was a report on some US VC investors who made a similar trip to China and were then ‘terrified’ … Now this. Is it somewhat similar to the influencer trips to Xinjiang that then tell the world that the genocide of Uyghurs is not true?
How much do you see in such PR trips? Go a bit upstream the value chain to get the full picture …
31·1 day agoChina requires not only Chinese leadership, you can’t even found a subsidiary in China that you would own. You always need a Chinese partner company that would then control the majority stake of the Joint Venture (btw, the only non-Chinese company that is exempted from this rule is Tesla).
The Chinese government will certainly understand the Dutch move as they eliminate all Western technology firms such as Nokia and Ericsson from its domestic networks. So what’s the issue?
Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge, provides a good analysis on Starmer’s comments.
The Prime Minister insists that the dropping of China-related espionage charges occurred for reasons entirely outwith the control of his government — but his argument that his hands were tied by the previous government’s position on China is, at best, highly contestable …
The reality is that it is open to the government today to say that it considers that China was a threat to national security in 2021–23 and to offer that view as evidence for the purpose of criminal proceedings …
The entire comment makes a good read: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/08/on-china-the-official-secrets-act-and-enemies-is-the-prime-minister-wrong
I guess they at least oppose the (2022) Russian invasion of Ukraine so they’re not completely bonkers. Not Chinese propaganda level, but still disappointing.
They frequently portray Ukraine as an aggressor in its war, rather than Russia (they call the Kursk incursion of Ukraine the “imperialist-backed incursion of Russia”, and they write that Taiwan’s ruling party DPP “must renounce its confrontational approach to China” in an obvious disconnection from reality that Russia started the war in Ukraine, and China is becoming increasingly aggressive against Taiwan including threats of an military invasion - Source, but you’ll find ample evidence that this site is conveying authoritarian talking points in practically all its reports, and barely properly citing a source for their claims).
This is outright Chinese propaganda.
I don’t support the UK crackdown on peaceful protesters, but this wsws.org is a de-facto Chinese propaganda medium. That’s not a good source.
These are measures. What I ‘think’ they are is simply irrelevant.
But I think the linked report has nothing to do with this. It clearly suggests that Chinese workers suffer wage delays, discrimination of minorities, work overly long hours, and things like that. It’s a devastating report on both Chinese working conditions and a U.S. company exploiting the local policy.
Median and average is not the same, the comparison doesn’t make sense as you say yourself.
And it has nothing to do with the linked report. This is not only about pay. It’s is essentially about poor workers’ rights in China.
True, but the problems are grave still. A situation described in the report would be impossible in the EU, let alone for such a long period.
The report is about much more than ‘only’ the pay, but as you mention it: We must distinguish per capita disposable income from GDP per capita. GDP per capita calculates the total value of all goods and services produced in a country divided by the population, which doesn’t reflect the income available to individual citizens and households.
For this reason we must look at the disposable income per capita, which measures the amount of money people can actually use, and we see a completely different picture.
In 2024, China’s national per capita disposable income reached RMB 41,314 (US$5,800 at the current rate), according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics. Income disparities between urban and rural areas remain significant as already mentioned.
If it’s true that you can “rent a 2bd in most cities that aren’t Beijing and Shanghai for 2000RMB/mo”, you’d spend half of your disposable income on the rent (except in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, where you spend considerably more).
It is noteworthy that this data comes from official Chinese sources.
But again, the linked report clearly suggests that workers suffer wage delays, discrimination of minorities, are work overly long hours, and things like these. It’s a devastating report on both Chinese working conditions and a U.S. company exploiting the local policy.
No, unfortunately it is from this week. China has sadly done nothing for the workers since.
Thank you for your comment.
This is a major reason why the company produces in China. There are practically no workers’ rights.
Read my other comment in this thread.
The BCC decided to make the downside the headline. Which means they agree with Trump who scared off foreign talent.
No. The BBC decided to report that Chinese people are unsatisfied with their government’s decision and the government doesn’t care. Vews contrary to The Party are being censored as usual.
Yeah, as the Clean Arctic Alliance recently said in response to China’s new containership route through the Arctic:
As one report said, as the Arctic ice vanishes, maritime traffic boom fuels the climate crisis.