“China bad” and “both sides bad” are the ultimate rebuttals against tankies, no evidence necessary
“The USA are the worst. They lie, steal and murder to get what they want. I am so glad they are honest when it comes to their political rival though.”
deleted by creator
They forgot to invoke the anti-China spell, so we have not been cast away yet. Really rookie mistake.
i don’t remember the last time that china destroyed a country using fake allegations of WMDs or using diplomats disguised as nurses to have a casus belli
“They don’t have to, because they do the same kind of thing internally” – Anne Applebaum or Simon Seabag Montefiore (probably, I’m not going to dig through a pedophile tome like Bloodlands)
that’s exactly right you fucken smooth brain, maybe you could consider the USA with the same critical lens you consider your ‘bad guy countries’
I’m not from the US and I’d say both are pretty bad. US democracy seems to be in shambles and their interference around the world is well known. China democracy is non existent and the treatment of their own citizens is questionable.
China practices democracy a little bit differently, and I’d argue more democratically.
Instead of fighting over candidates in a show fight where you don’t get a say in policy, China operates under democratic centralism where you come to a consensus on actual policy. As for treatment of their own citizens, the Chinese government has been making strides to improve the lives of their average citizen, and this does show in statistics.
I know I’m in the wrong community for this but I’m interested in your take. I thought China was an authoritarian one-party state. To be a democracy don’t the people need to be able to vote for their elected officials? I see China as democratic as Russia in that sense, with a single party being kept in power for decades with the intent of eternity.
Others have commented here telling you more about China’s system (technically not a one party state, though CPC rule is constitutionally protected; Russia also has multiple parties).
I encourage you to continue interrogating your own understanding of democracy beyond what the US insists democracy is. Is it democratic to allow voting in a system that only has real room for two corrupt bourgeois parties that only serve the billionaire class while its citizens have no functional say in the matters that actual affect them? What about all of the people living in the vassal states and colonies of US empire? Do they get a vote? Does it make sense for the “leader of the free world” to have the largest prison population in the entire world, a heavily racialized one at that? How can you honestly and confidently claim that the US is democratic when you look beyond the theatre that happens every 4 years? (I’m not saying you’re claiming this, I’m just confronting you with the question).
What about the Nordic-model countries that the Western left loves to point to as “democratic socialism”? They have multiple parties, even explicitly fascist/white nationalist parties that participate in the legislature. Is it democratic to allow explicitly fascist political forces a say in the political system? Is it democratic for Nordic countires to support their welfare states using the spoils of imperialism while the US, Britain and France do the dirty work of military occupations and regime change operations?
Going back to the US, do you think the founding fathers would have allowed a monarchist party a say when establishing the expectations of the liberal democratic system? Of course not. If we are to understand socialism as a progressive economic system that will supplant capitalism, then why should China, a socialist country, allow a liberal capitalist party a say in their politics either?
Lastly, why do you think democracy is totally impossible within the confines of a one-party state? Have you thought that maybe without designated factions, that one party would not have any other party to blame things on when things go poorly? Have you considered that there might actually be more incentive for a one-party state to remain accountable to the people?
To the answer of your “is it democratic to allow X”, well yes. Isn’t that the point of democracy? To give power to the people. I don’t think any state truly does that. They all want to hold power and power stays with a few selected rather than truly “the people”. Some states give the illusion of democracy, with power flipping between multiple parties with largely similar goals and aspirations. Rather some buck that trend and just say 100% voted on Y.
But to your answer of “is it democratic”? Yes. A truly democractic society should welcome any political ideology, regardless of the incumbants current ideology. If a party had enough popularity and votes to change the political system, then so be it.
I’m not American, and I’m as ignorant to American politics as to Chinese, so I dunno what the founding fathers would of wanted. Maybe I can read about that another day. Thanks for your input.
I’m sorry if it came off like I was just assuming you were American. That wasn’t my intention. I use America as the example because America is the major upholder of the imperialist system and Western democracies are inspired by the American model, so I assumed it’d likely be familiar.
A truly democractic society should welcome any political ideology, regardless of the incumbants current ideology.
Any political ideology opens a can of worms.
The “liberal democratic” country of Obristan has two ethnic groups: the Korai (70% of population) and the Mirai (30% of population). The Korai get together and form the Satsujin Party, whose ideology is simple: to kill all Mirai.
Is the society still a democratic society if the Satsujin Party gains a majority and passes laws ordering execution of all the Mirai? Is that society in the interests of all its people? Surely, we can understand that any reasonable society cannot allow the Satsujin Party’s ideology.
some buck that trend and just say 100% voted on Y.
I’d encourage you to read on democratic centralism. The idea is that instead of engaging in dramatic political stunts, we could have a genuine effort on all sides to listen to the differing perspectives, try to come up with the best solution, and then agree together on that best solution. That sure sounds like what democracy is supposed to be in my opinion.
I thought China was an authoritarian one-party state
Both China and the DPRK are led by multi-party popular fronts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_China
Cuba, Vietnam and Laos are one-party Marxist-Leninist states.
I thought China was an authoritarian one-party state. To be a democracy don’t the people need to be able to vote for their elected officials? I see China as democratic as Russia in that sense, with a single party being kept in power for decades with the intent of eternity.
China is a democracy, they vote for represnatives, they then vote for policy. Its a one ideological state, sure; the people vote for that every year. America is also a one ideological state too, need I remind you communists are banned in the US and the red scare was literally the american state deporting people for even being suspected of being communist.
Only having one ideology isnt a unique feature of chinese democracy; its the reality in most neo-liberal democracies too.
Sure, in some countries in neo-liberal systems do they tolerate socialists or other ideologies, but name one time this has succeeded in beating a neo-liberal party; neo-liberal countries have dominated every aparatus of society, through the media to education, the odds are so heavily stacked in there favour that it is in practice one party.
The comment about US banning communism seems out of place, however thank you for this. This got me reading about Chinas elections. It seems like their elections have been one-sides for decades you start to think whats the point? But if a system works for them, right?
The comment about US banning communism seems out of place,
I do it to point out western hypocrasy that is often leveled at China, they criticize it for being a dictatorship that bans other parties while existing in countries that routinely round up, deport and execute socialists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton#Raid
whats the point?
To understand Chinese democracy you need to understand that genuinally most people in China support the government. The reason as to why is nuanced, but most of them didnt even have electricty in the 80s, now they are the 2nd biggest global superpower, have instant access to healthcare and 90% of them own a house with modern furnishings; quite simply the communist party have completely transformed China in most peoples lifetimes, they enjoy complete popular support for the most part.
“i agree usa bad, but i also want the usa to be unopposed on the world stage and continue using its hegemony to perpetuate genocide” is crazy
For any tankies here: yes, USA bad and genocidal, I agree. That’s why I support them unquestionably. Because I too am bad and genocidal.
“The US is bad, but we can just accept everything they say about China uncritically. They are 100% trustworthy when it comes to their enemies.”
People who agree ‘both sides are bad’ never really feel that the US (or whatever their side is) is actually bad. I know a bunch of people have like a visceral reaction in regards to China, the DPRK, etc that of course is never replicated for the other bad, even if they claim they are equal evils or whatever.
meanwhile i have trouble functioning in society in part because i understand how profoundly evil this country is
They’re very confused when they meet someone who actually hates the US and doesn’t give it lip service
Idk, I feel like there are a lot of anarchists that honestly believe that both sides are bad - i.e. they’ve radicalized left without learning to reject the capitalist propaganda machine
They never actually believe the USA is bad. Ask them to call the USA authoritarian. They won’t.
In the same breath as denouncing foreign countries as doing socialism incorrectly, these American liberals will instead praise their own country as democratic, or at the very least, they’ll avoid using words like tyrannical, totalitarian, dictatorship, etc. Their true hatred is reserved for foreigners.
Liberals can only view politics through a moralistic lens.
Ultras as well. I’m all but convinced that ultraleftism is a type of adventurism from (often rightly) disillusioned liberals. He was bigger a few years back than he is now, but Jason Unruhe is a prime example of that kind of thing.
Okay but after reading about how bad the USA was from books like Jakarta Method, Killing Hope, Kill Everything that moves, Triumph of Evil, etc. one must come to the conclusion that the US is the great satan.
China makes Khrushchev look like an hardcore ML
China united as one country. That’s a major L for capitalism
I’m sure that the “people’s billionares” are a sure loss for capital…
When the relationships between domestic bourgeoisie and the people are handled well, they may not be antagonistic in nature and may be resolved through peaceful means. This is not true for imperialistic bourgeoisie.
Literally mao.
One of these things still exists as a relevant communist political force enacting marxism leninism
Emacting ML
One doesn’t practice socialism by calling their bourgies “the people’s billionares” or by making the goverment do stuff. China has a private market, wage labour is dominant and their monopolies actively export capital.
They’re a social democracy larping as communists
You should try reading marx and understanding what ‘socialist devolopment’ is before running your mouth and saying a bunch of shit you have 0 clue about.
What is this? Theory for ants? 🤏
open the image in the new tab homie
I’m well aware homie, doesn’t make it less amusing.
There can be no image without enlargement, or reading without opening a new tab, to open a new tab is no sin.
@ghost_of_faso2 @[email protected] Did you or he convinietly forget about the USSR? You know, the second economic world power at the time which was able to industrialize and develop via central economic planning instead of devolving in a redwashed capitalist social-democracy?
And before you spell N.E.P., the current chinese revisionism and the NEP aren’t even remotely comparable. For starters, the NEP lasted only 5 years, was limited to agriculture and had the precise aim of pacifiying the pesant class after a revolutionary war. China too had it’s initial NEP period (the New Democracy), which was later supplanted by central economic planning, which built the industrial foundations of the country, and which would even result in a faster, more equal, economic growth for china had they kept them.
In short, socialist development isn’t capitalism but with the red state doing things, and you don’t need capitalism to develop a nation
Did you or he convinietly forget about the USSR?
- the USSR is dead
- this discussion is about China
- China is not revisionist
the USSR is dead
And not because of socialist planning, rather due to revisionism and professionalization of the party. China wasn’t really helping either since it considered the USSR a greather threat to itself and socialism than the USA
this discussion is about China.
It’s about their socioeconomic policy, and their switch away from socialist planning to market economy under the pretext that the latter is a necessary step of development. The USSR debunks this.
China is not revisionist
China has a market economy with wage labour and private ownership of the means of production which contributes to 70% of it’s GDP. They also allowed bourgeois into the party since 2002, not to mention their monopolies export capital abroad. Pretty revisionist, surely more than whatever Khrushchev did.
And not because of socialist planning, rather due to revisionism and professionalization of the party. China wasn’t really helping either since it considered the USSR a greather threat to itself and socialism than the USA
I tend to feel more sympathetic toward china regarding the sino-soviet split and think Dengs criticisms of the USSR regarding vietnam where potent, they extended themselves too far into wars of aggression like in Afghanistan and where undermined by the west.
It’s about their socioeconomic policy, and their switch away from socialist planning to market economy under the pretext that the latter is a necessary step of development. The USSR debunks this.
They are still under control by socialists, just because they decided they needed market economy isnt revisionism, its just another path to allowing material abundance; the vast amount of resources in China are still controlled by the workers, they have a 90% house ownership in a country with over a billion people in it and there is not a present landlord class that holds sway over the workers.
China has a market economy with wage labour and private ownership of the means of production which contributes to 70% of it’s GDP. They also allowed bourgeois into the party since 2002, not to mention their monopolies export capital abroad. Pretty revisionist, surely more than whatever Khrushchev did.
Its not revisionist to encoperate capitlaist reforms into a socialist society, Marx & Deng both agree you need material abundance to start socialism, and that you need to progress through capitalism, as its the next stage of economic devolopment. They have managed to maintain socialist control of the government and still excersize socialist authority at every level of buisness, even if there are private entities within it. The USSR isnt the only model and they would be unwise to follow it blindly, as it failed and was failing them.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
As far as I can tell, the source is dumb anarchists vs. Caleb Maupin c. 2021. I never heard it prior to that.
Specifically, it seems to originate in a video he made called “Socialist Billionaires? YES! (Let me explain…)” It was a fairly run-of-the-mill explanation, with a click-baity title, of why China has a market sector. Of course, rather than engage in any one of the many legitimate criticisms you could make of Caleb Maupin, the terminally online anarchist crowed focused on the title alone, and were spamming “the people’s billionaires” all over the place for months afterward. It’s the same mindset that finds “borger king” funny, and it probably won the guy more followers than he lost.
The phrase has been living on “left” social media ever since.
