If you want the end of capitalism you’ll support whatever it realistically takes to dismantle it. And that won’t exactly be an “open” or “transparent” process while it happens. Simply put, the collective force that replaces capitalism will have to coerce certain people into accepting the change, if nothing else but for the safety of that new administration (IE avoiding rightwing takeovers, legit sabotage, hatecrimes etc).
Just remember that about anticapitalism - whatever form it takes, it’s no dinner party. Even after a revolution, certain people try to resist things they have no material reason to oppose. Those people are reactionary - directionless, even dangerous unless they’re re-educated or have privileges restricted.
I appreciate that. It’s not lost on me that a lot of communist regimes got really fucked up by trade embargos, sanctions, counter-intelligence campaigns, etc. Power is rarely ceded willingly, of course. However, my primary concern lies with improving the quality of life for everyone, or at least maximizing the well being of the population. Part of that equation, for my point of view, includes the ability for people to think and speak freely without fear of reprisal by the government. Say what you will, but I’ve hosted eight different exchange students, including one from Russia; none were concerned about answering questions about their home country except for the kid from Hong Kong. I asked them whether they identified as a citizen of Hong Kong or of China first, because I was hoping to get an irl sample for how Hong Kongers actually felt, but let them out of the question when I confirmed with them that that was a sensitive question.
If you’re living with a boot on your throat, does the distinction really matter if it’s a capitalist’s boot or a communist’s boot?
If you’re living with a boot on your throat, does the distinction really matter if it’s a capitalist’s boot or a communist’s boot?
Try looking at it from the point of view of the oppressed class who is benefiting from communist rule, and being harmed by capitalist rule, rather than from the point of view of the super rich people.
Unless I happen to be mistaken, poor people get the bullet, too. We just don’t hear about it because they’re not famous. I’m taking a wild guess here, but I suspect that the muslims in Xinjiang aren’t exactly what you would typically think of as the capital owning class. You can’t even (practically, I’m sure there’s some loophole or asterisk here) be critical of the bad ideas of your government, just shut up and kill more sparrows. As far as I can tell, it’s trading oppression for sparkling oppression.
Nobody has been killed in Xinjiang. There is a reason its original liars had to specify it was a “cultural genocide,” which it isn’t, either. Like the full break down?
I’m going to swing in and suggest reading/glancing over the Original Adrien Zenz report. Zenz is a fellow at the heritage fund and part of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Both notorious right-wing propaganda mills.
Nearly every article you have seen has either cited the original Zenz report, or a thinktank that cites said report. Often times if you dig into the funding schemes of those think tanks, you’ll learn about all sorts of organizations explicitly tied to defense organizations. I saw one that was an Australian defense org funded by the US DoD.
Anyway, the original report focused on a possible cultural genocide. What this is referring to is the return of 1-2 child policies in China. Previously, these policies excluded most ethnic minorities within China, including the Uyghurs. With this new policy, this group would now be included in the 1-2 child restrictions.
Zenz extrapolated a slowed growth in Uyghur population, not reduction, or stall, but slowed. He concluded that these policies would result in a “Cultural Genocide”, meaning an attempt to destroy the culture of the group, not the group itself. This does not make sense, as these were not hard targeted policies, but sweeping across the population.
The reeducation camps were something totally distinct from this report. Keep in mind that news media was using the report in order to call the reeducation camps essentially concentration camps.
Something that is often left out of the conversation is that Xinjiang has been host to many Muslim extremist terrorist attacks. The solutions that China chose may not have been the best, but if we’re being honest with ourselves, are no worse than the immigrant camps at the US boarder. Except those are often privatized, profit centered, and have a constant stream of stories about neglect, abuse, and even forced sterilization. Most of the camps in Xinjiang have since been closed, as reported by AP.
I’m sorry I’m not providing sources here, I don’t have my notes app set up on my current machine. below I’m going to give prompts to help you search.
Nearly any article will link to the zenz report if you follow citations well enough.
AP reported on the camps being closed.
In the US, Migrants were given hysterectomies without being told prior to the proceedure, often times they came to the doctor for other ails.
The burden of proof is on those who make accusations, it is not the responsibility of others to convince you of what isn’t happening. Further, you may have heard the adage that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, of which there is none and can therefore be dismissed. Even further, when we look at who stands to gain from such a narrative despite the lack of evidence, it follows that US imperial power and Sinophobia driven clickbait news corporations stand to gain monetary and political standing by publishing articles like this. This is the same tactic as the Holodomor myth (which is literally an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory made by nazi propagandists and pushed by nazi lover William Randolph Hurst)
Literally no source outlet, western or otherwise, has made accusations of killings in Xinjiang. You can’t just make up allegations whole cloth and then ask people to provide reliable sources to debunk them.
If your concern is quality of life, then you should be glad to know that all socialist countries, including of course the USSR and China, have radically improved the living standards for their massive citizenries in every metric that matters.
What use is being supposedly free to criticize the U.S. gov’t when 1) every living standard is worse, 2) our education and media feed us so much lies we blame our woes on everybody BUT the gov’t, or for the wrong reasons, 3) you secretly can’t because if you effectively do so you will be blackbagged and disappeared or assassinated?
Your singular Hong Kong kid is not a representative of an entire country or even Hong Kong. Why was it sensitive? Because he feared CPC would come and turn him into meatloaf…or because he feared his parents would? In MY personal, anecdotal experience, fascist parents/grandparents are the greatest source of anticommunist fear.
These are all pretty good points. I’m trying to do better about regulating my social media time, so I’ll use that opportunity to consider them. Thanks for the discussion.
Part of that equation, for my point of view, includes the ability for people to think and speak freely without fear of reprisal by the government
This is like the people who say “We’re freer than the Chinese because I can call Trump a peepee poopoo pants on Twitter without being arrested!” when that doesn’t actually do anything at all
IMO, this entire point is just a liberal ideological bludgeon, a condition that can be applied at-will to any government they want to criticize because no government will be good enough all of the time. it’s one thing if you’re an anarchist and oppose every government equally for not fulfilling that condition, that I can understand and respect, it’s quite another when you’re like “Oh, no, I hate authoritarianism! That’s why we need to constantly criticize a country on the literal other side of the planet 99.7% of the time, and then only criticize our own country when somebody calls us out on it by saying ‘Oh, yeah, America also does bad things too!’” Especially when America’s role in the world for the last century at least, and more accurately really since its conception, has been a source of capitalist reaction across its whole hemisphere and later the whole planet, with hundreds upon hundreds of military bases and tens of millions directly and indirectly killed in wars. Criticizing, say, Cuba or DPRK for these sorts of things is effectively zooming in on a single corpse in righteous indignation while ignoring the seas of blood spilled by America behind you.
I mean, yeah, I am anti-authoritarian before anything else. That’s basically where my problem with China, among many others, begins and ends. The US has a lot of big problems that need fixing immediately on that front, and that’s without getting into the bodies under the front porch. We could go into that, if you like, I just didn’t think it was particularly relevant at the moment.
It’s cute you think you would actually win the argument with the “bodies under the front porch” (in your words), considering how this whole thread has been going for you so far.
In this post: what you get when your brain attempts to synthesize the concept of socialism on top of its liberalism instead of trying to discard everything you know first (liberalism) and learning again from zero to grasp Marxism.
Another commenter shared an article by the AP where the reporter got to ask people in Xinjiang how things are. One lady at a shop casually mentioned that business was slowing and got talked to by a party minder. You can’t even have idle chat without getting invited to camp. That’s not quite the same thing as being able to talk shit on social media.
also AP when their high-rise office literally got bombed in Gaza like 2 years ago and they seemingly “forgot” about it, immediately going on the Zenz-express
No, they used it to explain that there’s no killing. It also doesn’t contain your claim that “You can’t even have idle chat without getting invited to camp.”
He did. Like this is empirically an answer to your question. It’s not his revolution if you have to engage in measures he consider distasteful or unethical.
I’d say he didn’t. He gave an “it depends” with a scenario that hasn’t happened resulting in full death of humanity. It’s a way to handwave away the question, to sidestep it, we’re standing where we stood before.
To rephrase it: Had the question been “do you want to put out a house on fire?” And the answer is “well that depends, if the house was hit with a meteor that kills all life, then that would put out the fire” isn’t really an answer to the question. It makes it so big and vague that you’re answering a completely different question
Libs will cry “whataboutism” or bring up 10 fallacies they remembered from high school for hours to avoid addressing the substance of a conversation, then come back with shit like “well what if a meteor killed everyone, huh?” and tell themselves they’re the ones operating in good faith
It actually is. It’s the same as saying “No, not under those circumstances”. If you are comparing something to the destruction of the earth, you are not in favor of that thing.
But the question wasn’t “under these circumstances, would you put out the house on fire?” They invented the circumstances and have yet to answer under what circumstances they would put the fire out. If they had done that, then it would have been an answer
Do you want the end of capitalism yes or no
Careful, I’m expecting the Western leftist “yes but I don’t support any socialist attempt that ever actually worked”
Well that depends. A giant meteor will technically end capitalism. What’s the point if we’re not striving to improve everyone’s quality of life?
If you want the end of capitalism you’ll support whatever it realistically takes to dismantle it. And that won’t exactly be an “open” or “transparent” process while it happens. Simply put, the collective force that replaces capitalism will have to coerce certain people into accepting the change, if nothing else but for the safety of that new administration (IE avoiding rightwing takeovers, legit sabotage, hatecrimes etc).
Just remember that about anticapitalism - whatever form it takes, it’s no dinner party. Even after a revolution, certain people try to resist things they have no material reason to oppose. Those people are reactionary - directionless, even dangerous unless they’re re-educated or have privileges restricted.
I appreciate that. It’s not lost on me that a lot of communist regimes got really fucked up by trade embargos, sanctions, counter-intelligence campaigns, etc. Power is rarely ceded willingly, of course. However, my primary concern lies with improving the quality of life for everyone, or at least maximizing the well being of the population. Part of that equation, for my point of view, includes the ability for people to think and speak freely without fear of reprisal by the government. Say what you will, but I’ve hosted eight different exchange students, including one from Russia; none were concerned about answering questions about their home country except for the kid from Hong Kong. I asked them whether they identified as a citizen of Hong Kong or of China first, because I was hoping to get an irl sample for how Hong Kongers actually felt, but let them out of the question when I confirmed with them that that was a sensitive question.
If you’re living with a boot on your throat, does the distinction really matter if it’s a capitalist’s boot or a communist’s boot?
Try looking at it from the point of view of the oppressed class who is benefiting from communist rule, and being harmed by capitalist rule, rather than from the point of view of the super rich people.
Unless I happen to be mistaken, poor people get the bullet, too. We just don’t hear about it because they’re not famous. I’m taking a wild guess here, but I suspect that the muslims in Xinjiang aren’t exactly what you would typically think of as the capital owning class. You can’t even (practically, I’m sure there’s some loophole or asterisk here) be critical of the bad ideas of your government, just shut up and kill more sparrows. As far as I can tell, it’s trading oppression for sparkling oppression.
Nobody has been killed in Xinjiang. There is a reason its original liars had to specify it was a “cultural genocide,” which it isn’t, either. Like the full break down?
Sure. I’d also appreciate some sources that would be considered reliable in the mainstream, but I won’t ignore you if you don’t have them.
I’m going to swing in and suggest reading/glancing over the Original Adrien Zenz report. Zenz is a fellow at the heritage fund and part of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Both notorious right-wing propaganda mills.
Nearly every article you have seen has either cited the original Zenz report, or a thinktank that cites said report. Often times if you dig into the funding schemes of those think tanks, you’ll learn about all sorts of organizations explicitly tied to defense organizations. I saw one that was an Australian defense org funded by the US DoD.
Anyway, the original report focused on a possible cultural genocide. What this is referring to is the return of 1-2 child policies in China. Previously, these policies excluded most ethnic minorities within China, including the Uyghurs. With this new policy, this group would now be included in the 1-2 child restrictions.
Zenz extrapolated a slowed growth in Uyghur population, not reduction, or stall, but slowed. He concluded that these policies would result in a “Cultural Genocide”, meaning an attempt to destroy the culture of the group, not the group itself. This does not make sense, as these were not hard targeted policies, but sweeping across the population.
The reeducation camps were something totally distinct from this report. Keep in mind that news media was using the report in order to call the reeducation camps essentially concentration camps.
Something that is often left out of the conversation is that Xinjiang has been host to many Muslim extremist terrorist attacks. The solutions that China chose may not have been the best, but if we’re being honest with ourselves, are no worse than the immigrant camps at the US boarder. Except those are often privatized, profit centered, and have a constant stream of stories about neglect, abuse, and even forced sterilization. Most of the camps in Xinjiang have since been closed, as reported by AP.
I’m sorry I’m not providing sources here, I don’t have my notes app set up on my current machine. below I’m going to give prompts to help you search.
Nearly any article will link to the zenz report if you follow citations well enough.
AP reported on the camps being closed.
In the US, Migrants were given hysterectomies without being told prior to the proceedure, often times they came to the doctor for other ails.
The burden of proof is on those who make accusations, it is not the responsibility of others to convince you of what isn’t happening. Further, you may have heard the adage that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, of which there is none and can therefore be dismissed. Even further, when we look at who stands to gain from such a narrative despite the lack of evidence, it follows that US imperial power and Sinophobia driven clickbait news corporations stand to gain monetary and political standing by publishing articles like this. This is the same tactic as the Holodomor myth (which is literally an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory made by nazi propagandists and pushed by nazi lover William Randolph Hurst)
However, I once had a similar outlook and needed to be convinced, so here’s three sources. Also this.
Literally no source outlet, western or otherwise, has made accusations of killings in Xinjiang. You can’t just make up allegations whole cloth and then ask people to provide reliable sources to debunk them.
If your concern is quality of life, then you should be glad to know that all socialist countries, including of course the USSR and China, have radically improved the living standards for their massive citizenries in every metric that matters.
What use is being supposedly free to criticize the U.S. gov’t when 1) every living standard is worse, 2) our education and media feed us so much lies we blame our woes on everybody BUT the gov’t, or for the wrong reasons, 3) you secretly can’t because if you effectively do so you will be blackbagged and disappeared or assassinated?
Your singular Hong Kong kid is not a representative of an entire country or even Hong Kong. Why was it sensitive? Because he feared CPC would come and turn him into meatloaf…or because he feared his parents would? In MY personal, anecdotal experience, fascist parents/grandparents are the greatest source of anticommunist fear.
These are all pretty good points. I’m trying to do better about regulating my social media time, so I’ll use that opportunity to consider them. Thanks for the discussion.
This lib seems pretty cool
This is like the people who say “We’re freer than the Chinese because I can call Trump a peepee poopoo pants on Twitter without being arrested!” when that doesn’t actually do anything at all
but if you try and protest and change conditions materially and meaningfully, you can absolutely bet your ass you will be disappeared like the horror stories you find on reddit about “totalitarian regimes”. The only reason why Americans don’t think it doesn’t happen in the West is either because it’s so completely internalized that it becomes memeified (“Haha, I hope the FBI agent watching me through my camera is having a nice day!”) or none of the media that they engage with reports on it.
IMO, this entire point is just a liberal ideological bludgeon, a condition that can be applied at-will to any government they want to criticize because no government will be good enough all of the time. it’s one thing if you’re an anarchist and oppose every government equally for not fulfilling that condition, that I can understand and respect, it’s quite another when you’re like “Oh, no, I hate authoritarianism! That’s why we need to constantly criticize a country on the literal other side of the planet 99.7% of the time, and then only criticize our own country when somebody calls us out on it by saying ‘Oh, yeah, America also does bad things too!’” Especially when America’s role in the world for the last century at least, and more accurately really since its conception, has been a source of capitalist reaction across its whole hemisphere and later the whole planet, with hundreds upon hundreds of military bases and tens of millions directly and indirectly killed in wars. Criticizing, say, Cuba or DPRK for these sorts of things is effectively zooming in on a single corpse in righteous indignation while ignoring the seas of blood spilled by America behind you.
I mean, yeah, I am anti-authoritarian before anything else. That’s basically where my problem with China, among many others, begins and ends. The US has a lot of big problems that need fixing immediately on that front, and that’s without getting into the bodies under the front porch. We could go into that, if you like, I just didn’t think it was particularly relevant at the moment.
What country isn’t authoritarian?
Pick an AES state of your choosing. What is the minimum you think they would have to do to resist U.S./capitalist efforts to destroy it?
It’s cute you think you would actually win the argument with the “bodies under the front porch” (in your words), considering how this whole thread has been going for you so far.
In this post: what you get when your brain attempts to synthesize the concept of socialism on top of its liberalism instead of trying to discard everything you know first (liberalism) and learning again from zero to grasp Marxism.
we must all kill the liberal part of our brain, every single day
That’s exactly what it is! I really like the way you put that comrade. That connected some synapses for me lol
First you must empty your cup before it can be refilled. Otherwise you just make a mess.
“Does it really matter if I can expect to live to 75 instead of 30, if I can’t call the president a doodoo head on social media?”
Yes, it matters a lot.
Another commenter shared an article by the AP where the reporter got to ask people in Xinjiang how things are. One lady at a shop casually mentioned that business was slowing and got talked to by a party minder. You can’t even have idle chat without getting invited to camp. That’s not quite the same thing as being able to talk shit on social media.
Source?
Also I give AP News zero credit when it comes to reporting on China.
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel-7a6967f335f97ca868cc618ea84b98b9
Somebody used this source to help explain how there is no genocide in Xinjiang in this very thread.
No, they used it to explain that there’s no killing. It also doesn’t contain your claim that “You can’t even have idle chat without getting invited to camp.”
Remember when Mao cast Firagaga on China and incinerated the entire population?
Answer the question weasel
He did. Like this is empirically an answer to your question. It’s not his revolution if you have to engage in measures he consider distasteful or unethical.
I’d say he didn’t. He gave an “it depends” with a scenario that hasn’t happened resulting in full death of humanity. It’s a way to handwave away the question, to sidestep it, we’re standing where we stood before.
To rephrase it: Had the question been “do you want to put out a house on fire?” And the answer is “well that depends, if the house was hit with a meteor that kills all life, then that would put out the fire” isn’t really an answer to the question. It makes it so big and vague that you’re answering a completely different question
Libs will cry “whataboutism” or bring up 10 fallacies they remembered from high school for hours to avoid addressing the substance of a conversation, then come back with shit like “well what if a meteor killed everyone, huh?” and tell themselves they’re the ones operating in good faith
It actually is. It’s the same as saying “No, not under those circumstances”. If you are comparing something to the destruction of the earth, you are not in favor of that thing.
But the question wasn’t “under these circumstances, would you put out the house on fire?” They invented the circumstances and have yet to answer under what circumstances they would put the fire out. If they had done that, then it would have been an answer
Are you actually defending him It was a nonsenseical answer
It’s only a defense if you think that answer is defensible.
Expect he didnt anwser the question he gave a smug gotcha
Couldn’t even manage a yes or no question.