Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Grace OP wrote

A vanguard party that enforces the will of the people, I guess. When the people control the means of production. I believe that's the def of socialism.

3

ziq wrote

Do you believe China or North Korea's vanguards are enforcing the will of the people?

8

Grace OP wrote

86% of Chinese approve of the Government. DPRK sources are a bit difficult, but watch 'Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul' on YouTube to learn about their opinions. I'd love to visit / live in China or DPRK eventually.

1

_caspar_ wrote

I lived in China for a month, and it is certainly far from liberatory, especially for the supposed proletariat youre speaking of. under what metrics is the chinese state being considered liberatory by anyone? and for whom?

the select few folks that I actually built up enough trust with to open up their actual opinions, are very critical of the government. but most wont tell you outright due to fear of being ratted out by colleagues or passers by for dissent. and these arent radicals that are afraid to speak out, but college students with what would be considered moderate opinions anywhere else.

save for the massive urban expansion projects ecociding at incredible rates, mass surveillance and police presence, many clever ways to control how people (and which people) move through cities, its like any other country Ive visited: you get what you can pay for.

8

Grace OP wrote

Liberalism wouldnt be tolerated in my ideal society. The bourgeois should naturally fear a proletariat state. Being a radical is the only ethical solution in this world.

1

_caspar_ wrote

I didnt refer to your ideal society, and I didnt refer to liberalism. are you not claiming the goal of the chinese state is to liberate the proletariat?

7

Grace OP wrote

The proletariat are already liberated from the chains of Imperialism and slavery. It's implementing the next step towards socialism that can be difficult. But I trust the Chinese government and it's steps toward socialism. They are much better than the US in everything. Right now China is market socialist, but soon enough that will change.

There is no socialism button, sadly. So it will not be clear to the west.

0

_caspar_ wrote

The proletariat are already liberated from the chains of Imperialism and slavery.

would be very interesting to see you explaining that to the workers in one of the many temporary (but funny enough, never-ending) worker-camp style slums on the outskirts of Beijing that only exist to expand the metropolis further out. they build what is basically a small city for a number of years, then pick up and move, only to repeat the process..

7

Grace OP wrote

China is not perfect. I never said it was. It just has many things to look forward to, and to learn from it's mistakes. Generally, the Chinese are doing a good job at treating it's poor, and less than 0,5% of the population is in poverty. The UN confirmed that statistic.

0

ziq wrote

Are you familiar with the theory of manufactured consent?

7

Grace OP wrote

Yes

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Do you not see how a population who get all their information from the state and its various arms and are forbidden from even speaking of non-state-sanctioned information would be under the impression that their government is good?

Do the alarmingly frequent arrests of Marxist dissidents who speak out against the state's officials not alarm you?

If people around you were being arrested for not approving of the rulers, do you think you would then be brave enough to publicly announce you don't approve of them?

8

Grace OP wrote

The state exists to oppress a class. That's how states have always been. The dictatorship of the proletariat use the state to oppress the bourgeois. It is a necessity to silence the bourgeois and their counter revolutions.

Criticism of the Chinese party is fine, and Chinese forums are known to debate on new policies the party has put forward. Read State and Revolution by Lenin to learn more about why it's good to have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

The state exists to oppress a class.

But historically, the new ML state has always given rise to new classes and those in a privileged class have invariably exploited workers, peasants, colonized and indigenous peoples. China even has a billionaire class at the top of the hierarchy right next to the politburo, and ethnic minorities in China occupy the lowest classes, exploited and persecuted by every class above them. The state directs this institutional inequality with its monopoly on violence.

The dictatorship of the proletariat use the state to oppress the bourgeois.

Since you were an anarchist, I'm sure you understand how power dynamics work and that when you give an institution a monopoly on violence (private ownership of guns is forbidden in socialist states) and the power to oppress, they will not simply use that authority against the rich. They will use it against everyone and anyone that they decide poses any kind of a threat to their power and their personal vision for society (which will be based on their ability to maintain that power), including competing Marxists, anarchists, queers, ethnic minorities, disabled people and migrants.

Since we've seen the exact same thing play out for 102 years now all over the world, with socialist revolutions spawning state capitalism, mass executions of revolutionaries, mass censorship, forced labor for dissidents, and then the amassing of wealth and power for the party elite and their friends, don't you think it's time to break the death cycle and try something different?

Read State and Revolution by Lenin to learn more about why it's good to have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Or better yet, witness exactly how this theory played out in practice multiple times in history. Witness the proven failure and don't repeat it again.

7

Grace OP wrote

Reading Lenin changed my entire ideology. He is a true genius, and explains all of this really well. China prides itself on being a multi-ethnic country, and han supremacy literally doesnt exist. Tibet literally was a slave theocracy, and I'm glad it was liberated.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

Tibetians don't seem to think they're liberated in any way, do their wishes not matter to you because you consider them reactionaries?

Do you not see how this thinking is no different than your fellow Americans insisting Iraq has been "liberated" by NATO?

Don't you think people are deserving of self determination? Would you rather their decisions be made for them by outside forces? Their lives governed by a state they reject as an invader? Is this socialism to you? Because it sounds no different to me than US imperialism.

Since you're an American, is it possible you've internalized a deeply ingrained colonizer mentality and are now applying it to your politics and the lives of people in distant lands who have no interest in your plans for them?

6

Grace OP wrote

The Tibetan people were liberated, and I mean it. They were literally in a feudal slave state. Anything is better than that. They used to be the Dalai Lama's personal slaves.

1

suma wrote

Do you agree with Lenin's orders to "introduce mass terror" - to torture and then slaughter scores of workers and peasants? What about his order to carry out a massacre of sex workers who he said were corrupting dock workers? Both orders are discussed in w/tankies if you don't know about it.

If you don't agree with these moves, why do you you consider him a "true genius"? How can someone who was responsible for such unthinkable atrocities, and ultimately the counter-revolution that ensured the eventual reversion to free market capitalism?

6

Grace OP wrote

I'm sure you have a source on these extreme claims, right?

1

suma wrote

I gave you the source. Scroll to the bottom of the wiki for the citations.

w/tankies

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

Grace OP wrote

of course not. I get sources from many people and sources that dont come straight from the mouth of the US propaganda department.

3

mofongo wrote

They're questioning if you only get your news freon the Chinese propaganda department.

5

Grace OP wrote

I get my news from leftist subreddits and chapo.chat. I don't care for liberalism.

3

[deleted] wrote

6

ziq wrote

There are a lot of rural Chinese field workers who work here during harvest season and not one of them I've spoken to has voiced support for their government.

6

Grace OP wrote

/r/Sino and /r/Hong_Kong is a good place to learn about the Majority of Chinese who love their government, who saved them from the century of humiliation.

1

ziq wrote

Just a note to say Reddit is blocked in China and has been since 2018.

2

GlangSnorrisson wrote

So in your opinion, does the vanguard party of these socialist countries truly represent “the people”? How can you know that? “The people” are hardly know for agreeing on much. How does one gauge and enforce their collective will?

6

Grace OP wrote

86% of the Chinese population approve of the Chinese government. Lately, you'll see Chinese ambassadors on Twitter getting more ambitious and start discussing Marxism. I recommend you watch Bay Area415 on Chinese Socialism

1

GlangSnorrisson wrote

I’m not going to bother with the whole USA vs. China nonsense but I do wonder: what makes you believe what the Chinese government says? Or what any government says?

5

Grace OP wrote

of course that is a very good question. You must take cautiousness on what every media says. American media will always discuss death and despair, but CGTN for example mainly talks about foreign diplomacy and infrastructure being built. The Chinese government gains nothing lying to a bunch of westerners.

3

GlangSnorrisson wrote

That’s not entirely true: China has diplomatic and economic ties to a bunch of western countries. Its image does have some importance.

You or I don’t matter for shit to them of course but economic sanctions could be a problem.

5

Grace OP wrote

If they're trying to 'trick' western countries, it's obviously not fucking working. I trust Chinese media because they do not try to sell stuff to us. Other media sells more clicks, but Chinese media just wants information. Their foreign diplomacy can be questionable sometimes, but generally they have nothing to gain by telling me how cool their new trains are.

1

GlangSnorrisson wrote

To be clear, I don’t mean they’re trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. I’m saying they do what any country does: do your best not to look shittier than the others.

As for infrastructure I have 0 doubts that it’s a booming business: China has an incredibly quickly growing middle class.

This brings me to my next point, and I’m sorry but there’s no way for me not to be blunt here: how are they not just as capitalist as the west? Billionaires, middle class, expansionism into Africa, landlords?

7

Grace OP wrote

They have market socialism. Socialism with Chinese characterstics. The material conditions of China were unique, and Deng saved China from infinite sanctions, and let China grow.

Billionaires exist, but they are commonly executed and jailed for their crimes against the laborers. Out of the entire Chinese communist diet (or congress or whatever it's called) there is about 4000 people. Only 24 of them are capitalists.

2

train wrote

Most state media is directed at ones own citizenry and not foreign populations. How do you think manufacturing consent plays a role in Chinese state media?

3

Grace OP wrote

The Chinese, thanks to the media and a proper education, are Marxists. If we let 'free speech' or whatever, you already know the western Media will do everything they can to destroy the idea of Communism.

What does the Chinese government gain in 'brainwashing' 1 billion people?

2

train wrote

They gain what any other country gains from state propaganda targeted at it's citizenry. They gain consent to do as they will with limited resistance.

I think you're operating under the presumption that Chinese education has made Chinese citizenry immune to that kind of propoganda. But as you well know state media is not limited to news. It's also an inherent part of education systems globally. I'm not sure what makes China different besides outwardly touting Marxism which in and of itself does not make them Marxists.

5

Grace OP wrote

The chinese are educated on Marxism. It's basic knowledge that if the vanguard party does not do it's duty of defending Socialism, the people have no choice but to resist against it. The Chinese are doing a good job, and once the world shatters under Capitalism, they will rebuild.

I recommend watching bay area415's video on socialism w/ chinese characteristics.

1

_caspar_ wrote

for a country so saturated with a devoted marxist following, its interesting to see how much commodity fetishism has taken root: with vast shopping malls lined up by the droves with folks looking to get the latest gadgetry.

communism in china is a spectacle, just as it was in the soviet union.

4

Grace OP wrote

China is not perfect, like the USSR was not. Perfection is not required for a socialist society. You do know you can support a socialist country if theyre not a perfect anarcho-communist fantasy, right? Idealism should be laughed at, not taken seriously. I don't see any anarchist states (communes? regions? whatever) doing better on the incredible scale China is.

1

_caspar_ wrote

Idealism should be laughed at, not taken seriously.

indeed, which is why the concept of the people should be laughed out the room.

anarchism is opposed to such projects, why would it want to do them better? and what is better? china certainly is doing much on an incredible scale, but none which looks desirable, especially for anyone working there.

5

Grace OP wrote

China is doing a great job, and their labor laws are improving every day. Their persecution of the elite is more and more rigorous. Their pure survival is an amazing feat, thanks to Deng and MZT. Anarchism has no real way to counter the elite. Revolution is in itself authoritarian.

0

_caspar_ wrote (edited )

I guess youve taken the "if you cant beat em, join em approach," however I would argue that those whom you see as beneficiaries of this project are just as miserable as any wielding power anywhere else in the world: living alienating, mechanistic lives, marching to the tune of leviathan toward control and ecocide.

"Revolution is in itself authoritarian."

in a bizarrely different way, I agree with you there.

5

Ellepix wrote

Ah, so you're a Blanquist then. An ideology Marx was specifically against.

0

Grace OP wrote

That's a really poor conclusion you came to. A revolution is only possible with the people.

1

Ellepix wrote

If the people are the source of the revolution, then there is no need for a vanguard. The very idea of a vanguard party is very Blanquist, and counter-revolutionary to boot.

5

Grace OP wrote

A vanguard is an organized necessity to stomp out counter revolutionaries, like the bourgeois or liberalism. It's a protector of socialism, and that right is given by the people.

−1

Ellepix wrote

There's no such thing as rights, but even then, the idea that the proletariat cannot organize themselves to accomplish such goes against the very foundations of socialist thought.

3

Grace OP wrote

Read State and Revolution, Lenin will describe the need for all that I've mentioned better.

I have an audiobook link, if you'd like to read ML theory.

0