Mastodawn

Cowbee [he/they]

Happy Birthday, Karl Marx!

https://lemmy.ml/post/29626672

Happy Birthday, Karl Marx! - Lemmy

On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout. He didn’t always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven! [https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/f42c7e8a-cbdd-4cd7-82dc-03eec6ec3b6a.jpeg] Some significant works: Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm] The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/EBLB52.html] The Civil War in France [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CWF71.html] Wage Labor & Capital [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/WLC47.html] Wages, Price, and Profit [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/WPP65.html] Critique of the Gotha Programme [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CGP75.html] Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels) [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CM47.html] The Poverty of Philosophy [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/PP47.html] And, of course, Capital Vol I-III [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/] Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” [https://lemmy.ml/post/22417306] introductory reading list!

Fushuan [he/him]May 5, 2025

Is it? I’m pretty sure private property and ownership was a thing in the middle ages. People selling stuff to make a living, merchants… Isn’t the oldest known text some babylonian dude complaining about the faulty products of a merchant?

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

Trade has existed for as long as humanity has existed, correct, but trade isn’t Capitalism. Capitalism specifically emerged from Feudalism. The historic ability for a class of property owners to employ wage laborers was only made possible through advancements in production.

To give an example, the feudal peasant largely produced most things they used, from clothes to housing. They would produce excess for their feudal lord, and some small handicraftsmen and guilds formed specialized labor. These were not Capitalist formations, but pre-Capitalist.

Eventually, technological advancements like the steam engine appeared. This revolutionized production, and gave huge rise to a class of owners that could purchase this new machinery, and employ workers in wages to create commodities. The barrier to entry is progressively lowered skill-wise, while the barrier to entry in the market as a Capital Owner raised, as firms began to solidify into factories. This coalesced into a marketplace of wage laborers selling their labor power to various Capitalists, eventually becoming the Capitalism of the time of Marx.

Does this all make sense? Engels, in Principles of Communism, summarizes it as such:

The proletariat originated in the industrial revolution which took place in England in the second half of the last [eighteenth] century and which has since then been repeated in all the civilized countries of the world. This industrial revolution was brought about by the invention of the steam-engine, various spinning machines, the power loom, and a whole series of other mechanical devices. These machines which were very expensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered the whole previous mode of production and ousted the former workers because machines turned out cheaper and better commodities than could the workers with their inefficient spinning-wheels and hand-looms. These machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered the workers’ meagre property (tools, hand-looms, etc.) entirely worthless, so that the capitalists soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers. This marked the introduction of the factory system into the textile industry.

Once the impulse to the introduction of machinery and the factory system had been given, this system spread quickly to all other branches of industry, especially cloth- and book-printing, pottery, and the metalware industry. Labour was more and more divided among the individual workers, so that the worker who formerly had done a complete piece of work, now did only part of that piece. This division of labour made it possible to supply products faster and therefore more cheaply. It reduced the activity of the individual worker to a very simple, constantly repeated mechanical motion which could be performed not only as well but much better by a machine. In this way, all these industries fell one after another under the dominance of steam, machinery, and the factory system, just as spinning and weaving had already done. But at the same time they also fell into the hands of the big capitalists, and there too the workers were deprived of the last shred of independence. Gradually, not only did manufacture proper come increasingly under the dominance of the factory system, but the handicrafts, too, did so as big capitalists ousted the small masters more and more by setting up large workshops which saved many expenses and permitted an elaborate division of labour. This is how it has come about that in the civilized countries almost all kinds of labour are performed in factories, and that in almost all branches handicraft and manufacture have been superseded by large-scale industry. This process has to an ever greater degree ruined the old middle class, especially the small handicraftsmen; it has entirely transformed the condition of the workers; and two new classes have come into being which are gradually swallowing up all others, namely:

I. The class of big capitalists, who in all civilized countries are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistence and of the raw materials and instruments (machines, factories) necessary for the production of the means of subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.

II. The class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie in order to get in exchange the means of subsistence necessary for their support. This class is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat.

Principles of Communism

JohnDClay May 5, 2025

What would you call employing people for wages around 0AD? I don’t think it’s feudalism.

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

Can you give an example? It could be small manufacturing, the small handicraftsman, guild work, etc. Being paid money for labor isn’t exclusive to Capitalism.

JohnDClay May 5, 2025

Ceramics (roof tiles and pots) were manufactured on an industrial scale in Rome for example. They employed workers and produced massive numbers of products.

What is your distinction between employing people for money and capitalism?

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

Very interesting example! I’d say it’s definitely a proto-Capitalist example, undoubdtedly. I wouldn’t call it Capitalist out right, however, for a few reasons:

Ceramics manufacture was relatively unique among the entire Roman economy. The Roman economy was largely slave-driven.

Ceramics manufacture itself was technologically limited. The vast majority of what went into creating a pot, for example, was human hands, the Kiln was really the largest technical instrument. As a consequence, there wasn’t continuous iterative improvement at voracious scales as is characteristic of Capitalism.

I would classify it closer to a large version of manufacturing workers, but certainly could have expanded into Capitalism had the Roman society at large developed similar structures, giving rise to a dominant bourgeois class and the abolition of slave labor in favor of wage labor proletarians. The context of the entire economy is critical.

I think I answered the differences between paying people in general and Capitalism specifically, but I also recommend Engels’ Principles of Communism, the first few pages go over what makes Capitalism distinct from pre-Capitalist economic formations.

Principles of Communism

JohnDClay May 5, 2025

I was asking to clarify, because it sounded like your definition of capitalism was something like ‘uses industrial machinery to allow for unskilled work.’ By that definition, I agree that by definition capitalism didn’t exist till after the industrial revolution, since industrial machinery didn’t exist yet. But I disagree that capitalism requires industrial machinery.

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

That’s not quite my definition. In order for Private Property to become the dominant aspect of society, technological advancements needed to be made to allow a small class of people to dominate society through ownership of the Means of Production. Marx explains it quite simply here:

The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

JohnDClay May 5, 2025

But you’d say that capitalism requires the technological advancements of the industrial revolution by definition?

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

I’d say the formation of Capitalist production depends on the development of certain technologies to allow for the creation of large industry and division of society into classes of bourgeois and proletarian. Engels sums it up in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

Prior to capitalist production, i.e., in the Middle Ages, small-scale production generally prevailed, based upon the workers’ private ownership of their means of production: the agriculture of the small peasant, freeman or serf, and the handicrafts in the towns. The instruments of labour – land, agricultural implements, the workshop, the hand tool – were the instruments of labour of single individuals, adapted for individual use, and, therefore, of necessity puny, dwarfish, circumscribed. But for this very reason they normally belonged to the producer himself. To concentrate these scattered, limited means of production, to enlarge them, to turn them into the powerful levers of production of the present day was precisely the historic role of the capitalist mode of production and of its upholder, the bourgeoisie. In Part IV of Capital Marx gives a detailed account of how the bourgeoisie has historically accomplished this since the fifteenth century through the three phases of simple co-operation, manufacture and large-scale industry. But as is also shown there, the bourgeoisie could not transform these limited means of production into mighty productive forces without at the same time transforming them from individual means of production into social means of production only workable by a collectivity of men. The spinning wheel, the hand-loom and the blacksmith’s hammer were replaced by the spinning machine, the power-loom and the steam hammer, and the individual workshop by the factory commanding the co-operation of hundreds and thousands of workmen. Like the means of production, production itself changed from a series of individual operations into a series of social acts, and the products from individual into social products. The yarn, the cloth and the metal goods that now came out of the factory were the common product of many workers, through whose hands they had successively to pass before they were ready. No one person could say of them: “I made that, this is my product.”

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

JohnDClay May 5, 2025

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

The “colloquial definition” isn’t the colloquial definition, though. Even in liberal academia, it’s the same as the Marxist conception. Using currency for trade isn’t Capitalism, not even in Libertarian theory.

Dessalines May 5, 2025

Feudalism also employed some industrial machinery (water wheels for milling grain is one example). But the primary energy source was still muscle power, the primary product was agricultural produce, and the workers were peasants tied to the land, not mobile wage workers producing consumer goods.

Marxists consider these important distinctions that define entire historical periods, even if they’re still both examples of class society.

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

Great points, kicking myself that I forgot to mention the key aspects of production being largely agricultural, and workers largely immobile, especially. The ability to set up factories in cities with close cooperation is what took the sparks to a blaze.

Dessalines May 5, 2025

Absolutely, and thanks for your work in this thread. o7

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

No problem, you too comrade! o7

CarlMarks May 5, 2025

Most of the Roman low and medium skill artisans were slaves, actually.

But capitalism is best recognized by the proliferation of commodities, as it is made up of various wage labor capitalist enterprises producing large quantities of fungible goods for market. A chair is a chair is a chair and you can buy 50 varieties of basically the same thing at the furniture store. Under capitalism, all economic life is governed by this: you work a wage labor job and you buy everything else (commodities made by other wage laborers).

Rome did not have such a system. A vastly larger proportion of goods were made at home by oneself or by servants or by slaves. When goods were purchased they would have mostly been produced by slaves or petty bourgeois artisans or apprentices. Wage laborers still existed, but they were not typical.

An important part of Marxist analysis is to focus on the shift from quantitative to qualitative in social development. The high proportion of wage laborers is something that typefies capitalism, but wage laborers have existed for a long time. At some point there was a watershed moment - or watershed many decades - where the material forces that increased this proportion crossed various thresholds to create a new ruling class that became dominant and started throwing their weight around (capitalists). The capitalist class was in no way dominant in Rome.

Dessalines May 5, 2025

Also, the surplus in nearly all the periods of ancient Rome, was still largely an agrarian surplus, extracted either from slaves, or from feudal workers / colonates in the territories outside the city.

The city / empire survived not by its own products and a commodity-producing economy, but by feeding an agrarian surplus off its many colonies.

happydoors May 5, 2025

Free market trade has existed and changed shape throughout most of human history. Advice with how to deal with it is in the Old Testament. how often or consistent it revolved around a common currency is/was constantly changing, though

Fushuan [he/him]May 5, 2025

I’m just saying that, in one of the oldest known written texts, waaay before than when the old testament was written, is a vutomer complaint where they mention copper coins as currency. We don’t know how common copper coins were, but saying that capital based societies are “young” is not correct either.

…m.wikipedia.org/…/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nāṣir

Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir - Wikipedia

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

Currency isn’t Capitalism, though. Capitalism has currency, but not all systems with currency are Capitalist.

MarxMadness May 5, 2025

The existence of coins does not imply a capital-based society, in the same way the emergence of personal computers in the 70s does not mean the economy of the 70s was highly computerized.

Check out David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 Years for some anthropology on how exchange worked in early societies. Trading currency for goods or services was the exception, not the rule.

davel May 5, 2025

Capital and money are not exactly the same thing. Capital is money used to make more money through (1) ownership of the means of production, (2) wage labor, and (3) economic rent & fincancialization.

Means of production

The means of production are the resources and tools that workers use in order to produce goods and commodities. Society produces for itself and reproduces itself...

ProleWiki

CarlMarks May 5, 2025

The idea of a “free market” is an invention of capitalism in the last few hundred years. Laissez-faire was coined by French businessmen in the late 1600s.

Dessalines May 5, 2025

For most of human history (tribal / pre-agricultural societies), markets were rare and mostly unecessary. Small groups of people survived by foraging / hunting for food and sharing it among themselves. Usually elders, or some type of communal decision-making process was how food was distributed. Sharing, not trade, was the distribution system.

You can have some trade in tribal / feudal societies, but it isn’t the most common way that goods are distributed.

ExotiqueMatter May 5, 2025

Private property isn’t unique to capitalism, feudalism and antique slave society each had a form of private property even tough feudalism and antique slave society have little else in common with capitalism.

UnfortunateShort May 5, 2025

Eh, isn’t that argument more about being greedy for ressources rather than capital in particular? I mean, why did empires conquer stuff?

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

There exists a strong current within Liberal economics that asserts that the formation we have arrived at now is because over time, Humanity has assumed the system most fit for our nature. Some take the path you percieve it as, a focus on greed, rather than Capitalism specifically, but that’s not what the meme addresses.

The advancement Marx made is recognizing Capitalism as merely one stage in the progression of Modes of Production historically. His analysis of Socialism and Communism was rooted in how it naturally emerges from Capitalism, just as Capitalism had emerged from Feudalism. The Capitalist Realists, who see Capitalism as eternal, stand in contrast to that notion and assert Capitalism as the final default stage. “There is no alternative,” of Thatcher.

CarlMarks May 5, 2025

Capitalism is not about individuals being greedy. Calling capitalists greedy is like calling fish greedy for needing water. The capitalist system requires constant profit maximization to prevent firms from crumbling, the capitalists are tasked with ensuring this, generally by (at first) maximizing exchange value of their product and minimizing costs (usually labor), then later using monopoly position to charge economic rent. In the heart of empire, financialization has meant trying to skip the first step via large financial investment up front, like with tech monopolies. The system itself forces exploitation, dispossession, colonialism, and ultimately crisis and war.

Historical empires conquered for reasons we often don’t really know specifically, as the accounts we have are written by victors with limited access and understanding. But ancient peoples were just as sophisticated as us and subject to material forces as us, so it was certainly not just being greedy. The economic base can force hands, for example. The Roman slave and debt system was unsustainable and required debt jubilees and war and invasions to be maintained, for example. For the ruling class of Rome, was maintaining the empire only greed or was it what they were taught to do as the moral and right thing?

Sibshops May 5, 2025

Where does 500 years come from? Capitalism goes back at least 3000 years, right?

…m.wikipedia.org/…/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nāṣir

Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir - Wikipedia

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

I answered more in-depth in this comment, but trade is not Capitalism itself. Rather, Capitalism as a system is merely one of the many Modes of Production based on trade. Capitalism emerged specifically alongside the Industrial Revolution, the system of workers selling their labor-power to large Capital Owners competing in commodity production could only arise with advancements in productive technology such as the Steam Engine.

Prior to the rise of Capitalism, various pre-Capitalist forms of production existed, such as small manufacturing workers who used their tools to make a complete good to sell, or the guild system, but these were never capable of giving rise to the vast system of accumulation the Capitalist system created through the

M-C-M’ circuit

Where M is an initial sum of money, C a number of commoditied sold at value, and M’ the larger sum of money gained from selling the commodities.

Happy Birthday, Karl Marx! - Lemmy

On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout. He didn’t always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven! [https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/f42c7e8a-cbdd-4cd7-82dc-03eec6ec3b6a.jpeg] Some significant works: Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm] The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/EBLB52.html] The Civil War in France [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CWF71.html] Wage Labor & Capital [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/WLC47.html] Wages, Price, and Profit [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/WPP65.html] Critique of the Gotha Programme [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CGP75.html] Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels) [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/CM47.html] The Poverty of Philosophy [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/PP47.html] And, of course, Capital Vol I-III [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/] Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” [https://lemmy.ml/post/22417306] introductory reading list!

Sibshops May 5, 2025

Thanks, well said

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

No problem!

ShinkanTrain May 5, 2025

Today I honor Cowbee’s Sisyphean task of explaining that trade and capitalism are two different things 🫡

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

It gets easier, actually! So I wouldn’t call it Sisyphean. Different parts of Lemmy have different levels of understanding, if I can get parts mostly aware to be more aware, then that helps trickle into other instances, and it’s easier than doing so in instances where Marxism is seen hostiley.

ace_of_based May 5, 2025

trickle down economics lessons. Reagan was right all along

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

Not really “trickle down.” If I go to a MAGA conference, I am going to be immediately attacked. If I go to a place with progressives, I’ll face less hostility. If I go to a place with Leftists, then I’ll generally be recieved favorably. If this Leftist base solidifies, it can expand and fold in the more radical of the progressives, and then expand outward.

In other words, if it takes immense effort to “wololo” a MAGA into a Leftist, but much less effort to “wololo” a progressive into one, then it’s better to focus on the progressive so that the new Leftist can also aid in the “wololo-ing.” As the proportion of Leftists grows, and more proletarians go from MAGA to liberal, and liberal to progressive, this Leftist movement becomes better able to fold more people into it.

Cypher May 5, 2025

Well that’s a very meme description of shifting the overton window to the left.

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

As Marx’s favorite maxim goes, “Nihil humani a me alienum puto [Nothing human is alien to me]”

I love memes and gaming, same with Marxist-Leninist theory, same with space, science, and technology. Connecting to others with shared culture is part of what makes us human.

Peter G May 5, 2025

@Cowbee @Cypher Marxist-Leninist theory is fine. Theoretically the concepts of communal ownership and resources sharing is a laudable one. Too bad the only example of this concept actually working is Star Trek. The instances when it's been tried in the real world, ended in authortarainism and/or collapse.

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

All countries are “authoritarian,” what matters most is which class is in control and thus exerting its authority. In Capitalist society, that class is the Bourgeoisie, a tiny minority of society. In Socialism, that class is the Proletariat, the majority of society. Countries like the PRC are labeled “authoritarian” not due to how the people themselves feel, but because Capital is limited by the government. Even if over 90% of Chinese citizens support the CPC, western media slanders the system as “authoritarian” because their corporate masters can’t move as they please in Chinese markets.

Taking China’s pulse

Ash Center research team unveils findings from long-term public opinion survey.

Harvard Gazette

WhatsTheHoldup May 13, 2025

Countries like the PRC are labeled “authoritarian” not due to how the people themselves feel, but because Capital is limited by the government.

Countries like the PRC are labeled authoritarian because they do not provide basic human rights such as freedom of speech.

I will quote exclusively from your own source you have linked

“Gathering reliable, long-term opinion survey data from across the country is a real obstacle,” said Ash Center China Programs Director Edward Cunningham. “Rigorous and objective opinion polling is something that we take for granted in the U.S.”

You were accurate about the satisfaction rate towards Beijing.

in China there was very high satisfaction with the central government. In 2016, the last year the survey was conducted, 95.5 percent of respondents were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with Beijing.

Why do they suggest this rate is so high?

According to Saich, a few factors include the proximity of central government from rural citizens, as well as highly positive news proliferated throughout the country.

What about local government approval rates?

At the township level, the lowest level of government surveyed, only 11.3 percent of respondents reported that they were “very satisfied.”

This result supports the findings of more recent shorter-term surveys in China, and reinforces long-held patterns of citizens reporting local grievances to Beijing in hopes of central government action. “I think citizens often hear that the central government has introduced a raft of new policies, then get frustrated when they don’t always see the results of such policy proclamations, but they think it must be because of malfeasance or foot-dragging by the local government,” said Saich.

Saich contends that the lack of trust in local governments in China is due to the fact that they provide the vast majority of services to the Chinese people.

That was a very interesting read, thank you for linking it but I don’t think it says what you think it says.

Cowbee [he/they]May 13, 2025

The reason I include it as a source is because it’s conducted by a group hostile to the CPC and interested in undermining it. The opinions of those gathering the data are already hostile to the system, yet the data absolutely points in favor of popular support. Further, the 11.3% for “very satisfied” doesn’t translate to all satisfied, only those very satisfied. The PRC is a rapidly improving country.

China does have freedom of speech. They exert more control over what corporations and billionaires can say, but they are more or less similar in speech levels to other countries. Again, the reason China is labeled “authoritarian” by the Western Media is because their corporate owners cannot do as they please. They want to foster hostility towards China among the public by exclusively showing a one-sided point of view that aligns perfectly with the views of their owners.

In conclusion, my source says exactly what I said it does. It’s reliable in that we can trust the positives admitted from someone overall hostile.

WhatsTheHoldup May 13, 2025

China does have freedom of speech.

No they absolutely do not. Free speech isnt simply the claim that “we have free speech” but it is ensuring that the principles of free speech, especially the freedom to criticize, are available for all citizens.

I searched for actual Chinese law to cite for this part, let me know if i made any mistakes but this is what I found:

cecc.gov/international-agreements-and-domestic-le…

Article 4: Any printed materials or audio/visual materials with any of the following contents shall be prohibited from being brought into China:

Attacking any relevant regulations of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China; slandering any policies of the nation currently in effect; defaming any Party or national leaders; inciting the carrying out of subversion or destruction of the People’s Republic of China or creating division among ethnic groups; or advocating “two Chinas” or "Taiwan independence."

Anything else that is harmful to the government, economy, culture, or morals of the People’s Republic of China.

Any book that reflects upon work or life situation of a current or former member of the Party Politburo Standing Committee, the National Chairman, Vice Chairman, Premier of the State Council, Chairman of the Central Military Commission, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, or the Chairman of the Political Consultative Conference must be specifically reported and approved.

Article 3: Publishing businesses shall adhere to the path of serving the people and serving socialism, adhere to the guidance of Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, and promulgate and accumulate scientific technology and cultural knowledge that is advantageous to economic development and social progress

Article 5: All levels of the People’s Government shall ensure that citizens are able to legally exercise their right to freedom of publication. When citizens exercise their right to freedom of publication they shall abide by the Constitution and laws, shall not oppose the basic principles confirmed in the Constitution, and shall not harm the interests of the country, the society or the collective or the legal freedoms and rights of other citizens.

Article 105(2): Use of rumor mongering or defamation or other means to incite subversion of the national regime or the overthrow of the socialist system shall be punished by a sentence of five years or less of imprisonment, criminal detention, supervision or deprivation of political rights

Satellite television channels shall strictly observe propaganda requirements, and firmly observe correct guidance of public opinion. With respect to reports on important events, breaking stories and other sensitive issues, they must obey the integrated dispositions of the local party committee Propaganda Departments, and strictly abide by Party discipline.

I don’t want to be close minded to new info, but when you throw out “western media” the way you are it makes me feel like you’re trying to gaslight me.

China is a state. No state power is a flawless perfect angel.

The West has a lot of flaws, but one idea it had that is a good one is the idea of limiting the power of the state, and having a strong bill of rights/Constitution which guarantees rights.

This doesn’t prevent it from being authoritarian, we can point to clear violations of civil liberties like the students being kidnapped off the streets and disappeared to an El Salvadoran death camp.

If I was unable to recognize that as authoritarian I think you’d rightfully decide this conversation is a non starter and I’m just too far gone.

cnn.com/…/china-students-peking-university-intl

So am I propagandized to? Was this story (and many more like it I could find and bring up) completely made up?

Or can we both agree stuff like this isn’t great and work towards a future where we prevent the abduction of students in both spheres of the world.

Again, the reason China is labeled “authoritarian” by the Western Media

Forget the Western Media. I am telling you they are authoritarian. I don’t do business with them, I am instead using objective standards of what actions an individual should be able to freely choose without fear of reprisal from their government.

The average citizen is in danger of being arrested over posting speech to social media (yes the UK and Australia are authoritarian for doing the same thing, that’s how objective standards should work).

They’re in danger of being arrested for protesting their government, or for organizing their labor. The only correct channel of protest is going through the local government with the abysmally poor approval rate you cited.

In conclusion, my source says exactly what I said it does. It’s reliable in that we can trust the positives admitted from someone overall hostile.

What? How does that make anything any more or less reliable?

You can’t just cherry pick positives out of a negative bias and assume it cancels out.

A study done by someone not hostile would be more reliable. That’s what I would have tried to link, but I guess the source you linked explains China’s strict censorship makes it difficult to do an objective opinion poll.

International Agreements and Domestic Legislation Affecting Freedom of Expression

International Treaties, Covenants, and AgreementsInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

CECC

Cowbee [he/they]May 13, 2025

Those are all basic laws that apply to businesses, not random citizens. A Socialist State controlling the media influence of private individuals is straight from Karl Marx. Even the specific law on individuals overwhelmingly applies to public figures and celebrities, not random citizens.

I never said China is “perfect.” I said it is demonized as “authoritarian” by Western Media because the owners in Western Media can’t do as they please in Chinese markets. I’m not “gaslighting” you by disagreeing with your conclusions.

Secondly, Western States aren’t limited. They are extremely strong, the US has hundreds of millitary bases all over the world (China has less than 10 foreign millitary bases). The Bill of Rights and Constitution also don’t serve the people. What they do serve is providing freedom for Capital owners to plunder and profit as they please, and the State is under their control.

My point is that “authoritarianism” is a meaningless buzzword. All states exert authority, what matters most is which clads is in control and thus exerting its authority. In the West, that is the capitalist class, in China, it’s the working class. Both are “authoritarian,” in that sense, as all states are, but are fundamentally different in character, backed by why China has such high approval rates and the US has such low approval rates.

As for that one particular CNN article, I question it highly. Either the quality or quantity of the event is highly distorted, or important facts are obscured. This is the standard play, CNN is a propaganda outlet and the US has approved 1.6 billion dollars exclusively for anti-PRC propaganda.

You can absolutely organize, but not in a manner that goes against the public good. Private interests use such mechanisms to oppose the system that is overwhelmingly popular. The CPC frequently supports worker strikes and protests against corrupt businesses.

Further, you again pretend “very satisfied” is the same as overall approval. You’re lying. The actual approval rate at the Township level is 70.2%, which you either think is “abysmally low,” or are intentionally trying to twist very satisfied into satisfied in general, which is coincidentally a propaganda tactic used by Western Media, focusing on one aspect and omitting the more important data. Here’s the actual table:

Yes, a study by a theoretical “neutral” party would be most accurate. It’s likely the approval rate is actually higher than the hostile poll shows. By showing that even someone hostile must admit the high approval rates, other, less hostile polls showing the same or better figures are vindicated.

House passes $1.6 billion to deliver anti-China propaganda overseas

Somehow it’s a crime when Russia does it to us, but good 'information ops' when we want to discredit Beijing’s Belt & Road initiatives worldwide

Responsible Statecraft

WhatsTheHoldup May 13, 2025

Those are all basic laws that apply to businesses, not random citizens.

That’s not the case, except insofar as private citizens are forced to become businesses and register with the government in order to publish anything at all.

I never said China is “perfect.” I said it is demonized as “authoritarian” by Western Media because the owners in Western Media can’t do as they please in Chinese markets. I’m not “gaslighting” you by disagreeing with your conclusions.

Of course. And Western governments are likewise demonized by chinese media. That’s not a particularly meaningful claim.

Every perspective has its own bias. You are “gaslighting” me by pretending “authoritarianism” can’t be objectively defined.

The bias of western media comes out in the types of stories they choose to cover and not to cover, the opinion pieces they put out, and the framing of narratives, but usually the factual information is more or less correct and there are obviously sources which are more trustworthy than others.

Secondly, Western States aren’t limited.

This is the gaslighting stuff. There are term limits on the president.

There is a separation of branches; executive, legislative and judicial.

There is the presumption of innocence and the right to due process.

If you weren’t ignoring these attempts, we could be agreeing at how ineffective they are as limits, and how due process isn’t applied to “enemy combatants” but instead I’m having to point out that term limits exist on the president or that the Supreme Court exists and can overturn laws when they violate the constitution.

There are flaws in these systems that led to the NSA continuing to spy and guantanamo to stay open.

But we can’t talk about that if you won’t acknowledge a Supreme Court exists.

They are extremely strong, the US has hundreds of millitary bases all over the world (China has less than 10 foreign millitary bases).

Yeah the US is imperialist. But don’t change the subject. We’re talking about the limitations on said imperialist state like I listed above. Term limits, separation of power, right to a trial with a jury of your peers, etc which are obstacles (no matter how futile) the imperialist state must overcome when they want to act in an authoritarian manner.

The behavior of the military overseas is a completely different sphere of issues related to manufactured consent and the military-industrial complex and neo-colonialism.

The Bill of Rights and Constitution also don’t serve the people. What they do serve is providing freedom for Capital owners to plunder and profit as they please, and the State is under their control.

There’s the bill of rights and the constitution, and then there’s the way a state applies the bill of rights and the constitution after 200 years of capitalist manipulation.

Whatever state of government preexists the capitalists (or at least preexists their total consolidation of power) will be manipulated to rule their interests, we can’t discard the baby with the bathwater just because they’ve twisted our rights around to serve them

Certain rights in these bills like property rights are inherently serving capitalism, but others like the right to bear arms are the exact opposite.

My point is that “authoritarianism” is a meaningless buzzword.

I could not disagree further. To throw this out this far into the discussion feels really disingenuous.

If it’s meaningless then I don’t know who is and who isn’t authoritarian, and that seems really convenient for would be authoritarians.

Are there any means to you that would not justify the ends which we can agree on as ideal natural limitations for any state?

All states exert authority, what matters most is which clads is in control and thus exerting its authority.

I agree with how you’re thinking about this, but it seems backwards.

What matters most is how authority is wielded.

The reason the working class should be in control isn’t just because that’s an axiom one insists on, but because they are the least incentivized (ideally) to wield their power tyrannically.

This gives us a lens where it is possible for a worker led government to be authoritarian and one not to be, and says that the latter is preferred.

If we don’t have the language to criticize the former and move towards the latter then what are we doing?

As for that one particular CNN article, I question it highly. Either the quality or quantity of the event is highly distorted, or important facts are obscured.

Hmm okay.

Since you said you never claimed China to be perfect, can you help me out and provide a source for something China has done wrong recently just for a sanity check?

Every negative example I brought up has been dismissed so in what ways are China not perfect in terms of civil rights/freedom of speech?

Further, you again pretend “very satisfied” is the same as overall approval. You’re lying. The actual approval rate at the Township level is 70.2%,

Where are you getting this number?

I’m not lying, this is the narrative your source is arguing

Compared to the relatively high satisfaction rates with Beijing, respondents held considerably less favorable views toward local government. At the township level, the lowest level of government surveyed, only 11.3 percent of respondents reported that they were “very satisfied.”

I read the whole article, there’s no further data on the subject beyond this paragraph

I think you might be misreading the 70% as the US approval rate for local government?

This dichotomy is highlighted by a 2017 Gallup poll, where 70 percent of U.S. respondents had a “great” or “fair” amount of trust in local government.

which you either think is “abysmally low,” or are intentionally trying to twist very satisfied into satisfied in general, which is coincidentally a propaganda tactic used by Western Media, focusing on one aspect and omitting the more important data. Here’s the actual table:

Oh sorry lol. I’m going through the replies one by one on my phone cause theres a lot and i typed the above first

Honestly I’m having a hard time understanding this. Do you know what the averages mean, why are they so low? Like the 2.8 avg?

It’s the bolded purple part so it seems like the authors believe it to be the most important number on the chart.

I would think at first to interpret that as a 2.8% average approval rate but obviously the 70.2% approval is right there next to it so that doesn’t make sense.

Would I be correct in interpreting this as a minority of people (26%) really dislike the government and (76%) just kind of like it so they average each other out to 2.8%?

Yes, a study by a theoretical “neutral” party would be most accurate.

Agreed. It’s frustrating China does not allow that.

True “neutral” parties dont really exist of course, this is a fundamental tenant of western science which is why data must be transparent and the methodology critiqued through peer review, so that this bias can be revealed and accounted for.

It’s likely the approval rate is actually higher than the hostile poll shows. By showing that even someone hostile must admit the high approval rates, other, less hostile polls showing the same or better figures are vindicated.

Remember the Western Media trick of demonizing the other side to manipulate a narrative you mentioned? These demonizing tricks can work both ways, we should he careful about sensationalizing things (as you’ve been critiquing me for doing)

“even someone hostile” who says they’re hostile?

Either it’s a reliable study and should be taken at face value or its a biased study and should not have been cited.

Why should I care about whether a polling organization is labelled as “hostile” by you or the media? That’s a distraction, in the context of authoritarianism you find these labels meaningless.

The thing we should be looking at and questioning is their methodology.

If a study has bad methodology then it didn’t get accurate data. The data is wrong. You don’t get to add extra points to your side because you deem them as hostile, you throw the study in the trash and find a better one.

Cowbee [he/they]May 13, 2025

It’s entirely the case that the purpose and real function of Chinese laws on publication are to control private businesses and celebrities, public figures, etc. Individuals critical of the CPC exist and post and comment, but those that are backed by private corporations attempting to swap the system to Capitalist are shut down.

Western governments are demonized by Chinese media, but you are not a consumer of Chinese News, nor is the average person outside of China. My point is specifically about Western portrayal of the countries that limit Western plundering.

I am not “gaslighting” you about “authoritarianism.” The fact that “authoritarianism” is such a common talking point abused by western media against geopolitical adversaries is common even among liberals like Noam Chomsky.

The factual information is often not correct as well. Often times numbers and figures are heavily distorted, relying on anonymity of sources to cover for them. This is also well-documented.

Further, I am not “gaslighting” you about Western states not being limited, either. You are moving the goalpost. All states have limitations, things the state can’t do, in the US, China, etc. However, the US state in particular has unlimited support for Capitalists. What it doesn’t need to do, it frames as a “limitation,” but will quickly go against those if needed by Capital.

As for class dynamics, no. The “how” of authority is fundamentally determined by the class in control and the conditions the system finds itself in. Fascism is Capitalism in decay, not a unique economic system. The Working Class should be in power becayse they are the majority of people, and the ones creating value, not because they are intrinsically kinder.

As for something China has done wrong, I’m not a fan of maintaining trade with Israel, rather than sanctioning it. Maintaining a pro-Palestinian stance without supporting Palestinian liberation materially is soft.

As for the 2.8 number, it isn’t a percentage, but an average on responses 1-4, 4 being highly satisfied, 3 being moderately satisfied, 2 being moderately not satisfied, and 1 being not at all satisfied. The number of really not liking the Township is 2.3%, the number of overall not satisfied is 26%, the number moderately satisfied is 57%, and the number of really satisfied is 11%. These numbers appear to be growing, alongside continuous improvements in living conditions over time. This is for the weakest level of government, the higher you go the more satisfied with overall governance, as the CPC is highly competent and development has been rapid, but uneven, in the rural areas still lagging behind. Trends are shifting because in the last decade, there has been focus on the rural areas, which is why the number of satisfied at the Township level is dramatically increasing.

China does allow neutral parties to conduct polls, they even allowed the hostile party to conduct the polls. This is silly.

Western polling is notoriously slanted against its geopolitical adversaries. If I gave you an internal Chinese poll showing the same or better results, you’d be crying foul for it being biased.

China’s ambassador: “The war is not the theme of Israel-China bilateral relations”

In a rare wide-ranging interview, China’s ambassador to Israel, Xiao Junzheng, discusses Beijing’s strong economic ties with Israel despite geopolitical tensions, its vision for regional stability, the new Trump administration’s tariff war, and why China sees Israeli innovation as key to its own modernization.

ctech

WhatsTheHoldup May 13, 2025

Is it possible to deescalate just a bit. Not that I’m blaming you for the tone, I should drop terms like “gaslighting” as well. That’s just poisoning the discussion and you seem perfectly good faith and as long as im not overly frustrating you I’d hope not to derail this because I am learning more about your perspective.

Agreement doesn’t happen overnight for me but I think about things and it can come in time.

I am not “gaslighting” you about “authoritarianism.” The fact that “authoritarianism” is such a common talking point abused by western media

We’ve both acknowledged that Western Media abuses the definition.

I asked you to forget about their definition, remember. We can define it separate from their abuse of the term.

They also abuse the term “communism”, “marxism”, “socialism”, “capitalism”. I don’t accept your argument that corporate absurdism can dismantle our language word by word.

The word “authoritarian” can mean something.

If I gave you an internal Chinese poll showing the same or better results, you’d be crying foul for it being biased.

I was very clear that bias can be accounted for through proper methodology.

If you linked a poll with bad methodology you’re correct I’d have an issue with that, but id have to actually read the methodology…

Im genuinely confused why you’d even think to accuse me of that? It’s just you and me having a conversation here. How is attacking my character helpful to the learning process?

Fascism is Capitalism in decay, not a unique economic system.

That doesn’t seem fully historically accurate. In the March on Rome Mussolini was enabled in greater part due to the Monarchy just handing him power.

Fascism in Germany grew in conditions where capitalism hadn’t been successful enough to consider to have decayed because reparations were so severe that they couldn’t even rebuild and the economy underwent hyperinflation through the compounding effects of that and the great depression.

The Working Class should be in power becayse they are the majority of people, and the ones creating value, not because they are intrinsically kinder.

Do you actually mean that?

Surely what you mean to say is that class shouldn’t exist?

But as long as effort is needed to make stuff, the people putting in said effort should be the ones having the say.

There are more freedoms than just economic. Disabled people for example do not cleanly fit into labor and so would not adequately be represented by the working class.

It is only in the imperfect moment where the working class should rule because currently capital rules and from that relativist view it is progress.

Since the workers have no say over how their own production is used, and they are unentitled to excess profits derived by their labor, it is an American Revolution “no taxation without representation” level simple.

As long as workers are forced to pay their “excess value” tax to the employer and have no say on the direction of the company, in the minds of the founding fathers they are no different than slaves.

It’s the same logic that rebels and creates a liberal democracy out of a monarchy. Donald Trump actually seems to have a lot of parallels to mad King George.

Cowbee [he/they]May 13, 2025

Fair, I’ll tone it down a bit. I get frustrated when disagreements are painted as toxic manipulation on my part, as it avoids engaging with the points at hand and paints me as a deliberately malicious person. Since you made it clear that that isn’t your intent, I’ll move on from that point.

I fully understand what you’re trying to say about “authoritarianism.” My point is that the idea of “excess control” is a matter of perspective. If, as we showed in China, the speech of businesses is heavily curtailed, then this is an act of authority. It is, however, a fully justified use of authority in my opinion, as a member of the working class, but someone like Elon Musk would not be a fan and would consider it authoritarian. Trying to treat the existence of excess as an objective measure that can be applied from all perspectives equally isn’t really connected to reality, the concepts of a metaphysical “good” and “evil” like in DnD don’t actually exist. What exists are systems and people, and the Chinese system has very high approval rates.

I think we are past the point of useful conversation on bias, and we aren’t really going to see eye to eye. It’s impossible to be unbiased, so when a source with an opposing bias admits positives, I tend to place more weight there than a positive vias espousing positives.

Mussolini was handed power because the ruling class needed to protect itself, same with the Nazis in Germany. When the system decays and is under strain, it can either offer concessions like in the US under FDR, or it has to exert brutal violence to do so. Often, both are applied. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, specifically the first chapter, as its about fascism.

As for class, the way to getting rid of it is via comprehensively resolving the contradictions in society in favor of the working class, until there is a fully publicly owned and planned global economy run democratically to fulfill the needs of all, without commodity production. Class should be abolished, but we can’t abolish it at the stroke of a pen, it’s a historical action, not a legalistic one. If you want to learn more about Communist theory, I can make some recommendations. Of course, those unable to work or have hampered abilities should be taken care of with unique protections.

Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti

EPUB by Comrade's Library

WhatsTheHoldup May 13, 2025

I fully understand what you’re trying to say about “authoritarianism.” My point is that the idea of “excess control” is a matter of perspective.

That’s true. I think the perspective I’ve been trying to put forward is one of civil liberties.

I get that 99 times out of 100 your typical block here with liberals is that “private property rights” is inherent to these liberties and we could never agree beyond it but that’s actually not me.

I think you can separate capitalism from human rights, I don’t see these in conflict.

I get frustrated when disagreements are painted as toxic manipulation on my part, as it avoids engaging with the points at hand and paints me as a deliberately malicious person.

I do too, I apologize.

I feel like this medium itself is inherently manipulative and with the upvote downvote system I’m always subconsciously aware I could be downvoted and you’re subconsciously aware of it and it just defaults the human mind into this adversarial role where we’re trying to win over each other, even if I don’t mean to.

Just trying to step back and notice it is also part of what i mean when I say we can account for our biases.

What exists are systems and people, and the Chinese system has very high approval rates.

We looked at the data, but as long as I currently hold the belief that the media isn’t free to criticize the government, I have to be suspicious that approval rates can be manufactured consent just like western media can do.

One of the laws I mentioned before said if a civilian wants to write a book about a high ranking party member they need the party’s permission.

There is preventing capitalists from paying for a bunch of pro capitalist publications because they have more money than you, and then there’s an individual writing a pro capitalist book because they really believe in it.

Ideally, in a world free of the capitalist manipulation of the west, the lone individual writing a pro capitalist book shouldn’t be a problem. Its not going to be popular because its not being artificially promoted.

But they’re being hit by the laws anyway because the government deems it against socialist values.

This worries me because we’re going to need truths that go against socialist values in the transition to the classless society.

I think we are past the point of useful conversation on bias, and we aren’t really going to see eye to eye. It’s impossible to be unbiased, so when a source with an opposing bias admits positives, I tend to place more weight there than a positive vias espousing positives.

That its impossible to be unbiased we do actually agree on.

I think some people though make ideology core to their thinking. A MAGA person who sees the world through that lens is just full on brainwashed for example.

Obviously no one’s going to be perfect about it, me included, but I attempt at least to adhere to science, empirical data and the scientific method as my core as much as I can, and actively challenge my beliefs and try to let ideology flow downstream of reality as much as possible.

That’s why I place my priority on the methodology and data. I’m trying to apply a method where bias isn’t assumed outright but can be revealed through scrutiny.

The inherent instability of late stage capitalism forces me as an ally of truth and freedom of thought to fight against fascism and any propaganda no matter how apolotical i would prefer to be. I am radically anti advertisement for example. It appears to me as though over 95% of information that exists is intended to manipulate you into spending money you didn’t intend to spend.

But I would be an irritating ally in that I would naturally seek to question and understand.

I have essentially given up on electoralism as a solution for all of life’s problems, the problem is I was not prepared to become so pessimistic (realistic) so quick and so I have nothing to replace it with and a lot of questions.

I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, specifically the first chapter, as its about fascism.

I will do that

Class should be abolished, but we can’t abolish it at the stroke of a pen, it’s a historical action, not a legalistic one.

I didn’t suggest it would be. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page that working class ownership wasn’t the “ideal” but simply a necessity due to power structures.

You mentioned this has to happen on a global stage.

I dont mean to drag this on forever but what would be the problems with attempting the ultimate classless system in say a majority of continents, or in a sphere of influence? Invasion by neighboring capitalist states?

Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti

EPUB by Comrade's Library

Cowbee [he/they]May 13, 2025

I think a big point to keep in mind is that both Capitalist and Socialist countries propagandize, but Capitalist countries tend to have much lower support rates despite having a more sophisticated propaganda apparatus. “Brainwashing” doesn’t exist, people’s opinions most closely coincide with what they believe genuinely benefits them. For more on that concept, Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.”

I also don’t know what you mean by “truth going against Socialist values.” Dogmatism isn’t a Socialist value, if something Socialists believe goes against truth, then the Socialist value is to correct course. This is baked-into Marxism from the outset, it’s Marx’s entire modus operandi via Dialectical Materialism.

As for the fact that Communism must be global, no worries! I much prefer to discuss Marxist theory and practice anyways. For starters, you’re absolutely on the right track, remaining Capitalist countries would see lowering rates of profit over time as they monopolize their own resources, and then would seek the resources and potential customers of other countries. The system has this baked-in, leading to war.

There’s also the notion of class. A classless society, truly, requires everyone in a system to have equal ownership over all. Either there is no interaction with the Capitalist bloc whatsoever, in which case war will happen, or there is some degree of trade, in which case the production of commodities for trade will persist and thus classes will continue. It would still be Socialist, but not fully classless, and thus contradictions would persist and it would be the job of the proletariat to resolve them until the commodity form can be abolished altogether.

“Trade” still exists in Communism, kind of, just not the kind of commodity exchange likely to happen with Capitalist bloc countries. See what the PRC looks like as an example, in order to participate in the world economy, it has to engage in its own degree of private ownership and commodity production. It’s still Socialist, but certainly isn’t the future state of Communism.

Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing”

I’ve become very skeptical of the concept of “brainwashing.” Over the past few months this skepticism has boiled over into open and explicit disagreement with even well-meaning pushers within the Marxist-Leninist corner. I often find it difficult to explain concisely why it is…

WhatsTheHoldup May 13, 2025

(I’m sorry I keep pestering you with questions, I just keep typing)

“Brainwashing” doesn’t exist, people’s opinions most closely coincide with what they believe genuinely benefits them. For more on that concept, Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.”

I can read that, but I assumed it was understood I wasn’t talking about literal brainwashing but simply the fact that propaganda is effective.

I think the fact we’re in agreement the system needs to go regardless of opinion polls so this is sort of a moot point.

I also don’t know what you mean by “truth going against Socialist values.” Dogmatism isn’t a Socialist value, if something Socialists believe goes against truth, then the Socialist value is to correct course. This is baked-into Marxism from the outset, it’s Marx’s entire modus operandi via Dialectical Materialism.

I mean that interactions between humans can not fully be understood through ideological motivations alone, but there are more basic ones like human greed, laziness, or incompetence that can find their way into even the most good faith movements.

Looking at the ideology of Jesus and then looking at the Catholic Church tells me ideology alone is not enough, but that accountability and anti corruption measures need to be formalized as legal processes into the state as long as it’s a seat of power.

The ideology itself may promote Dialectical Materialism, but does the bureaucracy/system have mechanisms to produce accountability?

If moderators meant to inspect would be scientific publications or books grow bored, lazy, incompetant or corrupt, they might end up censoring something that is needed for the next transition and according to the principles of Dialectical Materialism could become a new conflict (between state Socialist bureaucrats and developing classless communists) that requires a new theory to progress beyond.

I’m not intending to unfairly critique socialism, corruption and conflict is a problem for all existent governments and states.

In Western democracies “freedom of the press” is intended to be a counterbalance against this type of tyranny of the government.

While Communist democracies may have recognized the susceptibility of the “free press” to being bought up by capitalists and turned into a propaganda arm, and so has put limitations on it, it’s also removed the check against tyranny of the government. I’m not sure what its replaced it with?

If people are intended to vote out corrupt governments, that relationship breaks down if the corrupt government has sole control over the narratives. You’d be relying on the government to accurately report on its own corruption to be properly informed and that seems problematic, and could potentially be a sticking point on the further transition.

For starters, you’re absolutely on the right track, remaining Capitalist countries would see lowering rates of profit over time as they monopolize their own resources, and then would seek the resources and potential customers of other countries. The system has this baked-in, leading to war.

Is this just inevitable then? That seems like it’s the trajectory of capitalism anyway.

If so, all a Socialist country would have to do is hold on long enough for late stage capitalism to come to roost. Then they’re outproducing the capitalists, and if the capitalists decide to wage a war its too late. They don’t have the production.

The US is burning all its bridges, tarrifing itself for no explainable reason, and making enemies out of allies while China, they are leading the green revolution and are capable of acknowledging climate change.

China is investing in the correct places for the future. I don’t even know if the US could win a war against them today, let alone tomorrow.

Also are there any people who’ve addressed the unique need for nuclear dearmament in these late term stages? That seems to be a complicated problem.

Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing”

I’ve become very skeptical of the concept of “brainwashing.” Over the past few months this skepticism has boiled over into open and explicit disagreement with even well-meaning pushers within the Marxist-Leninist corner. I often find it difficult to explain concisely why it is…

Cowbee [he/they]May 13, 2025

The brainwashing bit was a “if you want to learn more,” not critical to my point.

I think when you focus too much on ideology, you are missing the core reasons why humans behave the way they do, chiefly material conditions. Human actions are more based on their surroundings than any innate human “greed,” same with ideology. I think, ultimately, you are taking too much of an “ideas-focused” view of human history, which Materialists would reject. I suggest you read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. The Mode of Production is dominant over ideological concerns. Ideology may reinforce the Mode of Production, but ideas are formed through experiencing the real world, not random phantasms beamed to your head.

In Western democracies “freedom of the press” is intended to be a counterbalance against this type of tyranny of the government.

No offense, but this is wrong. The intention is to give wealthy Capitalists dictatorial control over media, and it is working as intended. The justification for the working class is to “protect against government tyranny,” but the government in Capitalism is also subservient to Capitalists. They aren’t opposed, the system is working as intended.

While Communist democracies may have recognized the susceptibility of the “free press” to being bought up by capitalists and turned into a propaganda arm, and so has put limitations on it, it’s also removed the check against tyranny of the government. I’m not sure what its replaced it with?

Socialist systems are more comprehensively democratic than Capitalist ones. The “free press” in Capitalism is Capitalist press, bought by Capitalists. State press in Capitalism is still Capitalist press, as the State is bought by Capitalists. There are no checks. Press in Socialist countries may have controls, but this also protects against rampant misinformation, such as the “Lab Leak” nonsense or COVID denialism.

As far as “voting out corruption,” easier to do in Socialism than Capitalism, where corruption is the rule. Socialist countries must keep the mandate of the people, or else face unrest and instabilitt, the government has to do its best to uphold that.

Is this just inevitable then? That seems like it’s the trajectory of capitalism anyway.

Not quite. Nuclear war, Capitalism winning war, climate change, and more could stop it. Even then, it must still be overthrown, is isn’t a won game. Trajectory is on our side, but we cannot be complacent.

so, all a Socialist country would have to do is hold on long enough for late stage capitalism to come to roost. Then they’re outproducing the capitalists, and if the capitalists decide to wage a war its too late. They don’t have the production.

See China’s strategy, and why it has focused on developing the Global South, as a means to both gain customers and ween itself off of needing US investment. They learned from what led to the collapse of the USSR. The US offshored its production, relying on Imperialism, and now this is weakening as more countries pivot away from it.

The US is burning all its bridges, tarrifing itself for no explainable reason, and making enemies out of allies while China, they are leading the green revolution and are capable of acknowledging climate change.

Spot-on. The US is flailing to save itself from the trap it willingly walked into.

China is investing in the correct places for the future. I don’t even know if the US could win a war against them today, let alone tomorrow.

Probably not today, unless it went nuclear. Then everyone would lose. China’s long-term plan is because of its Socialist system.

Also are there any people who’ve addressed the unique need for nuclear dearmament in these late term stages? That seems to be a complicated problem.

Impossible without demolishing Imperialism, as the primary contradiction in the world today, and possibly impossible until the erasure of borders into one global system, IMO.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

WhatsTheHoldup May 13, 2025

As for that one particular CNN article, I question it highly. Either the quality or quantity of the event is highly distorted, or important facts are obscured. This is the standard play, CNN is a propaganda outlet and the US has approved 1.6 billion dollars exclusively for anti-PRC propaganda.

Sorry missed this one part.

Yeah in a vacuum I definitely disagree with this, but to some extent it feels somewhat similar to the usage of chemical weapons in WWI.

If one side is gonna use it, it’s just the world we live in that everyone is going to try to use it.

We act more or less peaceful face to face, only choosing to fight each other through proxy wars, but Israel, the US, China, Russia… everyone appears to be actively fighting an information war online, hacking and spying on everyone else with no remorse.

It seems at this point the only way to stop it would be to come to international agreement it’s off the limit for everyone and jointly sanction whoever is caught doing it, but I think we all know that’s never going to happen.

The information war is simply bad for democracies with freedom of speech and just not bad at all for authoritarian governments who censor vast swathes of the information their citizens have access to.

I’ve met more with Xi Jinping than any other world leader has. When he called me to congratulate me on Election Night, he said to me what he said many times before," the president said on Friday. “He said democracies cannot be sustained in the 21st century, autocracies will run the world. Why? Things are changing so rapidly. Democracies require consensus, and it takes time, and you don’t have the time.”

newsweek.com/joe-biden-naval-academy-speech-china…

House passes $1.6 billion to deliver anti-China propaganda overseas

Somehow it’s a crime when Russia does it to us, but good 'information ops' when we want to discredit Beijing’s Belt & Road initiatives worldwide

Responsible Statecraft

Cowbee [he/they]May 13, 2025

Considering international systems are currently dominated by the US Empire, any agreement, no matter how good it sounds, is going to be passed for the benefit of maintainin that Empire. Considering the people of China love their system despite feeling it has a lot of work to be done, and the people of the US hate its own system, there is a clear difference in effectiveness.

As for Joe Biden’s deliberate misquoting of Xi Jinping, you need to realize what Xi actually said. It’s no surprise that a genocidal Imperialist like Joe Biden would lie, but to take his lie at face value, rather than Xi’s own words on the subject and the people of China who view their system as democratic at higher rates than US citizens, is silly.

Xi was criticizing the Western, liberal conception of democracy, not democracy in general. Biden took that critique of western “democracy” and left it as a critique of democracy itself, despite Xi routinely expressing motive to improve democracy. Read the speech Democracy is not an Ornament by Xi Jinping to see what he means. He is specifically advocating for the Chinese democratic model, which has much higher rates of civilian satisfaction than Western models.

Democracy is Not an Ornament

Democracy is a common value of humanity and an ideal that has always been cherished by the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people. Over the past hundred years, the Party has led the people in realizing people’s democracy in China. The Chinese people now truly hold in…

Dessalines May 5, 2025

Western supremacists tend to use “Authoritarian” only to demonize the countries that stood up and fought back against colonialism / imperialism.

And it usually is never directed against the actually non-democratic / oligarchical countries like the US, who’ve bombed and meddled with nearly every government on the planet.

You should question your preconceived notions about China, Vietnam, Cuba, and the USSR, because you likely grew up in a country that has spent the entire historical period of the cold war, trying to strangle those countries and many others out of existence.

essays/us_atrocities.md at main · dessalines/essays

A few essays on communism. Contribute to dessalines/essays development by creating an account on GitHub.

GitHub

mamotromico May 6, 2025

I swear dessalines has some kind of custom alert setup for whenever someone mentions “authoritarian”

Fucking love it

davel May 5, 2025

“Authoritarianism” is when the imperial core’s freedom to exploit the periphery is thwarted.

Imperial core

The Imperial core, also known as the First World or Western world, is a term which refers to imperialist countries which have historically benefited from unequal...

ProleWiki

MarxMadness May 5, 2025

o7

Cowbee [he/they]May 5, 2025

o7