EngineXIts not looking good..
why is china the bad guy?
Cowbee [he/they]Europe has convinced itself that Russia and China are existential threats to the EU, largely due to the EU’s status as vassals in the US Empire. The US Empire has been demoting the EU from vassal to periphery, though, so now they are caught between increasing tensions with the US Empire and their own historical hatred of Russia and China.
Starmer’s visit to Beijing makes it seem fairly clear that the European bourgeoisie at least wishes to normalize more with the PRC.
Yep, we’ll see soon how the tides change.
unrelated: just finished “state and revolution.” liked it a lot, was able to let it sink in. thoughts on next?!
That’s great! Consider checking out the Marxist-Leninist reading list I made! State and Rev is fantastic, but is that your first work of Marxist theory, or just the latest? What are you interested in?
Read Theory, Darn it! An Introductory Reading List for Marxism-Leninism - Lemmy
“Without Revolutionary theory, there can be no Revolutionary Movement.” — Vladimir Lenin, What is to be Done? [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/WD02.html] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/seGAATanGtfufEkQoLH1X3] It’s time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, “Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle.” Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/CPM13.html]: | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/8yUvkgJ4m5ZHPdESAyjg8k] 1. Dialectical and Historical Materialism 2. Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx’s Law of Value 3. Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let’s get started! Section I: Getting Started What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism? 1. Friedrich Engels’ Principles of Communism [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/PC47.html] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/8JtpMuYQ6Ho6gzYtLLuL4k] The FAQ of Communism, written by the Luigi of the Marx & Engels duo. Quick to read, and easy to reference, this is the perfect start to your journey. 2. Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds [https://c.encryptionin.space/epubs/blackshirts-and-reds/] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/uZFGgeJsE4bHHBTd1m3eFK] Parenti’s characteristic wit is on full display in this historical contextualization and analysis of fascism and Communism. Line after line, Parenti debunks anti-Communist myths. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous “Yellow Parenti” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP8CzlFhc14] speech. Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism Ugh, philosophy? Really? YES! 3. Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy [https://c.encryptionin.space/epubs/elementary-principles-of-philosophy/] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/wv44hU6NjoLgn6yrnXBQjc] By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don’t be intimidated! 4. Friedrich Engels’ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/SUS80.html] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/nhVVanPX5WPVor7Yy7TDrp?start=3h13m40s] Engels introduces Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates and cartels. Section III: Political Economy That’s right, it’s time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it’s mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws. 5. Karl Marx’s Wage Labor and Capital [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/WLC47.html] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/nhVVanPX5WPVor7Yy7TDrp?start=1h35m58s] & Wages, Price and Profit [http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/WPP65.html] | Audiobook [https://youtube.com/watch?v=TjhVZW3HJzM] Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value. 6. Vladimir Lenin’s Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/IMP16.html] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/8STrUAEfwiFGRFcRsSNqtv] The era of Imperialism, which as the primary contradiction cascades downward into all manner of related secondary contradictions. Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state? 7. Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution [https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/k5tp58hyGPpTRUtpB79Kra] If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn’t. 8. Vladimir Lenin’s The State and Revolution [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR17.html] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/6M8bL2HGs5rGXmvThU1JG5] Further analyzes the necessity of Revolution and introduces the economic basis for the withering away of the State. Section V: National Liberation, De-colonialism, and Solidarity The revolution will not be fought by individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Solidarity allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a single broad movement. Marxists support the Right of Self-Determination for all peoples and support National Liberation movements against Imperialism. 9. Vikky Storm & Eme Flores’ The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vikky-storm-the-gender-accelerationist-manifesto] | (No Audiobook yet) Breaks down misogyny, and queerphobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of “gender” from a Historical Materialist perspective. 10. Leslie Feinberg’s Lavender & Red [https://www.workers.org/book/lavender-red/] | Audiobook [https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXUFLW8t2snsEPC7kkMKkZf-45FrnJTO7] When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, they are emboldened and empowered ever-further. 11. Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth [https://archive.org/details/the-wretched-of-the-earth] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/p/f3tK7UC2HAK1WLUNg4yVen] & Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed [https://archive.org/details/FreirePedagogyOfTheOppresed] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/koxxesz38QPVKaAFr8iVTF] De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor justice. These books are best taken as a pair, read in quick succession. Section VI: Putting it into Practice! It’s not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass! 12. Mao Tse-Tung’s On Practice [http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/OP37.html] & On Contradiction [http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/OC37.html] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/qnzYg56huhwgKYk9Py3mcR] Mao wrote simply and directly to peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice. 13. Vladimir Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html] | Audiobook [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh84f8czc7g] Common among new leftists is dogmatism over pragmatism. Everyone wants perfection, but dogmatic “left” anti-Communists let perfection become the enemy of progress. 14. Jones Manoel’s Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, But Not Real Revolution [https://blackagendareport.com/western-marxism-loves-purity-and-martyrdom-not-real-revolution] | (No Audiobook yet) Common among western leftists is fetishization of Marxism, rather than using it as a tool for analysis and social change. This article helps rectify that. 15. Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-shaoqi/1939/how-to-be/index.htm] | Audiobook [https://tankie.tube/w/kzi58GMjH9DzSBqz1eTXVb] Organizing is a skill. If we are to be successful, we must work to better ourselves. Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course! With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice. 1. Get organized. The Party for Socialism and Liberation [https://pslweb.org/], Freedom Road Socialist Organization [https://frso.org/], and Red Star Caucus [https://redstarcaucus.org/] all organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! 2. Read theory. Don’t think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn’t mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don’t speak on it! 3. Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody go forgotten. 4. Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your knowledge. 5. Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. 6. Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. With consistency, every rock, boulder, mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but water droplets. “Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” — Mao Tse-Tung Credits [https://lemmy.ml/comment/15046925]
it’s my latest. thanks for the link! i’ve knocked out most of the prominent marx / engel writing though i want to “finish” capital, and start “the 18th…”
i tend also to read anarchistic theory too. since at least right now that clicks in my brain more too. :)
thanks again!
No problem!
well done, comrade!
Authoritarian capitalistic state?
For all the tankies disagreeing simply ask yourself two questions:
Who owns the means of production in a socialist society?
Who owns the means of production in China?
Everything else follows from there
ZeroHora
QinShiHuangsShlongme when I do liberal reductionism and don’t understand anything Lenin, Chairman Mao or Stalin wrote.
The mental gymnastics you need to go trough trying to defend why being capitalistic is basically anticapitalist when the ruling party has “communist” in their name is telling.
You didn’t read anything I wrote. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Please read a book.
No? You’re trying to say that an economy where public ownership is clearly the principle aspect is actually one where private ownership is principle, and are pretending materialist arguments about the structute of socialism are about what a party is named. Just respond to the actual comment, don’t insult yourself by hiding behind a strawman.
KimBongUn420The German brainpan not can comprehending a popular socialist government
Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy in the PRC, and the working classes control the state. For example, when looking at publicly owned industries, we can see the following:
Even checking Wikipedia, data from 2022 shows that the overwhelming majority of the top companies are publicly owned SOEs. This is China’s strategy, they’ve been honest about it from the beginning. The private sector is about half cooperatives like Huawei or farming cooperarives and sole proprietorships, with the other half being small and medium firms. As these grow, they are folded into the public sector gradually. This is China’s Socialist Market Economy.
As for the state being run by the working classes, this is also pretty straightforward. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, and we can see the class breakdown of the top of the government itself:
Overall, this system has resulted in over 90% of the population approving the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate. If you want to learn more, while not nearly as in-depth due to time limits as Roland Boer’s work (and mostly focused on the Xi Jinping era), Red Pen’s A Summary of Xi Jinping’s Governance of China can be a good primer! There’s also This is how China’s economic model works: Explaining Socialism with Chinese Characteristics by Geopolitical Economy Report.
Good luck trying to state the obvious here, lots of tankies on lemmy.ml (as you can see from the other replies)
A tankie is when people point out you don’t understand what you’re talking about and are just regurgitating talking points and it makes you feel bad.
Come to China I can give you a tour I can translate so you can talk to the locals and you can see we’re humans too not just some brainwashed peasant “untermensch”. You chauvinist loser.
When did I say chinese people arent people? Are you replying to the wrong comment? You sound like you are 14 with your reading skills and going straight to insults.
You are a loser. You don’t view us as independent people who have our own views on our country. You ignore the fact that even western outlets report over 80% of us support the government. But none of that matters to you because we’re just peasants brainwashed by the evil “authoritarians”.
Does lemmy.ml include entirety of China? Because I was only talking about lemmy.ml. Again, you sure you replied to the right comment?
You are defending and agreeing with someone calling China evil and authoritarian capitalist. He is wrong and so are you. No amount of dodging or hiding behind semantics will change the position you chose to defend and that you clearly chose to defend it for chauvinist reasons.
You said I didnt see Chinese people as people, which I never said ever. Are you gonna retract that? Cause you are still wrong.
No because even if you don’t state it openly it’s clearly apparent. You clearly hate China, and we’re all just brainwashed serfs of the ebil gubberment.
Ah okay, so the fabrications of your mind and you prejudice against me are relevant and valid point for you to criticize me. The irony of your comment isnt lost on me
The “fabrications” of you siding with someone calling China evil. China is directed by the people. Reconcile how you don’t hate Chinese people for me.
The government does not represent the people, a country can be evil without its people being evil. Example: the US
Over 80% of us support the government. Are we all brainwashed or are we all evil?
Harvard, among many others. Read what’s been linked.
It wasnt linked. Okay, lets see how the research was conducted “and together with a leading private research and polling company in China” so the questioning wasnt done by havard but this private company that isnt named. It is also only 3000 interviewees, which isnt statistically relevant in a country of over 1 billion people. Even the study found discrepancies between people in the major cities and the country side.
The goal of this research brief, and of the longitudinal survey that informs it, is to address the question of gov- ernment legitimacy in China using the most objective and quantitative methods currently available. Our sur- vey1 contains data from eight separate waves between 2003 and 2016, and records face-to-face interview responses from more than 31,000 individuals in both urban and rural settings. As such, it represents the lon- gest-running independent effort to track citizen ap- proval with all four levels of the Chinese government across time (ranging from the township, to the county, to the provincial, and finally to the central government).
The sample size was over 10 times what you claimed, and it was absolutely statistically relevant. Here’s a neat link on sample sizes, 31,000 is more than plenty. There indeed were discrepancies between the urban and rural, that’s because historically rural areas have been slower to develop than urban areas, and now rural areas are made a priority to close the gap.
The study itself says 31,000. Go to the study itself if you want firm understanding. You also lied about not having any information on how it was gathered, it was also linked. Here’s the full PDF.
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]Page 6 US western capitalist firm.
Edelman is an american capitalist consulting firm no Chinese influence that you’re so scared of (chauvinist). Showing your ass as in you are showing how uneducated you are. English obviously isn’t my first language again you being a fucking chauvinist loser.
Its not my first language either. No links to the actual research or methodology and just name calling, well, I’m done with rolling in the mud with you, have a good day
I directly linked the report? Are you blind as well as an idiotic racist bastard?
QinShiHuangsShlong was clearly explaining how you are utterly mistaken about China. When Chinese tell you that public ownership is principle (ie controls the commanding heights), that the working classes run the state, and an overwhelming number support the CPC, your response is that it’s “stating the obvious” to say otherwise. This stems from a sheer distrust of the words of Chinese people, and is why your comment is chauvanist.
They said I dont see Chinese people as people instead of focusing on the ‘stating the obvious’ part. They literally came up with something I never said to support their point.
When you’re denying China’s system as socialist, despite what Chinese say and the reasons they give, it points to a distrust of Chinese people themselves.
That makes not sense at all, people in China are diverse and numerous with many different opinions and experiences. Don’t just band them together as if they are all the same.
I didn’t, I simply stated that the overwhelming majority of Chinese citizens support their socialist system and consider it as such. Against them, you claim that private ownership is somehow principle despite being relegated to secondary industries and medium/small firms, and claim that the bourgeoisie are in charge of the state despite evidence to the contrary.
On what basis do you believe what you do?
Dont move the goal post. You are trying to prove my comment somehow dehumanizes the entirety of the Chinese population, how does that make sense? When did I say or treat the WHOLE chinese population as less than human with my words?
I’m not moving the goal posts, I’m explaining why your comments are seen as dehumanizing and chauvanist. It’s tied directly to your distrust of statistics coming from China and your distrust of China’s system being what it actually is. If you can give credible evidence supporting your views, then you can clear your name, if you’re just going to say “it’s obvious” then it’s clear that you don’t actually have such evidence, and that it’s likely pure chauvanism.
So if I disagree that China is socialist it automatically means I think Chinese aren’t people? My distrust of the statics is directly tied to the chienese government not the people. It make not make sense to you but it is possible to disagree with the government of a country without dehumanizing its people, I disagree with the government of the USA for example, and often my own country’s.
If you disagree with what the overwhelming majority of Chinese people say about their own system out of your distrust for the Chinese government, and have no credible reasons to do so, then yes, it’s chauvanism and dehumanizes Chinese citizens. It means they can’t think for themselves, in your eyes, and are just “brainwashed” by “evil.”
Explain your views, why isn’t China socialist despite public ownership being principle and the working classes controlling the state?
Does lemmy.ml represent the majority of the Chinese people? Do you? If its statics, that comes from the government, not directly the people. And disagreeing does not dehumanize people, that is such an authoritarian view I can’t even. You disagree with the majority of the western world about China, does that mean you are dehumanizing them?
Western organizations have found that over 90% of the population approve the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate. This isn’t coming from the government, but from western orgs directly asking Chinese people. Further, despite evidence that the government of China isn’t lying about public ownership being principle, and the transparent form of democracy we can view, you still don’t trust the government’s claims either!
I do disagree with what the majority of the west says about a different country that they’ve mythologized for centuries, yes. That’s not dehumanizing the west, it’s acknowledging a different class interest. You’re disagreeing with what Chinese people say about themselves, and are framing it as them being brainwashed into doing so, incapable of thinking for themselves.
Explain your views, why isn’t China socialist despite public ownership being principle and the working classes controlling the state?
That blogsite doesnt have direct links to the sources, do you?
So you can disagree but I can’t, interesting point of view.
Mind you, you have only talked about government approval so far, not perception of the state as socialist or not. But let me entertain you and pretend that is true (even though it is absurd). Lets also pretend that disagreeing with someone (only when it is me, you can apparently) dehumanizes people. 80% of the chinese people believe the country is a socialist country, disagreeing with them constitutes disagreeing with 80% of the country (by your flawed logic), does that me I dehumanized the ENTIRETY of the chinese people?
It does have direct links, like to Harvard here. There’s a major difference with disagreeing with everything the majority of Chinese people say about themselves, and with disagreeing with what the majority of Statesians say about Chinese people. Disagreement itself isn’t wrong, it’s disagreeing with easily verifiable statistics and facts regarding ownership and support.
Nothing about a country with over one billion people with many different ethnicities and continent sized land is easility verifiable.
“The views expressed in the Ash Center Policy Briefs Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard Universi- ty” so okay, not really Havard’s opinion or name behind the study
“While no single survey can adequately address all aspects of satisfaction levels in China, this brief identifies two important yet contrasting findings.” Seems your own article disapproves of being used by itself to form opinions.
“Yet long-term, publicly-available, and nationally-representative surveys in mainland China are so rare that it is difficult to know how ordinary Chinese citizens feel about their government.” Very insteresting “Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread” gotta love when your conclusion needs to mention this.
All in all no details for the actual methodology nor about the so called private company that perfomed the survey (since the institute apparently only created the survey itself).
Well, this is enough for me today, not gonna bother replying futher since you seem to be trying to waste my time and ‘beat’ me by tiring me with nonsense.
Lmao, reducing Jason Hickel, a world rebound economic anthropologist, to ‘just a blogsite’ is hilarious.
Just a quick background from his wiki
Jason Edward Hickel[2] (born 1982) is a Swazi economic anthropologist, academic and democratic eco-socialist.[3] He is a professor at the Institute of Environmental Science & Technology (ICTA-UAB) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona,[4] a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a visiting senior fellow at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics, and was the Chair of Global Justice and the Environment at the University of Oslo.[5] He serves on the Climate and Macroeconomics Roundtable of the US National Academy of Sciences.[6]
GuyIncognitoNot exactly related to the main discussion, but none other than Jeffrey Epstein described the Chinese government, and Xi in particular, as peasants. Said you guys spoke in “fortune cookie language.” It goes without saying that is the highest compliment to be an enemy of such people, so China is clearly doing something right.
China itself just like Chairman Mao is imperfect but I strongly believe the merits out way the wrongs and the real question isn’t is China good or bad but by how much the good out ways the bad e.g. is it 60/40, 70/30, 80/20 etc.
70/30 is the usual split
That’s for Chairman Mao and I would largely agree with that however I meant more for the new China as a whole. China continues to be imperfect but as I said I believe the real debate is the semantics of how far the good outweighs the bad as opposed to are they good or bad currently.