I met a white American guy that lives in China over the weekend, he was awesome. No real story about it, yes he said he can speak mandarin and he had the friggin cutest little half Chinese baby with his wife. Shoutout Paul
Obviously China is going to look bad if you consider western liberal democracy and free market capitalism to be objectively good things and have them as the standards by which you judge the political-economic systems of global south countries.
If you’re judging China based on how similar it is to Western European countries then you’re not going to like it.
Literally any country that enforces its laws is “authoritarian”. It doesn’t mean anything.
The US has set the bar pretty low. It would take tremendous effort to look worse than USA under Trump extremist leadership.
Removed by mod
Xi Jinping is on his third five-year term as China’s president.
I’m not even gonna say anything bad about that, upvote or downvote as you please, and don’t forget to put words in my mouth for the sake of your argument while you’re at it.
Just wait until you find out about the Supreme Court and how long their terms last.
Merkel was chancellor for 16 years. Menzies prime minister.
Not the best examples of decency.
Why bring it up, specifically?
They think this means “China spooky cuz evil (racist cartoon bear comparison) man is scary and evil!” Because, like the image presents, they have a paper thin understanding of politics. In their brain it is simply deliberate misunderstanding because they’re racist and think long time president = bad and that’s it.
Sounds about right.
Should anyone rule for 15 years? Objectively speaking, in your personal utopian vision for a perfect government, checks, balances, etc and so forth?
Utopian vision for a perfect government
I didn’t think you understand the people you’re talking to nearly as well as you think
Should anyone rule for 15 years?
Why not? What’s the difference?
Objectively speaking, in your personal utopian vision for a perfect government, checks, balances, etc and so forth?
Have these ‘checks and balances’ been helpful in reining in the most malicious polity in the world? Or have they only served to preserve the status quo?
If people want someone to keep doing the job they are doing, because they are doing a great job, then yes! Also, as communists, we aren’t utopians. The older socialism of the Owenites and so forth was Utopian in that they focused on creating Utopian models and copying them. Marx brought a scientific approach to socialism.
Don’t care how long they are as long as they are representing the interests of the proletariat, which is me and you and the farmers and industrial workers all around me etc. Then, when they’re too old to properly administrate, we have delegation/elections. Yknow, a thing called democracy? I’m American so I’ll give you the benefit of doubt that you also have never experienced a democratic system that was built with common people in mind, instead a corrupt false corporate lobbyist war machine that you (and i) have no choice but to feed. If someone were to prevent that, I’d let em be president for a fuckin 100 years
deleted by creator
Who else is turning deserts into forests?
It’s pretty great in terms of improving its people’s livelihoods and not invading anybody. Unlike your empire.
deleted by creator
some peoples livelihoods
The vast majority.
I’m sure the Uighurs aren’t feeling the benefit.
Ah. I have Saddam’s WMD to sell you.
You uncritically believe your empire’s propaganda, even after years of failing to produce evidence for its accusations.Other people are not obligated to believe Zenz on his word the way you do.
And what empire are we talking here? 😅
The one you are spreading propaganda for, the most prolific invader in the world - NATO.
“The vague, non-specific oppression of Uyghurs for no reason” is just “Saddam Hussein’s WMDs” for a new era
lol you’re so clearly left to fascism if you can’t identify the us empire and its eu vassals
Umm I’m a woke lefty but China still isn’t great.
Why not? As a “woke lefty” China is pretty great in my opinion.
deleted by creator
Regarding the vocational schools in Xinjiang, framing them as “concentration camps” is ludicrous. Western allegations of genocide didn’t stick due to lack of evidence, and as such the west turned to vague allegations of “human rights abuses.” These allegations are largely dramatized and exaggerated, but still, you can start to put together the lack of credibility. That’s not enough, though, to dismiss. Where did they come from? And why?
Prior to the establishment of de-radicalization programs, western-backed terrorist attacks were common, in order to disrupt the Belt and Road initiative (where Xinjiang is key to expanding westward). These included:
-
July 5, 2009: The Urumqi Riots resulted in 197 deaths, and 1700 wounded in mass stabbings.
-
October 28, 2013: Tian’anmen Attack, 5 killed, 40 wouded, when a Jeep was driven directly into crowds.
-
March 1, 2014: Kunming Train Station Attack, 31 killed, 141 wounded. 8 jihadists committed mass stabbings.
-
May 22, 2014: Urumqi Attack, 39 killed, 94 injured as 2 attackers drove cars into crowds and threw explosives at buildings.
And many more. Since the de-radicalization efforts, these attacks have gone down to effectively 0. The reason for these attacks was because Xinjiang is geostrategic for the Belt and Road initiative, which is why the west stoked anti-China sentiment among the Uyghur peoples, funding terrorist groups and separatists. When China responded not with tanks and bombs but with vocational centers and investment in the region, the west pivoted to claims of “genocide,” then walked those claims back to “human rights abuses” when no evidence for genocide materialized.
I recommend reading the UN report as well as (especially) China’s response to it, which eclipses it in size and detail. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, Christian nationalist and professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.
Qiao Collective also has Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation as well. This is my personal recommendation for a Chinese Marxist perspective.
“General authoritarianism” is a nonsense claim. All states are monopolies on violence. What matters is which class controls the state, not if this or that state has power, as they all do. In China, the proletariat is the ruling class, and they use this authority to direct production and distribution towards pro-social ends. This is because China is a socialist country.
Regarding “tanks running over folk while their out doing their shopping,” this is also nonsense and have no idea what you’re trying to get at. Same with the idea that Chinese citizens cannot watch Winnie the Pooh, he’s an incredibly popular character and is sold everywhere. What was censored were racist caricatures of Xi Jinping.
All in all, it’s abundantly clear just how little you actually understand about China. If you consider yourself on the left, you owe it to yourself to stop regurgitating nonsense about a rising socialist state and instead get to seek truth from facts, so as to not play the role of a convenient fool for western capital.
-
Uighur concentration camps
Can you provide a source to read further into that? Preferably one that isn’t sourcing from Zenz or from RFA (which in turn sources random tweets / “anonymous sources”).
general authoritarianism
What kind of authoritarianism do people in China experience that isn’t done by western governments, either directly or offloaded to the market?
tanks running over folk while their out doing their shopping
How come no photos or videos from one of the most surveilled place of those supposed tanks running over folk has been published to this date? Meanwhile we have hundreds of hours of footage of Palestinians in Gaza filming and publishing them getting genocided on the internet, and that is with Israel having complete control over their infrastructure, including internet access.
not being able to enjoy the antics of Winnie the Pooh
I don’t think many Chinese people would appreciate being called yellow.
not being able to enjoy the antics of Winnie the Pooh.
Winnie the pooh isn’t banned? Outside of Shanghai Disney having an entire Winnie the pooh themed area go to any miniso and there’s literally hundreds of Winnie the pooh plushies and other branded stuff.
Lol this is like a young child describing what they think happens at the dentists office, just full on idiot horror fiction
“Winnie the Pooh”
ITT: “western leftist” proves their racist brainworm still alive and well. more at eight.
deleted by creator
you just claimed to be a “woke lefty”, and tho i won’t claim you can’t be from the global south if you say so but currently i’m leaning on you being this
So straight up conservative?
When you believe truth is only dependent on who says it (west=lies, not west=truth) you start believing nonsense like china has not flaws, or events with verifiable footage (1989 TS) are exaggerations/a western lies.
deleted by creator
Your strategy of pretending communists merely think west=lies and not west=truth, and of pretending communists believe China has no flaws, is unfortunately a common mischaracterization of communist analysis of China. The truth is that communists have a materialist analysis of China, one that focuses on the class chacter of Chinese society as a socialist state, and that common western allegations against China are simply wrong. Nobody thinks China has literally 0 flaws, just that the average western perception of China is wrong.
How familiar are you with dialectical materialism, and Marxism-Leninism? How familiar are you with socialist theory, history, and practice? The ways we evaluate and understand China are shaped largely by our understanding of these subjects. The fact that communists identify western imperialism as the primary obstacle to socialism globally, and therefore have a heightened sensitivity to western misinformation, does not actually mean we think the west only tells lies while the non-west only tells the truth.
As for Tian’anmen Square, there’s literally no evidence of the western-alleged student massacre of 10,000 on the square. Even Wikipedia now agrees with the official story that it was dispersed peacefully. What communists do not deny and in fact assert is that hundreds died on June 4th, 1989, in areas in Beijing surrounding the square. There’s video and photo evidence of this, not of some massacre on the square.
This is actually an excellent example of western distortions of the truth.
I don’t know those terms tbh because Im just some pleb. i would welcome some simple explanation of it.
Wikipedia asserts “300 to 2700” dead, with the CCP asserted toll (according to wikipedia) being 241. That isn’t a peaceful dispersion, and, while not 10,000 people, is still a massacre.
I just don’t understand how events like this doesn’t substantially taint your image of them, in the same sense the stolen generation policies (for my country, Australia) are massive stains on my countries’ histories that we havent fully contented with.
But trying to relate it to what I my original comment, I worry about denials of mistakes that countries have made, results in failing to see their current mistakes. In particular aswell, seeing what would normally be considered a grave immoraility, to be seen in a much more positive light because its anti western imperialism.
What I am saying aswell, is this also distorts the truth of events or facts, in a similar manner to an average western citizen’s truth because of their aversion to china.
I’ll start off with a brief explanation of Marxism-Leninism, socialism, and communism.
Marxism is an ideological framework centering the Marxist Law of Value (derived from earlier labor theories of value), the philosophy of dialectical materialism, and the application of each to analysis of history and society in the form of scientific socialism. Lenin carried Marx’s critique to the era of imperialism, where bank and industrial capital merged to form monopoly capitalism that exploits the world through export of capital, rather than simple sale of commodities, as well as advancements in organizational theory and the theory of nations. This forms Marxism-Leninism.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution by which public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, ie dominant and rising, and the working classes control the state. This is a pre-communist formation. Communism is the global end result of socialism, when all production and distribution has been collectivized, and therefore class, the state, and money become superfluous and die away. Administration and central planning remain.
The Marxist view of economics asserts that private property has a tendency to stitch together production first nationally, and then internationally, creating an interconnected and centralized system. Socialism advances upon this by controlling the direction of production and the distribution of its gains collectively, rather than privately, essentially turning humans into the masters of production, rather than capital, for the benefit of the collective, rather than profits for the few.
For more, see this basic Marxist-Leninist study guide I put together. The first section is really all you need to get a brief overview.
The “300-2700 dead” figure is for the hundreds I said died in the areas surrounding the square, not the square itself. Here’s the Wikipedia section, copied and pasted directly:
Deaths around and in Tiananmen Square itself
Government officials have long asserted that no one died in the square in the early morning hours of 4 June, during the “hold-out” of students’ last batch in the south part of the square. Initially, foreign media reports of a “massacre” on the square were prevalent, though subsequently, journalists have acknowledged that most of the deaths occurred outside of the square in western Beijing. Several people who were situated around the square that night, including former Beijing bureau chief of The Washington Post Jay Mathews[i] and CBS correspondent Richard Roth[j] reported that while they had heard sporadic gunfire, they could not find enough evidence to suggest that a massacre took place on the square.
Student leader Chai Ling claimed in a speech broadcast on Hong Kong television that she witnessed tanks arrive at the square and crush students who were sleeping in their tents, and added that between 200 and 400 students died at the square.[268] Ling was joined by fellow student leader Wu’er Kaixi who said he had witnessed 200 students being cut down by gunfire; however, according to Mathews, it was later proven that he had already left the square several hours before the events he claimed to have happened.[211] Taiwan-born Hou Dejian was present in the square to show solidarity with the students and said that he did not see any massacre occurring in the square. He was quoted by Xiaoping Li, a former China dissident to have stated: “Some people said 200 died in the square, and others claimed that as many as 2,000 died. There were also stories of tanks running over students who were trying to leave. I have to say I did not see any of that. I was in the square until 6:30 in the morning.”[269]
In 2009, human rights activist Robin Munro, stated that he was present during the clearance of Tiananmen Square and that, according to his account, there were ten Western reporters near the Monument to the People’s Heroes at the time. He also reported a Spanish television crew that recorded footage of the event. Munro disputed Wu’er Kaixi’s claims of mass killings inside the square, stating that he did not witness fighting there and instead observed students peacefully complying with the soldiers’ demands to leave the square in an orderly manner. He further noted that the Spanish TV crew reported not seeing killings within the square during the final clearance.[270][271]
In 2011, three secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing from the time of the events were leaked and published by WikiLeaks, all of which stated that there was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square itself.[194] Instead, they said Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters in Beijing outside the square, around Muxidi station, as they fought their way from the west towards the centre.[194] A Chilean diplomat who had been positioned next to a Red Cross station inside the square told his US counterparts that he did not observe any mass firing of weapons into the crowds in the square itself, although sporadic gunfire was heard. He said that most of the troops who entered the square were armed only with anti-riot gear.[194][216]
The west makes the claim that thousands were killed directly in the square, the peaceful protestors massacred. What actually happened is that rioters that were lynching PLA members engaged the PLA in surrounding areas, leading to hundreds of deaths of rioters and dozens of PLA members killed. There was no “Tian’anmen Square Massacre,” there were many riots outside of Tian’anmen Square that were violently suppressed. The west presents a fictionalized, dramatized account of tanks rolling over innocent students that simply never happened.
As for how it changes how I view China, it’s a deep tragedy. When Communists begin to analyze the June 4th incident, as it’s referred to in China, we begin with the class background. What caused the protests? It was largely sparked by 2 main groups: urban students upset that the peasantry was being prioritized in development by economic reforms made by Deng Xiaoping, and by those supportive of the economic line of the Gang of Four, who wanted a more dogmatically planned economy.
Within this was the deliberate influence of the CIA, who made contact with the leaders of the student protests. The students largely hated the workers that were protesting, and wanted liberalization. The workers were upset that the reforms increased marketization. They were not unified, and eventually the workers left, leaving the students. The student leaders then admitted to wanting the state to crush the protests violently, so as to turn the people against the socialist system.
In this context, it was a clear color revolt attempt, with far more blood shed than there would have been without the west’s involvement. It was good that the socialist state remained, considering the immense gains made by socialism, and it was good that the CIA did not succeed in overturning socialism. It was tragic that hundreds lost their lives. See Another View of Tian’anmen by Sun Feiyang for more.
What gets ignored by western media is that Taiwan had their own massacre. The Kuomintang murdered 10,000+ native people upon taking over Taiwan in an event called the White Terror. The Republic of Korea also murdered thousands in many massacres, such as the 1979 Gwangju Massacre against a pro-democracy movement protesting the South Korean dictatorship under Chun Do-Hwan. These events eclipse 1989 in scale, but are virtually unknown in the west due to being geopolitical allies.
This is what we communists are pointing out. We begin with class analysis, analyze the causes and effects historically from a materialist basis, and go from there. We point out the double-standards and seek truth from facts.
Hope that made sense!
Thanks for the write up. I’ll have a look at the sources you sent
No worries! Feel free to ask any questions you may have. I’ll answer to the best of my abilities.
Hi Cowbee, I see your posts on here often and appreciate your patience and thoroughly explained takes. I am curious your take on another issue tangentially related to this.
I understand a lot of the appeal of China from a leftist perspective, but one of the things I struggle most with is their imperial ambitions with regard to Taiwan. This is less based on us propaganda and more based on a few trips I have made there and friends who live there, who frequently express concern over a Chinese functional takeover. When I last talked with them, as far as that got was China functionally sponsoring political campaigns for Taiwanese candidates who agreed to campaign on unification with China. Even with the financial backing, these candidates are still consistently voted down by the Taiwanese people, a clear statement to me about their lack of desire to be part of China. As it is, I would view any effort to make Taiwan part of China as against the will of the Taiwanese people and view China as dabbling with imperialism here, which is obviously not aligned with leftist values.
Bonus second question, the most common refrain I hear from liberals about China is regarding the Uyghur genocide. I don’t know very much about this so struggle to make any effective counterpoint beyond pointing out US genocides over the years. Is your opinion that this is all propaganda and doesn’t happen? Or just overblown? Or what?
Good questions! I’ll try to give a brief overview, and then link some resources I think are good.
Regarding Taiwan, it’s important to understand what constitutes imperialism. Imperialism is a form of international extraction, driven by export of capital. It’s a form of financial domination and super-exploitation of foreign countries. The desire for reunification is not imperialist on China’s part, but driven by a desire for full and complete restoration of sovereignty, which was broken by colonization from the west and Japan.
After the Kuomintang lost the Chinese Civil War, they fled to Taiwan, and committed the aforementioned White Terror against those resisting the new rule of the nationalists. Following this, the US Empire has used Taiwan as a staging ground for encircling China, same as the Republic of Korea and Japan. Taiwan was broken off of China through colonialism, like Hong Kong, and historically is the result of unresolved conflicts from the Civil War and from the US encircling it.
You are correct that reunification is unpopular. So too, however, is full independence. The status quo is what’s supported. The CPC has made it clear that it has no intention of invading Taiwan, but that it reserves the right to respond to millitary attacks if the US uses Taiwan the way the US uses Ukraine. It is the belief of the mainland that as capitalism and imperialism falter, Taiwan will be economically compelled to rejoin the mainland of their own volition. The mainland is therefore fine to wait until this happens and has no intention of irrationally forcing it.
For further reading, see Taiwan: An Anti-Imperialist Resource from Qiao Collective, a group of Chinese diaspora connecting Chinese leftists to a western audience. It’s a Chinese Marxist-Leninist perspective, one that is not as easy to come by in the west.
Now, for Xinjiang. The short answer is that the allegations of genocide didn’t stick due to lack of evidence, and as such the west turned to vague allegations of “human rights abuses.” These allegations are largely dramatized and exaggerated, but still, you can start to put together the lack of credibility. That’s not enough, though, to dismiss. Where did they come from? And why?
Prior to the establishment of de-radicalization programs, western-backed terrorist attacks were common, in order to disrupt the Belt and Road initiative (where Xinjiang is key to expanding westward). These included:
-
July 5, 2009: The Urumqi Riots resulted in 197 deaths, and 1700 wounded in mass stabbings.
-
October 28, 2013: Tian’anmen Attack, 5 killed, 40 wouded, when a Jeep was driven directly into crowds.
-
March 1, 2014: Kunming Train Station Attack, 31 killed, 141 wounded. 8 jihadists committed mass stabbings.
-
May 22, 2014: Urumqi Attack, 39 killed, 94 injured as 2 attackers drove cars into crowds and threw explosives at buildings.
And many more. Since the de-radicalization efforts, these attacks have gone down to effectively 0. The reason for these attacks was because Xinjiang is geostrategic for the Belt and Road initiative, which is why the west stoked anti-China sentiment among the Uyghur peoples, funding terrorist groups and separatists. When China responded not with tanks and bombs but with vocational centers and investment in the region, the west pivoted to claims of “genocide,” then walked those claims back to “human rights abuses” when no evidence for genocide materialized.
I recommend reading the UN report as well as (especially) China’s response to it, which eclipses it in size and detail. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, Christian nationalist and professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.
The aforementioned Qiao Collective also has Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation as well. This is my personal recommendation for, again, a Chinese Marxist perspective.
Hope that helps give a brief overview and a place to start your research!
Thank you, as always, for the thorough response. I’ll start with these links you sent for reading
Glad to help!
-
Events with verifiable footage such as TS where the footage is conveniently cut off right before the man in front of the tank is safely escorted away if you look at the full footage.
Also, Tiananmen Square is in the background of said footage. The tank is actively driving away from it, but who needs context when the goal is to demonize China?
Can you share this footage?
My app doesn’t allow that, but I’m sure you can find it on Youtube if you type “tank man full footage” with people in the comments completely talking out of their asses about how the tank man is so brave for resisting the Chinese government when in fact the tanks were driving away from the square and also didn’t run him over which is often implied.
Would technically also, and indeed commonly go the other direction, but please .ml, stop navigating the world based soley on whether the west supports/is against something
please .ml, stop navigating the world based soley on whether the west supports/is against something
Yeah that’s not what we’re doing; it’s what you imagine we’re doing.
Name one major western critic of china you agree with.
I’ll name a critic of the US: the cuba embargo for the past 70 has been a major disaster, and any deaths from economic collapse isnt due to cuba’s socialism, it is instead because of the US.
Do that, I’ll be far more willing to believe you.
China’s support of the Khmer Rouge was shameful.
Name one major western criticism of China you don’t agree with.
I think they aren’t the aggressor in the China/USA relationship. The US is in their “backyard” and has clearly surrounded them, and China is naturally nervous about it
(This is more of a train of thought, and is not intended to roast or provoke a response)
When you consider who the aggressor is, and then consider that the aggressor has spent a century building the most enormous and sophisticated propaganda machine in human history, you can begin to see why, for someone born into that machine like you or me, who get virtually no real information about these Designated Enemy countries, someone supporting them might just look like someone supporting “the bad guys” for no understandable reason. Of course our media isn’t going to show us any reason why anyone would support China, because they want us to support the Epstein Empire instead.
So for those of us who grew up in that bubble, supporting The Enemy is just made to look like some kind of insanity, like “oh these poor people just snapped out of hatred for capitalism, and now they support something even worse.” Of course, in reality there is nothing worse than what our countries (i am assuming you’re western here) are doing and have done. The standard liberal outlook on other countries is that we have good or at least understandable reasons to do the horrible things we do, but our exes, all those countries we’ve exploited and invaded? Don’t talk to them, they’re crazy. Don’t even listen to anyone who likes them, they’re crazy and liars and paid and we may be bad but everyone else is worse, trust me.
