The people before us weren't perfect. Their mistakes are blueprints to learn from and build a better world

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 5 months ago (18 children)

You understand so little you would likely have to unlearn effectively everything you "know" to even approach 0 understanding.

I’m also finding it a little bit suspicious that Chinese people–whom are propping up the USSR–are replying to me.

Fuck you first of all you massively racist fucking loser. You don't get to be suspicious whitey.

For the record, China is still capitalist,

Maybe, if you have no fucking idea what capitalism, socialism or communism actually mean.

Hell, are Chinese people even legally allowed to use Lemmy?

Not understanding the firewall award.

Actual Gulag survivors have told stories about how horrific it was to be in those camps, too.

Gulag archipelago reader award. (A book so terribly it's been disavowed by everyone involved bar the main author)

Chinese cruelty toward the Uyghurs?

Depends do you mean the real issues that occured during the crackdown on ETIM or the Zenz/US state department fantasy.

Or the children working in factories and producing carcinogenic products for Shein for next to no money?

Views stuck decades in the past award.

What about the Tianamen square massacre?

Categorically not a massacre but a clash between violent rioters and the military acting as riot police at the time, also funnily enough none of the violence was actually in the square.

greenwash

I don't think you know what this word means

The West is pretty evil, but let’s not greenwash the USSR or China.

"My country is evil and constantly lies but I also believe everything they say about their ideological enemies"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    How does the firewall work if you don't mind me asking?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Just to clarify given the context do you mean the how as in the actual mechanism or the why it was put in place etc?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Probably how it works. To my understanding it was put in place to keep out western companies and media preying upon people? But I'm honestly very ignorant on most of this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    On how it works:

    It’s effectively an IP/domain/protocol blacklist. So if you break the rules for example by refusing to host Chinese user data on servers in China as is required by law you get out on the list and your site is blocked. Other things blocked are domains commonly used for spam e.g. .ml is blocked by the firewall as it was a free domain commonly used for spam. So I'm using a VPN as all .ml sites are blocked (as far as I'm aware, there might be some who petitioned their way off but I don't know)

    On why it was put in place:

    The firewall was created to foster and protect China’s fledgling digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. Many countries regulate foreign platforms and data flows. China built its own ecosystem instead of depending on foreign companies. We have seen what happens when foreign platforms operate without local oversight: Facebook facilitating genocide in Myanmar, coordinated anti-vax disinformation campaigns in Southeast Asia, algorithm-driven radicalization, etc. The firewall makes those kinds of external influence operations harder or close to impossible to run at scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Thank you for the explanation!

    Does it also keep information from China getting to other places? Or is that more of the corpos and other countries keeping China's news and what not out of Western spaces? I find it very hard to find things out of rare cases like when I was on Red Note for a bit. I wasn't sure if the firewall had anything to do with that or if its more western influences, or a bit of both?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    No the firewall is one-way generally speaking. The fact foreign news agencys need a license to report in China probably doesn't help but it is almost entirely down to the fact that corpos and the countries they own don't actually want to report factual information about China and much prefer NED funded NGOs and but at what cost speculation about whatever China announces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I do agree that we could learn from China, but there's also a damn good reason why their phones are banned in multiple countries.

    Yes, because the US started a trade war with them because they can't compete (in EVs also), and a few of their vassal states followed suit.

    Considering that China is known for its heavy censorship and is in good cahoots with Russia

    Sources on this? The PRC only blocks western surveillance platforms because they're incredibly dangerous to let them loose in your country. They're one of the few countries not naive enough to let facebook and google take over their social media landscape.

    https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/socialism_faq.md#what-about-the-tiananmen-square-massacre

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago

    Selling products is not capitalism by itself. Capitalism is a system where private ownership is the principal aspect, and capitalists control the state. Socialism, on the other hand, is a system where public ownership is principal, and the working classes control the state. The backbone and commanding heights of China's economy are publicly owned, and the working classes control the state, ergo it is socialist.

    Billionaires exist because private property exists, and private property exists because it speeds up development and integrates China with the global economy. This is a tradeoff used to build up the productive forces as quickly as possible, so that the social surplus can be redirected to developing underdeveloped regions, and because developed industry is easier to publicly own and plan. As these private firms grow, they are more tightly controlled and/or folded into the public sector.

    Average working hours in China are 46 hours per week, not 75.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I wrote a more direct reply to this, but I have come to realise that in this situation it would most likely be unproductive. You appear to be a very new leftist of some description: you seem to like the idea of socialism or communism, but you do not yet seem to have a firm grasp of what they actually entail. So instead of arguing point by point, I am going to explain what socialism is, why China has been socialist since 1949, and then add some book and article recommendations so you can begin studying the question more seriously on your own.

    To start, we have to define a term that is commonly used but rarely properly understood: the state. Many people use “the state” and “the government” interchangeably, but this is not accurate. The state is specifically the organised force by which class antagonisms are mediated through the rule of one class over others. The government, on the other hand, broadly refers to the administration, coordination, planning, record-keeping, infrastructure management, public decision-making, and the organisation of social production required by advanced societies. This distinction will be important later.

    Next, it is important to define socialism. Socialism is the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. It still contains many contradictions inherited from capitalism: classes, class struggle, uneven development, commodity production, wages, bureaucracy, ideological struggle, and often limited market mechanisms. Socialism is not “when everything is already communist.” It is the period in which the proletariat holds political power and uses that power to transform society, develop the productive forces, suppress reaction, and gradually overcome the material basis of class society.

    This stands in contrast to communism, where class society has been abolished as a meaningful social reality. Communism is classless because there are no longer opposed classes standing in antagonistic relation to one another (as only a single class, the proletariat, remain after the other classes have been proletarianised during the socialist period). It is stateless because, once class antagonisms have disappeared, the state as an instrument of class rule no longer has a function and withers away. This of course does not mean that organisation, administration, planning, or collective decision-making (the government) disappear. It means that the coercive state as an instrument of class domination disappears.

    At this point you might ask: if contradictions remain under socialism, how is it different from capitalism? That is a reasonable question. The answer rests on one primary and one secondary characteristic.

    The primary question is: which class commands the state? Under socialism, the proletariat commands the state through the people’s democratic dictatorship, also called the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie commands the state, which communists refer to as the dictatorship of capital (even if they have a liberal democratic cascade).

    The secondary question is: which mode of ownership holds primacy, public ownership or private ownership? This is secondary because public ownership under the dictatorship of capital functions as state capitalism, while public ownership under the dictatorship of the proletariat is part of socialist construction. Ownership forms matter, but they cannot be separated from the class character of political power.

    Now, with this groundwork laid, we can finally look properly at the Chinese situation.

    China has been socialist since October 1, 1949, because the old landlord-bureaucrat-comprador state was destroyed and replaced by a people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class through the Communist Party. The Communist Party of China has more than 100 million members as of the end of 2024 (slightly over 1/14 people). The commanding heights of the economy were brought under public ownership and workers state direction. The new state was built to suppress reaction, defend sovereignty, develop the productive forces, and transform society.

    In China, the bourgeoisie still exists, but it does not rule as a class. Capitalists can own firms in non-commanding sectors, make profits, and accumulate wealth within limits, because developing the productive forces still serves necessary social goals at China’s current stage of development. But they do not command the state, the army, the land system, the central banking system, or the strategic direction of the economy. They do not stand above the people or above the people's organised political instrument, the Communist Party, as a sovereign power.

    When capital conflicts with the long-term interests of socialist construction, it is disciplined, subordinated, investigated, broken up, fined, or otherwise brought to heel. Jack Ma and Ant Group is a useful example: its $37 billion IPO was suspended in 2020 and Jack Ma was made step away from public life as he attempted to put his profit before the benefits of the people by pushing for loosening banking regulations so he could provide micro loans. Foreign capitalists spent years crying about this as it showed the truth capital holds no power in China.

    To put it briefly: China is socialist because the proletarian-led state holds political power, commands the strategic economy, subordinates capital to national and social development, suppresses reactionary threats, and continues the long transition out of capitalism under conditions of imperialist encirclement, uneven development, and a still-existing world capitalist system.

    It would also be remiss not to mention that much of what you “know” about China has been manufactured through a mix of exaggeration, selective framing, omission, and outright lies. For example, you have likely heard about “996” as if it represents Chinese labour law or the normal working life of the whole country. In reality, 996 was an issue in ~40 of the large tech firms around the 2019 tech boom and was quickly ruled illegal which it now has been for half a decade.

    For a proper explanation on how this kind of ideological manufacture happens, I would recommend reading Michael Parenti’s Inventing Reality.

    Further reading recommendations:

    I have to a plug @Cowbee@lemmy.ml and their beginner reading list

    But for my recommendations more directly related to the topic at hand I would recommend:

    • Engels: The Principles of Communism
    • Marx and Engels: The Communist Manifesto
    • Engels: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
    • Marx: Wage Labour and Capital
    • Marx: Value, Price and Profit
    • Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme
    • Lenin: The State and Revolution
    • Lenin: The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
    • Lenin: Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder
    • Lenin: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
    • Stalin: Foundations of Leninism
    • Stalin: Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR
    • Mao Zedong: On Practice
    • Mao Zedong: On Contradiction
    • Mao Zedong: On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People
    • Mao Zedong: On New Democracy
    • Mao Zedong: Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan
    • Mao Zedong: On Protracted War
    • Deng Xiaoping: Build Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
    • Deng Xiaoping: We Must Follow Our Own Road in Economic Development
    • Xi Jinping: Uphold and Develop Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
    • Xi Jinping: The Governance of China
    • Roland Boer: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
    • Rong Zhaozi: Productivity, Public Capital, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
    • Carlos Martinez: The East Is Still Red: Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century
    • Roderic Day: China Has Billionaires
    • Michael Parenti: Blackshirts and Reds
    • Michael Parenti: Inventing Reality
    • Walter Rodney: How Europe Underdeveloped Africa
    • Kwame Nkrumah: Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism
    • Vijay Prashad: Washington Bullets
    • J. Sakai: Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat

    I understand having such a long list dumped on you is likely off-putting however that's the unfortunate truth of being a real socialist/communist, constant reading, education and investigation is a must. If you have any specific questions on any of them I can try help you if need be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Excellent write-up I'd like to point to one thing though

    China has been socialist since October 1, 1949, because the old landlord-bureaucrat-comprador state was destroyed and replaced by a people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class through the Communist Party.

    This doesn't mean anything to a westerner. What westerners hear is "The communist party officials presume/claim to speak in the interest of the working class with no direct input from them". Since this is what almost every party in the west has done since parliaments became a thing. The ones that didn't aren't included in textbooks. And since you're speaking positively of such a party you must be "shilling" for them. I know adding the "how" of how workers shape and influence the state would make your comment even longer, but as it is to most it's just an unbelievable, meaningless phrase.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago

    Yeah I 100% agree but also felt that it was long enough that it was 50/50 they'd actually read past the first few lines anyway so I could clarify in any follow-ups if they did and if they didn't then it was fine as is anyway.

  • source
  • parent