55
‘We’ve been too naive for too long’: How China is infiltrating Taiwan - and why the West should be heeding its warning (thehub.ca)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived link

When [Canadian] Prime Minister Mark Carney stood in Beijing in January and said Canada’s new “strategic partnership” with China set both countries up for a “new world order,” it marked a striking reversal. Less than a year earlier, on the election campaign trail, Carney had named China as Canada’s biggest security threat. And a year before the trip, the Hogue Commission’s report on foreign interference concluded that China is the most persistent and sophisticated foreign interference threat to Canada’s democratic institutions and elections.

The deal cut China’s tariff on Canadian canola seed to about 15 percent from 75.8 percent and eased duties on peas, and seafood. In return, Ottawa agreed to let in 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) a year at a 6.1 percent tariff, down from 100 percent. The partnership also covers clean energy, multilateral co-operation, people-to-people ties, and public security, including an agreement between the RCMP and China’s Ministry of Public Security, the police apparatus Beijing has used to monitor and intimidate its diaspora abroad.

The pivot comes as Carney rallies middle powers to band together against U.S. tariffs while moving closer to the world’s other superpower. Taiwan, which Beijing refuses to recognize as an independent country, and actively seeks to reunify Taiwan as part of China even by military force, shows how aggressive China can be. And as Chiense coast guard incursions into Taiwan-controlled waters have spiked in 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump has called a stalled $14-billion arms package for the island “a very good negotiating chip” with Beijing, recently adding he isn’t looking to fight a war thousands of miles away.

...

Few Western journalists have watched China’s security apparatus as closely as Jürgen Kremb. A former Der Spiegel bureau chief in Beijing, Singapore, and Vienna who was expelled from China in 1998, he now teaches and conducts research at Soochow University in Taipei as a visiting scholar.

...

The Hub spoke with Kremb about what Canada should learn from Taiwan as it grows its ties to China.

...

Question: ... Ottawa has now signed a strategic partnership with Beijing that includes a confidential RCMP agreement with China’s Ministry of Public Security. From where you sit in Taiwan, which has lived with this pressure far longer, does closer engagement with Beijing typically restrain its interference activities abroad, or does it give them more cover and access and embolden them?

Jürgen Kremb: It’s police and domestic security, and they work like the FBI. There are also members of their staff who work as agents, suppressing dissidents and different opinions. This ministry has about 2 million staff in China … and they open police stations in foreign countries, including Canada. The same in Europe and Australia [and other countries]. Of course that’s against the law of other countries, just as the U.S. or Canada cannot open a police station in Beijing.

...

China now is the biggest threat to the security of a lot of countries, because they steal intellectual property, they intimidate their dissidents abroad, they intimidate people who are speaking out against China, they operate a lot of media. So we really have to take the threat seriously… And of course the primary target is Taiwan.

...

Taiwan is the testing ground, [but it’s also being] executed against other democratic societies, the so-called West, but the so-called West also includes South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, etc.

Xi Jinping wants to rule the world–Western politicians simply cannot comprehend this. He wants to destroy the liberal concept of Western democracies because their very existence poses a threat to his dictatorship.

...

Chinese cars are basically spies on four wheels. In Israel, in Sweden or Norway, and in Japan, Chinese cars are not allowed anymore into military installations because where there are cameras, they are actively spying on the surroundings and sending this data back to China.

...

What happens if you work too closely with China? First, you seem to have access to a big, big market and make a lot of money. But one day it’s over, and your whole industry base collapses. So if Canada decides to go that way with closer relations to China, look twice and be very careful, and you could lose more than you gain.

...

If you’re getting very close to China, in the end you might not be in the driver’s seat of your own country or of your key industry, because the Chinese sooner or later will overtake your products and influence your domestic policy.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

The most infuriating part about talking to people like yourself is the cherry picking of points that you feel able to respond to and the proud finish like you have proven something. Your responses are surface level and don't stand any degree of scrutiny.

You say that professionals are still workers, while technically true, a doctor in Beijing making $150,000 and a factory worker or farmer making 7,500 a year are not a homogeneous group and certainly have different motivations and views on how society should be made up. Those on the top in any system will always resist change. As I mentioned in my previous comment, the CPC is dominated by the more highly paid professional workers.

So while you guys claim China is a beacon of communism you fail to disclose how early China is in the "transition" to true communism. You fail to mention there are different classes based on wealth, with the Hukou system being one of the factors along with the wage setting that bakes that into the system. The wealthy in China live very well on their high wages while the majority do not. These wealthy elites as I mentioned make up 2/3 of the CPC membership and use their power to enshrine their position in society. All the while the poor working majority are fed some bullshit about the wonderful path to communism they are on with the promised land just around the corner just out of reach. It's just as much bullshit as the American dream. The wealthy will end up in control of China just as they have done in America because it is human nature.

You claim I am basing this claim on vibes but my claim has evidence, unlike the transition to communism. My claim is based on what has happened in every civilization we know of since history began. Society will always stratify, there will always be those that seek power and wealth. Society organises this way right down to the small scale. When Marx was coming up with his ideas there was no such thing as modern psychology. The promised land of full communism will never work because if you have no financial incentive to work cleaning toilets no one would do it. Similarly why would a doctor brilliant enough to hit the top of his field stay in a country that gives him the same pay as the toilet cleaner when his talents would give him a much better life anywhere else in the world?

European, developed imperialist countries enjoy better safety nets because they are higher developed countries and pilfer the global south of their surplus value.

My own country of Ireland was not an imperialist country and did not pilfer any countries of their surplus value. We enjoy some of the strongest social safety nets in the world and have much lower inequality that China, Ireland's gini coefficient is .27, China's is somewhere between .36 to .47. You lads are always unaware or try to hide the obvious fact that China has also been an imperial power for its entire history, their most recent acquisitions of Tibet in 1951 and Xinjiang (literally translates to "new region/territory) in 1949.

This rejection of economics as a science on your part causes you to make all sorts of ridiculous comparisons, and really calls into question your supposed scientific background.

I did not reject economics as a science, I correctly stated that economics is a social or "soft science" like sociology, in contrast to the "hard sciences" of physics, chemistry or biology. Economics does use some scientific methods like statistical data, models and observation but does not have repeatable experiments or universal laws. My degree is in the hard sciences, but I do respect economics as a discipline when they are not trying to mascerade as a hard science.

The All-China Federation of Trade Unions is the largest federation of trade unions in the world

So? Doesn't make it a good or real trade union

The reason they do not allow independence from this is because they do not want to give capitalists levers to manipulate against the socialist system and promote disunity

You do not seem to understand what trade unions do, trade unions advocate for workers rights and provide a way for workers to collectively bargain with their employer. I don't know how you think this lever can be used by capitalists to upset socialism. If anything the current system suits the current Chinese capitalist class. We all know that trade unions are an alternative power base for socialism that the ruling class won't stand for. There you go again manipulating reality to suit your opinion.

Wages for workers have been going up in China, this looks impressive but when you take into account the extremely low starting point it is easy to "skyrocket" and they have not kept pace with GDP growth. The wage increase has also been more pronounced for the capitalists and the elites in China. China's domestic consumption is also pitifully low and has remained low for years, despite what the government claims.

Tian'anmen Square is a famous site and isn't censored,

Interesting choice of language there refering to the site. Discussion of Tianemen Square or June 4th is heavily censored on China's heavily censored version of the internet. Public or private memorial services for the victims are illegal on the mainland. Relatives of those killed are banned from visiting cemeteries around the 4th June. Activists, artists or citizens who attempt to bring up the crackdown are frequently arrested and charged with subversion and the annual candlelight vigyl At Victoria park in Hong Kong has now been outlawed with local activists being prosecuted. What are you lying for?

There are better places than a Lemmy comment to learn how economics has advanced in the last 150 years and one comment is not enough to explain to you all of the changes in that time. Those "new classes" I have brought up have very different motivations to the common worker and sit above them in the stratified system in operation currently in China. These people also hold 2/3 of the CCP membership and unless you are stupid and blind you should see how they benefit from the status quo. The promise of "real communism.....someday..." Is the new opiate of the masses in modern China. It allows the oligarch class to keeps workers working long hours in awful conditions. You defend "communist China" while wealth inequality and structural wage-wealth gaps have continued to rise sharply in recent years. The recent slow economy and depressed property market has only exacerbated this. The Gini wealth coefficient has "skyrocketed", to borrow your phrase, from .45 in 1995 to .70 in 2023. The top 10% in China capture 41% of income and hold 67% of the wealth. The bottom 50% get about 15% of the income. Marx would not approve. Your own personal bias and myopia has made you delusional.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

    For starters, I want to point out the farce you're putting on by both making a mockery of Marxism, and yet acting as though you're an authority on what Marxists actually believe. As you've admitted, you think communism is ridiculous, and as you've admitted elsewhere, you yourself are a colonizer that fled Hong Kong once the communists began to further integrate it with the mainland. You're trying to hide behind your individual role as a colonizer by drawing on Irish history as a colony, a country with a rich history of Marxist thinkers like James Connolly, while simultaneously arguing against China's socialist system as not being adequately Marxist. It's a farce.

    Regardless of your personal background, however, it's important to address your claims as they are.

    First, class. Not once did I ever say that class is homogenous. Classes are aggregates, of course doctors enjoy greater material benefits than other kinds of workers. The critical importance of them being the same class is that they both share a collective interest as a class, that interest being collectivization of production and distribution. As laborers, both have as an interest rising collectivization and socialization, whereas capitalists, both big and small, oppose this trend. Classes are bimodal, in the modern era proletarian and bourgeois, with each broad class having manifold striations. This does not mean variance within a class is sufficient to be a class of themselves.

    The class makeup of the CPC is overwhelmingly proletarian. This is a fact. The types of workers that most occupy the CPC do tend to be more educated, and therefore make more money, it's true, but this is not a bad thing. Again, as workers, they share the same class interest.

    The working poor are not "fed some bullshit," they are seeing the most rapid climbs in life metrics in history, and the most rapid development of their material wealth. Who cares if some few capitalists get wealthier if the whole of society prospers? If the marketized sector in China became an impediment to progress, this would be a deeply concerning situation, but Marxists are not moralists and do not oppose private property as a sin, but instead as something that plays a specific historic role and phases out of that role. The role of markets is to socialize production, the role of a socialist state is to collectivize socialized production and oppress capitalists from forming a cohesive political bloc.

    Your arguments about "human nature" are, frankly, childish and absurd. Again, you make a mockery of yourself, thinking Marx never accounted for incentives. The comical idea of equal pay for everyone is a farce invented by liberals to discredit communists, the actual fact is that socialists suggest that pay be according to the work done until the productive forces are so advanced that it doesn't matter anymore. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, is a hypothesis of an era where production and distribution is so advanced that anyone, regardless of background, is sufficiently trained to perform any act of labor in society and thus all labor be interchangeable.

    You then continue to embarrass yourself by claiming China has been an imperial power for its entire history, ignoring the century of humiliation when it was a colony, and ignoring colonial Hong Kong that you describe as "cool." Further, you never actually establish that China is imperialist, you just say that Tibet and Xinjiang are part of China as though that's enough to claim it imperialist. You have a great deal of work to prove imperialism, and annexing territory is not imperialism.

    Regarding your discussion of "hard" and "soft" science, you evidently care for neither, considering how confidently you speak on subjects you do not care to learn about. If you want to actually critique Marxism, you should begin by learning what Marxists actually believe. You occupy a stance that despices Marxism and Marxists, while also trying to say Marxists aren't true Marxists. It's opportunist doublespeak.

    Regarding trade unions, the All China Federation of Trade Unions is extremely effective at supporting worker rights. Time and time again, independent groups under the guise of supporting progressive causes have been CIA fronts designed to foment popular dissent. Independent trade unions therefore stand not against merely their own bosses, but the ACFTU and the unions a part of it.

    The "interesting language" I use for Tian'anmen Square is spelling it correctly. Discussion of June 4th is not censored, repeating western atrocity mythos is. I'm not lying here, the ones that are persecuted are the ones that uplift the color revolution as a good thing, despite the fascist background of the CIA-planted leaders of the student movement.

    You then drone on about inequality in China, but the central point is that marketization inevitably results in monopoly, and monopoly inevitably makes itself better as a part of planned economy than marketized. Markets prepare the basis of planned economy, so that's how China is progressing. It isn't a lengthy period of sacrifice for an eventual 180 pivot to communism, it's a gradual process of constant improvement that results in higher degrees of socialization:

    The absolute bare minimum you could do is read Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: a Concise Guide. It's 50 pages long, and is the bare minimum you would need to begin to criticize China from a standpoint that understands their system from their perspective.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    I never claimed to be an authority on Marxism, although I am flattered you think I am one. Marxism is an outdated economic philosophy that sounds lovely but has more plot holes than a Fast and Furious movie. I know enough about it to be sure that it would not work due to its ridiculous assumptions about society and human nature. Then there is you who holds Marxism up as a universal truth right up there with the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Theory of Relativity.

    I was never a "coloniser" of Hong Kong, just an immigrant living in what was a fantastic international city with my wife whose parents are from there, along with her family that still live there. What an idiotic attempt to disparage me and then try and use that to disparage my own views on socialism as an Irish person.

    The critical importance of them being the same class is that they both share a collective interest as a class, that interest being collectivization of production and distribution

    This is another one of your fallacies, this is where theory and reality clash and you can't handle it. The doctor on $150,000+ is not nearly as incentivised as the farmer/worker on $5000. The doctor is at the top end of society and would like to stay that way. If communism was fully implemented tomorrow the next day you will quickly find all the doctors have emigrated unless you build a wall to keep them in. We all know the Chinese government is not above targeting the families of dissident emigrants, what a great system of government, imagine how much worse this will have to get?

    This does not mean variance within a class is sufficient to be a class of themselves.

    In your flawed opinion....

    The types of workers that most occupy the CPC do tend to be more educated, and therefore make more money, it's true, but this is not a bad thing

    You sound an awful lot like a capitalist here!

    The working poor are not "fed some bullshit

    Yes they are, as the factory owners steal their surplus labor.

    Who cares if some few capitalists get wealthier if the whole of society prospers?

    Again, spoken like a true capitalist!

    Your arguments about "human nature" are, frankly, childish and absurd. Again, you make a mockery of yourself, thinking Marx never accounted for incentives.

    If my arguments are childish and absurd they should be easy to argue against. You don't even try, resorting to ad hominem attacks, that's low buddy. Marx did account for incentives, badly, especially in light of everything we have learned in the last 150 years regarding human psychology.

    You discredit the "comical idea of equal pay" instead of realising that this is a simplified explanation of the end stage of communism. Once the productive forces are so advanced that pay is no longer required we are at a situation where regardless of your job you get the same as everyone else. As someone who worked hard to get a well paid job, I would be out of my country if they tried pull that bullshit on me. This is the competitive nature of humans, why does some lazy asshole deserve the same as me when I work my hole off?

    is a hypothesis of an era where production and distribution is so advanced that anyone, regardless of background, is sufficiently trained to perform any act of labor in society and thus all labor be interchangeable.

    So when all the brain surgeons leave, Larry the farmer out in the field can interchangeably perform the brain surgery. Do you even read what you are writing? The plot holes are everywhere. Modern society is so much more specialised now than in the days of Marx.

    You then continue to embarrass yourself by claiming China has been an imperial power for its entire history, ignoring the century of humiliation when it was a colony

    Again your lack of historical knowledge is showing, China was never fully colonised by the Europeans during the century of humiliation. The Japanese did colonise parts of China for a few years last century. This also does not invalidate the fact that China was an imperial power. Losing a war does not erase the past or future, China has been blobbing out across the map since it began in the heartland. Xinjiang and Tibet are two of China's more recent colonial expansions where they are actively committing cultural genocide and locking up the local Uyghur population in "re-education" centres. As you point fingers at western colonialism, pay attention to the 3 fingers pointing back at yourself you hypocrite. "Annexing territory is not imperialism" sure buddy, the Chinese people just needed lebensraum right?

    You occupy a stance that despices Marxism and Marxists

    I do not despise Marxism, as I said before it is a noble idea and a good starting point, but absolutely unworkable in real life. I do despise fanatical modern Marxists in a similar way to religious fanatics because it takes over their whole world view and ego. When the plot holes are pointed out they tend to defend the indefensible because their whole world will crash down if they can no longer be a Marxist.

    Regarding trade unions, the All China Federation of Trade Unions is extremely effective at supporting worker rights

    Which is why Chinese workers work in such shitty conditions with long hours and no work life balance? It is because the ruling party can accept no challenge to their absolute authoritarian control.

    Discussion of June 4th is not censored,

    the ones that are persecuted are the ones that uplift the color revolution as a good thing

    You have just contradicted yourself. Ceremonies rembering those that died in the heavy handed crackdown are a threat to the government.

    It isn't a lengthy period of sacrifice for an eventual 180 pivot to communism, it's a gradual process of constant improvement that results in higher degrees of socialization:

    This is the lie that is sold to placate the poor working class. Your great grandchildrens lives will be better if you just sacrifice for the good of the country. Wealth inequality in China has only been increasing rapidly in the last 30 years, this doesn't sound like constant improvement to me? You say "workers wages have skyrocketed" this is true with the caveat that when you start from such a low starting point the initial gains are easy and look impressive in percentage terms, let's see what happens now that the Chinese economy is slowing down and aging rapidly with increased global protectionism. My bet is the current trend in China of the wealthy getting wealthier will continue. I am not going to read your religious pamphlet and do not expect to convince you either because you have drank the kool aid of fundamentalism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (10 children)

    You open by stating that Marxism has plenty of holes, but you can't seem to think of a single one to bring up. You defend your past as a colonizer and stating that colonial Hong Kong was "cool," and again hide behind your Irish ancestry as though victims of colonialism cannot contribute to it. It's all very desparate on your part.

    The biggest issue you bring up here is that you think the age where people can be split into surgeons and industrial laborers and the age where people will be paid according to need are the same (and notably, equal pay is never a thing, because need is unequal). When you reference end-stage communism, you are referring to an era where labor is fully interchangeable, both because of polytechnical education and tools making every job as easy as possible. Until that era is achieved, distribution will be according to labor, meaning higher skilled labor is paid more.

    You take such a simple confusion on your own part and then pretend you've cracked Marxism, but you never once elaborate on how economics has advanced since Marx. I fully accept the advancements of thinkers like Lenin, Cheng Enfu, Walter Rodney, etc, so it isn't like Marxism is static either.

    The rest of your comment is a bunch of unsourced claims that came to you in a dream. Average working hours in China are typically around 47 hours per week. You also paint Xinjiang and Tibet as colonialism, without proving a colonial relationship, Tibet and Xinjiang are a part of China and are not pilfered of surplus value (in fact, many areas see more spending from the central government to uplift them).

    You also reject reading a short pamphlet on the grounds of it being "religious," which is ridiculous. Roland Boer is a professor of Marxism in China that studies the Chinese system, there is no better way to quickly grasp how the Chinese system functions from a Chinese perspective than this. All it is is relaying how their system works, if simple facts are religion to you then it's no wonder that you cannot even comprehend basic facts about China and Marxism.

    Here's a prediction of my own: worker wages will continue to rapidly rise. Wealth inequality will rise in the short run, but by the end of the century there will be a reverse in trend as developing industries advance beyond the point at which marketization is useful, and are increasingly folded into the public sector. This trend will continue until all of the economy is fully planned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    You open by stating that Marxism has plenty of holes, but you can't seem to think of a single one to bring up

    Yes I did, you attempt to answer one of them, poorly, in your next paragraph and don't even acknowledge the one about why anyone would clean the sewers if they had no financial need or motivation to. The rest of the paragraph is trying to paint me somehow and without explanation as a coloniser. This is all the more ridiculous when put beside your denials of China's own actual colonialism.

    The biggest issue you bring up here is that you think the age where people can be split into surgeons and industrial laborers and the age where people will be paid according to need are the same

    No I don't, you are the one jumping around through the phases of communism. I am separating them into the now horribly unequal current China and the fantasy land of the future. I am arguing that the fantasy future is unworkable in reality and sold as an opiate to the masses because it keeps the workers from revolting.

    you are referring to an era where labor is fully interchangeable, both because of polytechnical education and tools making every job as easy as possible

    How far away are we from a time where brain surgery is interchangable and as easy as cleaning a toilet? If this was actually implemented the doctor's would all just leave the country and go where their labor gets the compensation it deserves. Humans will always have differing levels of competence and why should the most competent subsidise the least or the lazy? Really though, how will you stop these people leaving the state?

    but you never once elaborate on how economics has advanced since Marx.

    There has been 150 years since Marx passed, do you really feel as though economics has not advanced in this time as had every other scientific discipline. There are entire university degrees covering all of these advancements. If communism is so great, how come no country has even gotten close to a full communist system? It has been almost 200 years since the publication of "The Communist Manifesto".

    The rest of your comment is a bunch of unsourced claims that came to you in a dream. [Average working hours in China are typically around 47 hours per week

    Working hours in China increased from 48.2 hours per week in August 2026 to 48.3 in September 2026. This was also in the link you sent me, it looks as though the average working hours is increasing in China if you compare these current figures with your 9 year average figure of 47 hours.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/china/average-weekly-hours

    This is still a long average working week compared to the EU average of 35.9 hours per week. This is also just the average and does not include the massive and increasing amount of gig workers in China. The 996 culture was only outlawed in 2021 and still persists off the books. You're a great man for using government headline figures and ignoring the lived reality.

    https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/china-tries-call-time-its-996-culture-long-hours--ecmii-2025-09-01/

    You also paint Xinjiang and Tibet as colonialism, without proving a colonial relationship

    You appear to be suffering from a case of delusional selective colonialism. Do you actually need a history lesson here? China invaded Tibet in October 1950, defeating the much smaller Tibetan army and forced the signing of the 17 point agreement under duress in May of 1951 formally annexing Tibet into China. Tibet had an uprising in 1959 with a strong crackdown by the Chinese resulting in somewhere between 15,000-85,000 deaths depending on the source. Since then China has suppressed the population and their culture and language, operated forced labor (is it not called surplus value when they are not paying them?) and destroyed thousand of Buddhist monasteries. This entire country was annexed for geopolitical reasons, do I need to explain these to you too?

    Xinjiang was also annexed around the same time and the local muslim Uyghur population have been forced into "re-education centres" with an unknown prison population likely 1 to 1.5 million detained since 2017. Does the forced labor in these prisons not count as surplus value stoled either? How is this any better than any other countries colonisation?

    In both of these countries capitals the Han Chinese population is increasing rapidly through migration. You accuse me of being a coloniser for living in Hong Kong for a few years. I didn't annex the place though did I? Your hypocrisy is ridiculous, you call me desperate and then go and make a fool of yourself, this is too easy buddy, you make yourself look stupid and don't even realise it.

    in fact, many areas see more spending from the central government to uplift them).

    We also got the lie in Ireland about how much England gave us in infrastructure and development while they raped our country. You imperial types are all the same.

    you cannot even comprehend basic facts about China and Marxism.

    My whole point is that China is not Marxist, not even close. You are a religious fanatics who clings to the fantasy that it will be someday with nothing more than "trust me bro" to back it up. There are many countries around the world, mostly in the EU, that are far more socialist and equal in terms of wealth distribution and do not require an authoritarian state to accomplish this. You then launch into a pointless prediction, your dreams have nothing of value to add to this conversation, lets stick to reality please. Dreams are all you have because reality paints a far bleaker picture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)

    You keep pretending Marxism is about dogmatically paying everyone equally, and I have explained time and time again that you are confusing late-stage communism with early-stage socialism. Nobody has ever suggested anyone gets paid equally, and payment according to labor exists well into the later stages of socialism. You keep pretending China is hypocritical for not being Utopians and instead being pragmatic Marxists, but this point still seems to stick for you even though it's utterly baseless.

    As for advancements since Marx, I agree! Lenin, Walter Rodney, Cheng Enfu, and many other economists have carried his work forward. You haven't given any examples, though, just continued to defend your own colonial adventures in Hong Kong while defending the European safety nets achieved by pilfering the surplus value of the global south.

    The bits on "forced labor" are entirely unsourced on your part. Tibet was a feudal slave society before integration into the PRC, where slavery was abolished. Both Uyghur and Tibetan culture and language are preserved, with courses on Mandarin being promoted alongside them. You have no clue what you're talking about here, and equating Tibet and Xinjiang with Ireland is horrendously insulting to Irish anti-imperialists like James Connolly. Do better than insulting your own people.

    China is absolutely Marxist, social ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working class controls the state. Equating imperialist countries in Europe that have private ownership as principal and capitalist dominated states with socialism, purely because they distribute the spoils pilfered from the global south to their labor aristocracy, is laughable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    You keep pretending Marxism is about dogmatically paying everyone equally, and I have explained time and time again that you are confusing late-stage communism with early-stage socialism

    I'm not confusing anything, I understand perfectly well that China is not a communist country and has terrible wealth inequality that is increasing by the year. The transition to full communism is a lie sold to the workers so the factory owners can continue to exploit the workers surplus labor.

    As for advancements since Marx, I agree! Lenin, Walter Rodney, Cheng Enfu, and many other economists have carried his work forward. You haven't given any examples,

    I could list off a few economists too but I fail to see the point.

    just continued to defend your own colonial adventures in Hong Kong while defending the European safety nets achieved by pilfering the surplus value of the global south.

    You have still failed to explain how my adventures were colonial. You have also skipped over the part where I discussed the increasing migrant Han Chinese populations in the annexed capitals of Xinjiang and Tibet and how that is not colonialism. Your own arguments are not even consistent.

    The bits on "forced labor" are entirely unsourced on your part.

    https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/01/un-experts-alarmed-reports-forced-labour-uyghur-tibetan-and-other-minorities

    Here you go buddy, I can find hundreds more if needed.

    Tibet was a feudal slave society before integration into the PRC, where slavery was abolished

    I come from Ireland and have heard plenty of colonial justifications like this from you imperialists. You think you civilised the savages do you? Nobody asked you to. Your colonial excuses are as ridiculous as Topographica Hibernica from 800 years ago, I've heard them all before.

    You have no clue what you're talking about here, and equating Tibet and Xinjiang with Ireland is horrendously insulting to Irish anti-imperialists like James Connolly.

    Don't you be trying to warp my history to suit you imperial agenda and keep James Connollys name out of your mouth while you do it. He knew exactly what colonialism was and would recognise and empathise with the struggles of the Uyghur and Tibetan people. Connolly was anti imperialist to the core and has written extensively on the subject. You are tying yourself into knots trying to deny the obvious truth that China is an imperial nation.

    China is absolutely Marxist

    They are selectively Marxist not absolutely.

    purely because they distribute the spoils pilfered from the global south to their labor aristocracy, is laughable.

    We haven't even gotten into China's neo colonialism and debt trap diplomacy but I'm sure that you will deny that too. You're a robot programmed to believe "Western imperialism bad, China imperialism good and justified." I am from neither a western or eastern imperial state and I see through all of you. You are just as bad as them but you can't even see it from inside the machine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    The transition to communism, a fully collectivized economy, is built on highly centralized productive forces. Markets naturally centralize over time, and erase their own basis. Unless you think the progress of time doesn't exist, then thus process will continue to unfold naturally. The fact that markets centralize, and the fact that planned economy is more efficient with centralized production than with non-centralized production, is not a "lie." It's basic economics.

    The utility of listing off economists that have advanced on Marx in a manner that disproves him is in putting forth a positive position, rather than a negative, ie putting your back behind something you believe in, rather than rejecting understanding.

    As for Han populations increasing, this isn't colonialism. Colonialism involves pilfering the surplus of a colonial territory while stripping them of their own sovereignty. To the contrary, money flows from the central government to the local governments in Xinjiang and Tibet at far greater rates than flows out. Connolly was anti-imperialist to the core, correct, which is why you do him a disgrace by labeling every socialist government you don't like as colonial or neocolonial. This isn't a "civilize the savages" argument like you imply, it's the fact that Xinjiang and Tibet are a part of China, are not being culturally erased but instead being culturally protected, and are soveriegn within China.

    China isn't neocolonial nor does it debt trap. This is baseless. The west is actively imperialist. The west uses financial domination of the global south, including dollar hegemony, IP monopoly, unequal exchange, and more to extract as much surplus from the global south as possible. China does not, and the reason it does not is because it isn't dominated by private finance capital. Private finance capital is the main driver of imperialism as a stage in capitalism, and because you have not looked into the causes of imperialism and neocolonialism and have not looked at the numbers, you assume that the socialists must be guilty as well:

    You have no sticking points. You reject materialist analysis in favor of vibes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    The fact that markets centralize, and the fact that planned economy is more efficient with centralized production than with non-centralized production, is not a "lie." It's basic economics.

    How did that work out for China and the Soviet Union when it came to farming in the 1950s? Millions of avoidable deaths from starvation. You live in theory and are in dispute with reality. Economics is not a science of universal truths but a study of complex systems that you don't understand and over simplify in accordance with your gospel.

    As for Han populations increasing, this isn't colonialism.

    Yet me living in Hong Kong somehow is? Explain how what I did was colonialism but what the Chinese migrants are doing is not?

    Connolly was anti-imperialist to the core, correct, which is why you do him a disgrace by labeling every socialist government you don't like as colonial or neocolonial.

    Wonder how he would feel about the forced labor in these annexed territories? You are awfully quiet on that now after demanding sources in your last comment. You are still claiming this is somehow not the theft of their labor. You are just a massive hypocrite or delusional. How on earth was China taking Tibet by force in 1950 not colonialism? The only government I am talking about here is China, I never called any other government colonial or neocolonial, just the one I am talking about that deserves it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

    The USSR ended famine in the 1930s, after it collectivized and industrialized agriculture with combine-harvestors. Outside of wartime, there were no more famines. China went through a similar route, once they had industrialized agriculture, famine became a fact of history, not an active threat. Famine had been common to both regions under semi-feudal relations of agriculture, which is low in productivity and weak to adverse weather.

    Regarding the tendency for markets to centralize, this is a fact. Scholarly research backs this up heavily with empirical data. This isn't "gospel," it's how markets work. Of course economics is complex, and of course I have to simplify it for Lemmy comments, especially when you cannot even grasp the passing of time resulting in gradual change.

    As for your adventures in Hong Kong, you deliberately referred to the colonial era as "cool," and the part where China regained its sovereignty as bad. Tibetans and Uyghurs are Chinese. They are not Han, but Han people living in Xinjiang and Tibet are not colonizers. Immigration is not colonialism. Colonialism is a relationship between exploiter and exploited, and central China is not exploiting periphery China. Xinjiang and Tibet both have regional autonomy within the broader system of China.

    As for the claims of forced labor, these are false. I already provided evidence of this. Annexation of land is not colonialism, just like the Statesian North annexing the Statesian South is not colonialism. Connolly would be upset that you make light of actual colonialism by listening to the propaganda of the actually existing imperialist and neocolonial powers, such as the UK and US, who still have Ireland under their thumb to this day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    The USSR ended famine in the 1930s, after it collectivized and industrialized agriculture with combine-harvestors. Outside of wartime, there were no more famines. China went through a similar route, once they had industrialized agriculture,

    You fail to mention that in both empires the famines ended because they changed the way the system worked introducing market incentives. The Chinese rejected the collectivisation model in favour of the Household Responsibility System. You dismiss the power of direct financial incentives in all of our dealings because it doesn't fit your theories but it is what works in the real world.

    Regarding the tendency for markets to centralize, this is a fact.

    The paper you sent that I have a quick read of (I am not and I am sure you have not read the whole thing!) is based on capitalist economies and the tenancy towards monopoly.

    "Along these dimensions, our data (outside the U.S.) come from European countries (Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland, Denmark, and the U.K.), Canada, Australia, Singapore, and South Korea. "

    You are again ignoring the role of financial incentives in centralisation. Your logic is along the lines of "chickens are animals, chickens lay eggs. Cows are also animals, therefore cows also lay eggs."

    As for your adventures in Hong Kong, you deliberately referred to the colonial era as "cool," and the part where China regained its sovereignty as bad

    So I am a colonist because I though Hong Kong was cool before China reneged on its promises and imposed it's authoritarian rule over the people. You just put labels on things that you like or don't like but don't even understand the meanings the rest of the world understands for these words.

    Tibetans and Uyghurs are Chinese. They are not Han, but Han people living in Xinjiang and Tibet are not colonizers.

    They are Chinese by force, these regions were annexed under military force. Since you are so slippery with your language, let's get a few definitions clear so you can understand that China is just as much of an empire as the west you despise for the same reason.

    Imperialism: The policy or practice of a nation extending its power and influence over other countries or regions, often through military force, economic dominance, or political control.

    Empire: A large political unit or sovereign state made up of several distinct territories or nations ruled by a single supreme authority (such as an emperor, monarch, or dominant government).

    Colonization is the act or process by which a nation or foreign power sends people to settle in, take control of, and govern another country, territory, or region

    Immigration is not colonialism

    You said it was when I did it, get your story straight you absolute hypocrite.

    Colonialism is a relationship between exploiter and exploited, and central China is not exploiting periphery China.

    I have already discussed the forced labor which I will return to later. China also extracts resources from these regions. Xinjiang produces a massive share of the worlds polysilicon critical for solar panels, beryllium critical for semiconductors. 10% of the worlds aluminium comes from Xinjiang which is exploited by the Chinese automotive industry. Xinjiang also produces the majority of China's cotton, heavily utilising forced harvesting labor to supply global brands.

    Then we get to the cultural and demographic eradication. Systemic birth suppression, under the Law on Promoting ethnic Unity and Progress we get forced sterilisation, forced abortions, mandatory IUD implantation. Birthrates in Hogan and Kashgar have plummeted by 60-84%. Forced separation of children when parents are sent to labor or "re-education camps" these state run camps strip the children of their language, religion and culture. Physical erasure of thousands of mosques, shrines, graveyards and monuments.

    In Tibet we have more of the same with state owned enterprises engaging in large scale mining of gold, copper lithium and rare earth minerals. Displacement of nomadic peoples to build these mines. China has built or planned 200 mega scale hydroelectric dams on Tibet's rivers since 2000. These dams are built primarily to export power to Chinese industrial centers. We also have similar cultural eradication programmes to Xinjiang.

    Both states serve as a testing ground for China's surveillance economy. Over 1400 Chinese tech firms have used Xinjiang's population to test predictive policing, biometric data collection, facial recognition and gait analysis tracking etc.

    Sounds an awful lot like an exploitative imperial colonisation project to me. You are probably too busy licking boots to notice or do any research on the subject.

    As for the claims of forced labor, these are false. I already provided evidence of this.

    Now on to this one, how dare you insult both of our intelligences by dismissing a report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights with a report from a think tank with opaque funding. Given their editorial slant it is quite obvious that they are funded by China. This is about as much use as saying well China disputes that China is using forced labor against it's subjugated people's. Would you believe a report written by the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute?

    China is just as bad as the other imperial nations, you are an imperial apologist. As for Ireland, I am under no illusion what Ireland is currently, we are a small nation and as such are not a rule maker but a rule taker. We do just fine and have managed to rise from poverty to prosperity by playing our own game within the system we have been placed in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Famine was ended via collectivization and industrialization, well before "market incentives" were introduced. The market wasn't necessary, industrial equipment was. Also, "empires," lmao.

    As for centralization, I'm 100% award that market economies trend towards centralization. That's my point. I'm confused what you think I'm trying to say, here.

    As for your adventure in Hong Kong, you're incredibly defensive of British colonialism and see anti-colonialism as China going back on promises to colonizers. This is ridiculous, lmao.

    As for the definitions you provided, they are woefully underdeveloped and simplistic. Imperialism and colonialism are predicated on extraction, not mere influence, and an empire is necessarily a country that does imperialism. Extracting resources is not colonialism or imperialism. The limits of your definitions are immediately apparent. What's important is the elimination of sovereignty, and the extraction of surplus value. There is no cultural erasure in Xinjiang nor Tibet.

    As for your lies about sterilization, they come from Adrian Zenz, Christian nationalist and professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does. Zenz' work has been thoroughly discredited, yet is supported by western media for its utility in fearmongering. An example is lying about 8.7% of new IUDs as 80%, to back up claims of "forced sterilization," from this chart:

    You get onto me for providing a source that links almost entirely western news sources when available, and has fact checked information, while talking about claims from Adrian Zenz and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation? Hilarious. I recommend actually 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.

    Please, be serious.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    You have gotten awfully quiet with your denials of forced labor.

    Famine was ended via collectivization and industrialization, well before "market incentives" were introduced

    Incorrect, the collectivisation happened first and the massive famines followed, 15-45 million dead in China, 5.7-8.7 million dead in the Soviet Union.

    As for centralization, I'm 100% award that market economies trend towards centralization. That's my point. I'm confused what you think I'm trying to say, here.

    What does 100% award mean? I'm also confused. What I am trying to say is that you are extrapolating the tenancy of business to monopolise in free market economies to mean that centralisation in controlled state authoritarian societies will yield the same efficiencies.

    As for your adventure in Hong Kong, you're incredibly defensive of British colonialism

    No I am not and I never set foot in Hong Kong during the colonial period.

    see anti-colonialism as China going back on promises to colonizers.

    No I see it as going back on the promises to the people of Hong Kong. I still have family that lived there as well as family who had to flee to avoid persecution. Before you say it, they are all native Chinese.

    Imperialism and colonialism are predicated on extraction,

    Extracting resources is not colonialism or imperialism.

    You can't even stay consistent in the same paragraph, how many times in our discussion have you contradicted yourself and fallen flat on your face?

    What's important is the elimination of sovereignty, and the extraction of surplus value. There is no cultural erasure in Xinjiang nor Tibet.

    The UN report you provided directly contradicts this, the master of contradiction strikes again! You make this too easy, I'm starting to lose interest in you.

    As for your lies about sterilization, they come from Adrian Zenz

    I have a range from several reports, not one figure from a chap I have never even heard of.

    You get onto me for providing a source that links almost entirely western news sources when available

    No, I disputed your Chinese think tank source.

    I recommend actually reading the [UN report

    I did, you obviously didn't.

    1. Official population figures indicate a sharp decline in birth rates in XUAR from 2017. 242 Data from the 2020 Chinese Statistical Yearbook, covering 2019, shows that in the space of two years the birth rate in Xinjiang dropped approximately 48.7 per cent, from 15.88 per thousand in 2017 to 8.14 per thousand in 2019. The average for all of China is 10.48 per thousand.243

    2. Uyghur-majority areas represented the bulk of this decline, with two of the largest Uyghur prefectures especially affected by it. In Hotan, which is 96 per cent Uyghur,245 birth rates went from 20.94 per cent in 2016246 to 8.58 per cent per thousand births in 2018.247 Similarly, the birth rate in Kashgar, which is approximately 92.6 per cent Uyghur,248 dropped from 18.19 per cent in 2016249 to 7.94 per cent per thousand births in 2018.250 Even taking into account the overall decline in birth rates in China,251 these figures remain unusual and stark. The same applies to the figures regarding sterilisations and IUD placements in XUAR, with official data indicating an unusually sharp rise in both forms of procedures in the region during 2017 and 2018, in comparison with the rest of China.252 For example, in 2018, sterilisations in XUAR stood at 243 per 100,000 inhabitants, whereas the overall figure for China was a fraction thereof at only 32.1 per 100,000 inhabitants.253

    3. Several women interviewed by OHCHR raised allegations of forced birth control, in particular forced IUD placements and possible forced sterilisations with respect to Uyghur and ethnic Kazakh women. Some women spoke of the risk of harsh punishments including “internment” or “imprisonment” for violations of the family planning policy. Among these, OHCHR interviewed some women who said they were forced to have abortions or forced to have IUDs inserted, after having reached the permitted number of children under the family planning policy.259 These first-hand accounts, although limited in number, are considered credible.

    Next time read the source before you once again make a fool of yourself. I will not bother with the Chinese report because China says China is innocent does not hold any weight to anyone with a shred of intelligence or integrity. You are being intellectually dishonest for even suggesting this, the USA also disputes the civilian death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you accept them at their word?

    You have done nothing to convince me that you are anything more than a biased imperial boot licker. I have come to the conclusion over the last few years that there are plenty of weak minded people out there that need a strong authoritarian daddy figure to tell them what to do. Xi, Putin, Trump, Netenyahu etc. have made their bases unquestionably obedient and infantilised. You keep on defending the demonstrably indefensible to the point where you just look like a fool. You have zero ability to think critically, trying to feed me biased state propaganda to counter independent UN reports (China even sits as a permanent member of the security council FFS). You are not an honest actor but a biased brainwashed stooge. You imperial apologists are a major part of everything that is wrong with this world, enabling all of the misery in this world from Algeria to Afghanistan, Tibet to Timbuktu. You think that your colonialism is somehow different because it is the colonialism your "team" is perpetrating. I am Irish, I understand colonialism in all its forms, we were one of the original testing grounds. To quote another Irishman, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago

    I'm not "quiet" about forced labor, I already disproved it. I linked a source comprehensively debunking it, and you responded with disproven statistics from a fascist and paid propagandist, Adrian Zenz.

    As for collectivization causing famine, this is incorrect. Famine was common in Russia and China before collectivization. Both countries ended famine through collectivization and industrialization of agriculture, with their last major famines happening alongside collectivization and industrialization, never after this process was completed. Market mechanisms were introduced well after this process ended famine already.

    As for 100% "award," I meant aware, just like I assume you mean "tendency" rather than "tenancy." Collectivized production is already highly efficient at large scales, the top entities in democratic China are state owned, and in authoritarian capitalist economies some of the most important industries are run publicly in order to keep society functioning.

    As for colonialism, I quite obviously mean the extraction of surplus value and the erasure of autonomy. The fact that resources are extracted in Xinjiang and Tibet does not mean this is coming at the expense of Uyghur or Tibetan autonomy or surplus value. Again, I already proved that investment into those regions outweighs anything flowing out. You're also taking the chauvanist stance that erases the autonomy of these regions, just like you see China breaking off British colonialism as "going back on their promises to Hong Kong." It's naked support for colonialism and a failed attempt to attribute colonialism to China on your part.

    The UN report should be read in full, along with the resources I already linked and China's response. The site I linked is not a "Chinese think tank," if you spent more than 3 seconds on that website you would know that they are westerners. You have this strange idea that in a court, only the accusation should be listened to, not the defense. You aren't even aware that your data comes straight from Adrian Zenz! Do your due dilligence, any claims of coming from a medical background come into question when you aren't even willing to investigate sources for claims you believe, and aren't willing to hear counter-evidence.

    I want to repeat: you are a sham dentist if you cannot even entertain looking at counter-evidence, and are fully unaware of the origin of the sources you blindly believe. You outright stating that you will not listen to China for their defense means you would have sided with the baseless genocide of the Iraqi people over allegations of WMD. It's the same situation, and yet you let your chauvanism get in the way of your trained scientific background.

    I want you to read that paragraph over and over again. Until you show yourself some respect and actually act like someone trained in science, you will only make a fool of yourself publicly in order to support your baseless ideology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent