213
China closes 3 Tibetan schools in 3 months; threatens language, cultural preservation (rfa.org)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Tibetan sources who spoke to Radio Free Asia linked the closures to the Chinese government’s education policies and its promotion of the Ethnic Unity and Progress Law, which took effect on July 1, 2026. They said the shutdowns could further limit opportunities for Tibetan children to learn their mother tongue and cultural traditions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Oh, you again. I am not deliberately refusing to understand these basic points, I am pointing out that these basic points, while nice in theory are unworkable in reality. You are making the same mistake that has plagued economics since its inception, trying and failing miserably to make economics more like the hard sciences by incorporating the constant of the "rational man". There is no such thing as this, especially when you are dealing with large numbers of people, history has proved time and again that this concept is ridiculous and that crowds are irrational.

You are treating the doctor, who is close to the top of society in terms of living standards the same as the factory worker near the bottom. You are reducing them both to the same constant because it fits your narrative. You argue that both are the same because their surplus labor is stolen yet the factory worker can't afford a house and the doctor goes home to their luxury apartment to sleep on silk sheets. At least in this scenario, the doctor is relatively well compensated for his skilled labor, in a full communist society the doctor's labor is devalued to the point where it is equal to that of the factory worker.

You keep repeating the nonsense idea that communism is when everyone gets paid the same amount,

I do not keep on repeating this, I fully understand the concept of a communist society in its most evolved form going beyond the need for money. It is essentially the same thing as everyone being paid the same amount because there is no additional compensation for the highly skilled brain surgeon over the street cleaner. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". If this came into place tomorrow I guarantee you that there would be no doctors or dentists left in the country because their skills are in high demand worldwide. There is no point at which their labor is interchangable, the farmer in the field can't just scrub in for surgery after all the doctors leave. In all of our interactions you have never answers this point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (6 children)

    You're still not getting it, even though you're more than smart enough to. It is impossible to implement "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" tomorrow, because agricultural labor and medical labor are too distinct. We do not have sufficiently advanced means of production and distribution as well as polytechnical education to where we would not need to compensate skilled labor higher yet. That's the entire reason why no socialist society has ever implemented what you're talking about.

    5 centuries ago, textile work, carpentry, smithing, and logistics all required dramatically different skillsets. Today, most production relies on tools that share in common means of operation. They all have their own characteristics, but the specialization of labor is eroding. This is also true across fields like engineering, where tools like CAD are industry standards. Barriers to job switching are lowering. In the far future, this process will continue, until no individual field needs more strenuous study than others.

    I refuse to believe you are incapable of understanding this. I understand it as you deliberately refusing to. Do better, be serious.

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

    . It is impossible to implement "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" tomorrow, because agricultural labor and medical labor are too distinct.

    Exactly my argument, the destination is fantasy land, there is no predicted timeframe on a future where this state is achieved so until then exploit the workers because we have supposedly have good intentions?

    They all have their own characteristics, but the specialization of labor is eroding. This is also true across fields like engineering, where tools like CAD are industry standards

    5 centuries ago, textile work, carpentry, smithing, and logistics all required dramatically different skillsets

    This is all absolute BS, specialisation of labour is increasing across all fields as these fields increase in complexity. Your example of engineering displays a hilarious lack of knowledge of the field, just because they all use computer aided design specialisation is eroding? Ridiculous statement, I don't even know where to begin but I will try and keep it simple for you. 100 years ago people studied engineering, today there are 6 main types, chemical, biomedical, civil, mechanical, electrical and materials engineering each of these main groups has dozens of sub specialities contained within. The same is true of medicine, science and just about every single other degree level course. You are displaying a profound lack of understanding here, as time goes on and out knowledge expands this specialisation will only increase, your argument here is null and void.

    Do better, be serious.

    Right back at you big guy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    You keep making the moralist argument that private property is a sin. This is not Marxism. Marketization is useful in underdeveloped production, when planned economy is better in centralized production. Markets inevitably transition to centralized production. There is no specific timescale, but this general process is observable fact.

    As for the fact that you can "sub-specialize" in engineering, I'm well aware. However, the idea that it takes a tremendous amount of time to train an experienced engineer in one field on another field is also incorrect. Knowledge increases, yes, and so too does our ability to standardize and simplify what we know. An engineer that works in automotive can quite easily transfer to home appliances, and vice versa. The processes and actual work at hand are more uniform across the board.

    You also entirely ignored that fields like textile work, smithing, etc. have all largely been taken up by tooling with similar means of operation. The time to train for these jobs is lowering as time goes on.

    Do better, be serious.

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

    You keep making the moralist argument that private property is a sin.

    Where did I make that argument? I see no sin in private property ownership.

    However, the idea that it takes a tremendous amount of time to train an experienced engineer in one field on another field is also incorrect

    Wild statement, you are going to need to back that up. You are discounting years of specialist training just to qualify and then the years of experience required to actually become useful in the field. You are simplifying something you don't understand to fit your argument. Are you aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect, this is the perfect example of that. The same goes for my own field of dentistry or the field of medicine which I also have knowledge of the time it takes to train or even the field of legal specialisation.

    Do better, be serious.

    I can't believe you ended your uninformed rant with this, you are too funny dude :)

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

    You believe Marxists see private property as a sin, rather than something becoming gradually outdated as production advances. This is the crux of your "Marxism."

    As for Engineers needing less training to swap from industry to industry, yes, this is a simplification. However, the fact of the matter is that within branches of engineering, transferability is high. Solidworks is a common engineering software, and its incredibly standardized. Engineering drawings used to be entirely by hand, and thus had no automated error catching. They also varied far more by industry. Now, a mechanical engineer can take their solid works experience and transfer it to another industry, like automotive to home applicance, and it's relatively simple.

    Of course, said engineer will have to understand the new standardization for BOM structure, how part numbers are handled, and company culture. However, it is gradually standardizing how work is done for mechanical engineers, making it a field that is increasingly generic among those trained in mechanical engineering. This is all oversimplified, but again, you entirely ignored the points on smithing, textiles, and carpentry, which all falls into the same point.

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

    You believe Marxists see private property as a sin

    No I don't, I understand the differences between Marxism and Georgism. Marx did actually call for the "abolition of private property" which includes land. I believe that Henry George had a better understanding of this than Marx who was very timid when it came to confronting the landed class.

    As for Engineers needing less training to swap from industry to industry, yes, this is a simplification. However, the fact of the matter is that within branches of engineering, transferability is high.

    You are missing my point that as our human knowledge increases, professions are becoming more and more specialised, not less. You are also discounting the experience these professionals gain from years of practice, there is no shortcut to gaining experience, this takes time and practice. Engineering is but one example, brain surgeons do not transfer to being heart or orthopedic surgeons or oncologists. These are highly specialised fields that take decades to gain proficiency .

    Smithing, textiles and carpentry are simpler fields to retrain in sure but proficiency and mastery in those fields take years. You have also not answered how in this advanced stage of communism you are going to get all of the experienced doctors to stay in the country when their skills can earn them a better quality of life in a market based economy?

    The only answer to this is of course authoritarianism. Close the borders and force these citizens to work. Authoritarianism is the glue that holds China together.

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

    How is advocating for the eventual abolition of private property count as being timid towards landowners? It involves sweeping collectivization of land, something easily achievable and already done at scale in most socialist countries.

    Regarding increased specialization alongside human knowledge, this is true at the level of the profession, not at the level of the worker. Work is designed to be as readily replacable as possible, wherever possible. An RF engineer working at NASA may have a learning curve, but the underlying basics of how to perform their job can be transfered to similar roles elsewhere. Practice and proficiency is helpful, yes, but we must consider these socially, not individually.

    You entirely missed the point on carpentry, smithing, etc. These are almost entirely performed by machines in factories. Artisinal creation is step by step being abolished in favor of automated and machine assisted labor in large factories. So too will this apply to engineering, medicine, etc.

    The idea that an advanced communist society would be unable to outcompete a market-based society in standard of living is as laughable as the idea of a feudal society outcompeting a capitalist society. For starters, communism must be a global system. Beyond that, communism rests in highly advanced productive forces too large in scale for markets to function to begin with, so even if we had a hypothetical communism in one country, there would be no need to go to a market-based society just like there's no need to go to feudal societies for a higher standard of living.

    The necessity for these advanced productive forces is exactly why communism does not yet exist, just like nuclear fusion as an energy source at scale does not. It needs to be built up, not simply willed into existence at the stroke of a pen.

    You have no clue what you're suggesting, no matter how many times I state it.

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

    It must be so easy to be a capitalist. Every communist success never happened, and those that did weren't communist.

    Like a box of rocks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    Communist success has never existed because there has never been a true communist state. No country has even gotten past the half way stage. Do you not even understand the communism you claim to preach? Tell me all about some of the "communist success", come on then buddy!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent