This isn't the gotcha people think. These guys think China is a socialist state as it pumps out more billionaires than the US for the third straight year. It may just be me, but creating the fastest growing billionaire class in the world is completely incompatible with communism, let alone socialism. To make a long story short, they are delusional. Even worse than an American who thinks the US are the good guys.
post
This has some truths in it but they are taken to extreme and modified to suit their own beliefs
Yeah 😅👍. I don't think Taiwan is a dictatorship (or if it is, I didn't realise) but the system of analysis that treats the USA as a Global Empire coercing countries into being their vassal states... it is accurate
Main weird thing in the post is that the OOP uses the term "Amerikkkan" unironically
I currently live in Taiwan and can confirm is not a dictatorship. The KMT just blocked the president on buying more defensive weapons from the USA because they are all China shills.
Dictatorship of the bourgeois doesn't mean the same thing as just a dictatorship. Marx when he invented the terms dictatorship of the proletariat was referring to which class get what they want out of the government, not referring to a totalitarian single ruler control.
By the Marxist definition every western country is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
western south Korea taiwan
Calling legitimate democracies any kind of dictatorships is simply disingenuous. Its just not what words mean. If the majority of people vote for something, that thing they voted for is the will of the people. And if the people/parties they voted for are able to take power, the majority of the populace "got what they want". And if they want a capitalist system with billionaires, well, thats what they are going to get. I feel like a lot of leftists end up stuck saying things like "people in western societies are brainwashed/they dont know what they really want (and I do)" to explain why countries dont want them in power.
even overwhelmingly large pro-change majorities, with 80 percent of the public favoring a policy change, got that change only about 43 percent of the time.
this is the case in america, I don't know of a similar study done by taiwan, but it's likely the case there as well.
It's clear that the peoples vote hardly matters.
You're doing good work out here comrade. Just wanted to say I appreciate your methods of getting folks to think critically 🫡
Well, by all means continue to not vote then.
That's a strawman. It still got that change 43% of the time, and I vote every election!
This is also you not engaging with their arguments. Nobody says don't vote, they say voting is comparatively pointless next to organization. The study basically proves that if you want change the most meaningful thing you can do is organize and strike, no?
Nobody is saying don't vote, they're saying don't use voting as a way of saying you don't have to organize and strike. It won't on its own produce meaningful change.
Ok sure I agree with all that. So what is it that's so bad about western democracies again? The combination of democracy and the ability to strike, organize and protest are why western democracies have more civil liberties than anywhere else in the world. Working conditions in, for example, China are markedly worse and the right to protest is nonexistent.
you're dodging the study that was posted. the one that clearly indicates that isn't happening in western "democracy"
the only reason they ever let you is because they're in power, but it'll be quite difficult to explain away making antifa a terrorist organization, for example.
You'd need to compare and contrast which specific rights and civil liberties you're talking about to say which one has more or less, I could point to at will employment and say the US is obviously worse, there's also the fact that the US breaks unions and strikes all the time too.
china has freedom of speech written into its constitution too, it ultimately doesn't matter if these rights are ignored, as they are in both places.
Im not dodging anything, I accept the results of the study, but i dont think its useful for comparison to a non-democracy.
Im not sure what you mean by at-will employment, as it relates to civil liberties?
There are certainly some aspects of Chinese society that are freer than in America, but i think its a false equivalency to say "both sides bad". Look at any rankings and you'll see that.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/scores
You might say, well those rankings are biased, but if you look at what i would say are the core civil liberties:
-freedom of speech/expression
-freedom of religion
-protection from discrimination
-right to representation
There really isn't any comparison. And that doesnt even get into the right to bear arms/the right to form a well-regulated militia. You think the US government is too hard on antifa? Try that shit in China haha
Im not dodging anything, I accept the results of the study, but i dont think its useful for comparison to a non-democracy.
just to be clear here, before I respond, can you state how you think voting works in china, and why it isn't a democracy?
"Freedom House was founded in October 1941, with Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt serving as its first honorary chairpersons. Most of the organization's funding comes from the U.S. State Department"
uhhh
-freedom of speech/expression
bad in both places, both have it enshrined in their constitution
-freedom of religion
we'd need to talk about specific points, but yes the US is better, but i'm kinda thinking the US's stance is backfiring hard on this one, religion is pretty evil.
-protection from discrimination
the US is so obviously worse that this isn't worth a discussion? native americans? reparations? all the genocides and human experimentation? every single foreign country they have invaded and "freed"
-right to representation
seems about even to me? awful in both places, the study I gave touched on this, what good is representation if it accomplishes nothing?
Conclusion
In this article, we investigate whether Chinese local governments are responsive to public opinion on environmental protection issues and how the involvement of various response agencies enables the policy responsiveness. Using dynamic panel analysis, we observe a weak but statistically significant policy responsiveness in Chinese local governments, measured by the extent to which online public opinion has an impact on the fiscal expenditure. We also find that this impact is significantly enhanced by the involvement of response agencies with high levels of political authority and interest homogeneity with the public. More empirical studies are needed to better understand the administrative organisations of policy responsiveness, not only within China but also as comparative studies of countries with different political systems.
slightly better in china, it seems, since there is SOME correlation.
Aight if you think China is a democracy and the US isnt i think were done here.
I don't think either are, but any definition that includes the US that is reasonable will likely include china.
if you don't want to have a dialog with people you disagree with and just close your ears what good will that accomplish?
if you're not even willing to engage with that question how can you be certain it's correct? why don't you just have a throwaway copy-paste ready to fight against it? would be more fruitful if you actually care about dismantling that idea? what you did right now won't convince anyone.
Ok, well I'm slightly encouraged that you don't think China is democratic, that's why I thought this discussion was a lost cause.
My definitions for a democracy are pretty straightforward, the people get to either decide the laws of their policies of their government (i.e. ballot initiatives, which are a major part of US government, at least at the state level), or decide who represents them in that government by voting. The elections should be free and fair, and candidates should not be restricted based on their platforms or ideologies. I think that's a pretty uncontroversial definition.
I strongly disagree with your statements about China being freer than the US on the policies I mentioned. I figured you wouldn't like whatever expert rankings I provided... I didn't actually know Freedom House was funded via the state department, but as far as their impartiality goes, consider that per Wikipedia they got their funding through USAID which has since been slashed, and also conservatives in the US don't like them because they think they're anti-conservative. But anyways, here's another few for you:
https://patrickrhamey.com/saturday-research/2025/8/14/2025-state-of-world-liberty-index EDIT: this one at least partially uses Freedom House damnit
https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2025
https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/
I'm not cherry-picking these, I'm literally just searching for civil liberties rankings. They're all fairly consistent. If you can find one that shows China above the US with independent authors, I'd be interested to see it.
Just to be clear, I don't think these indices are of any value at all? This isn't something that can be measured by a single value, you have to go point-by-point and use actual arguments, but no on Cato
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[5] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries.[nb 1] Cato was established to focus on public advocacy, media exposure, and societal influence.[6]
I'm having trouble finding v-dems actual arguments about this
I again have to ask how you think elections in china work, do you deny the existence of their elections? Which parts of your definition does china not meet? I'm not saying they obviously do meet them, i'm wanting to know what you're really saying about china, obviously they have a preference for ccp for example, i'm not denying this, just asking you how china works, according to you.
I don't really like that definition because it ignores what's really important: are the majority getting what they want? Your definition is more like guidelines for achieving that and thus puts the cart before the horse, I could accomplish all of these things, and still make it such that the majority don't get what they want.
I’m having trouble finding v-dems actual arguments about this
Not sure what you mean by that. You can select any single value you want, select the country, and then see the scores over time. Or see the by-country scores with different sections broken out here.
I again have to ask how you think elections in china work, do you deny the existence of their elections?
I certainly deny they have free and fair elections, yes. There's only one party on the ballot - that's a hell of a lot more than a "preference". Elections in the People's Republic of China occur under a one-party authoritarian political system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).[1][2] By law, all elections at all levels must adhere to the leadership of the CCP
"The majority getting what they want" is way too vague of a statement to quantify, but generally speaking I would agree that people in America and most of the Western world are dissatisfied with their governments. That doesn't make them undemocratic. I get your argument - you're saying that if people aren't happy with the decisions their government is making, is their government really representing them at all, and therefore democratic? But politicians making unpopular decisions has always and will always be a thing, and to a certain extent it's necessary - it doesn't even mean the politicians are corrupt for doing so. With that said, overall, I'd say that most major government policies are politically popular.
Not sure what you mean by that. You can select any single value you want, select the country, and then see the scores over time. Or see the by-country scores with different sections broken out here[1].
that's just a number? what objective measures did they use?
I certainly deny they have free and fair elections, yes.
How do you know they aren't free/fair? Remember the goalpost is more free/fair than the US. A country that uses the spoiler effect and a two party system to ensure minimal change happens.
There’s only one party on the ballot - that’s a hell of a lot more than a “preference”.
CCP and Nonpartisan (2,478)
Democratic Parties (369) JS (61) CPWDP (60) CDL (55) CAPD (54) CNDCA (44) RCCK (43) CZGP (39) TDSL (13)
^^ these are the seats for the non-ccp parties. there is not just one party on the ballot, but, I want to be clear here, I don't think it would be a problem if there were, I oppose political parties being the way things are decided because I view them as undemocratic, political parties allow people to not properly judge candidates based on policy and actual thought put into decisionmaking, this is also what the founding fathers of america believed. Political parties should be banned, and having one political party is equivalent to banning them. What political beliefs are you actually required to hold to join the CCP? I actually don't know and the answer to that would be enlightening.
“The majority getting what they want” is way too vague of a statement to quantify, but generally speaking I would agree that people in America and most of the Western world are dissatisfied with their governments. That doesn’t make them undemocratic. I get your argument - you’re saying that if people aren’t happy with the decisions their government is making, is their government really representing them at all, and therefore democratic? But politicians making unpopular decisions has always and will always be a thing, and to a certain extent it’s necessary - it doesn’t even mean the politicians are corrupt for doing so. With that said, overall, I’d say that most major government policies are politically popular.
the paper I linked quantified it, no?
that’s just a number? what objective measures did they use?
Here are the questions they answered and what the scores mean. Here is more information about their methodology if you are curious.
A country that uses the spoiler effect and a two party system to ensure minimal change happens.
I don't like the two-party system either, but the US doesn't "use" the 2-party system to do anything, it just happened organically because of the winner-take all election system. The founding fathers did not anticipate the rise of political parties; its worth remembering how old the US constitution is. There was not a lot of information to go off of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China
Elections in China occur under a political system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP),[1][2][40][41] with all candidate nominations pre-approved by the CCP.[1][10][4][8][42] CCP regulations require members of the People's Congresses, People's Governments, and People's Courts to implement CCP recommendations (including nominations).[43] Elected leaders remain subordinate to the corresponding CCP secretary, and most are appointed by higher-level party organizations.[43]
There are a small number of independent candidates for people's congress, particularly in neighborhoods of major cities, who sometimes campaign using Weibo.[44] Independent candidates are strongly discouraged and face government intervention in their campaigns.[6] In practice, the power of parties other than the CCP is eliminated.[44] Because none of the minor parties have independent bases of support and rely on CCP approval for appointment to positions of power, none have true political power independent of the CCP.[45][46] Whereas there are CCP committees in people's congresses at all levels, none of the other parties operate any form of party parliamentary groups.
The performed elections in China do not meet free and fair election criteria such as ballot access and political media access.
What political beliefs are you actually required to hold to join the CCP? I actually don’t know and the answer to that would be enlightening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party#Members
To join the party an applicant must be 18 years of age, and must spend a year as a probationary member.[73] In contrast to the past, when emphasis was placed on the applicants' ideological criteria, the current CCP stresses technical and educational qualifications.[73] However, applicants and members are expected to be both "red and expert".
So it seems like, just to be a member of the CPP you need to at the very least put on a good show of being a communist. That absolutely does not meet the standard of a free election to me.
And I want to make one other thing clear - even if there were zero ideological requirements to join the CCP, there is still a huge difference between 1 party and no parties. With 1 party, you are completely at the mercy of party leadership. If I joined the CCP and make comments critical of, say, President Xi, party officials could simply kick me out of the party, no elections necessary. The same thing could happen if I opposed some policy or if they simply didn't like me.
There are valid arguments to be made regarding the independence of states under the US military umbrella, but South Korea and Taiwain are pretty far down that list of what you could fairly call a true vassal state. I'd look to the Middle East for true examples of vassal states, states that exist largely due to cooperating with the US, who would otherwise simple be replaced by the CIA, with no popular or ideological base of support, weak sense of national identity, and a large (majority?) population of guest workers.
Saudi Arabia is an example. All those weapons they bought was mostly a bribe to the United States. Saudi Arabia doesn't WANT to have a strong domestic military because they know they are unpopular and, looking to Egypt, recognize they would probably be toppled by an effective and unified military.
On the other hand, you have al Ansar, starved and penniless, beating Saudi forces becauses they actually believe in what they are fighting for, whereas nobody is willing to die for the corrupt House of Saud and no piece of expensive technology is going to change that fact.
South Korea and Taiwain are both legitimate governments with strong public support and national identity, BUT South Korea did do dumb shit like send troops to support American idiocy in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But notably, South Korea, having had its military defenses stripped and sent to Israel, recently told Trump to fuck off with his troop requests; with the economic collapse of the US imminent and its military exposed as easily compromised, the era of the American vassal state is quickly coming to the end.
[Edit: On my path to correcting the following opinion: The argument for Ukraine, which I've heard from what are perhaps pro-Russian sources, is that it is basically a weapons platform for the West to attack Russia forever. Ukraine is basically devastasted as a nation, it's industrial base destroyed, it's people fleeing, it's crops unplanted and unharvested, yet it continues to fight. Why? Because it's not a country, it's a weapons platform for the West. But that isn't one I'm going to defend because I don't know enough about the situation, but it is plausible (as the best propaganda is).]
As for Israel, a much stronger case can be made that the US is a vassal state of Israel. This business in the Gulf was explicitly, per Little Marco, at the request of Israel, and only benefits Israel at great expense to the US. The US is a wagged dog.
Hi, Ukrainian here. If we actually had the "weapon platform" these chucklefucks at .ml are imagining, Moscow would already be a neat round smoking crater. That is, if you need any further proof that it's bullshit.
Tankies like to overlook the fact Russia treats Eastern Europe and Central Asia the way US treats Latin America.
Yes Ukraine the "weapons platform" that has to beg to be supplied ammunition. I will say that Western countries have used the Ukraine war as a testing field for modern weapon systems. However, I will laugh in your face if you tell me with any hint of seriousness you believe it's a US pawn. Ukraine is a European wildcard that rembers and resents the Russian Empire and is only allied with Nato for ammo and logistical support. It's not a secret that Nato is not friendly to Russia and wants to balkanize it, however Nato would never have had the balls to ever attack or threaten Russia. The reason Nato wants to balkanize Russia is that it keeps attacking neighbors and engaging in covert actions against western countries. If Russia had actually worked towards developing itself and it's European connections in the 1990s and 2000s it would be in a far better place. Rember that the USSR didn't collapse its states willingly dissolved it as soon as they had a chance to slip the collar of Moscow.
Russia rich in resources but destitute for leadership.
If you want I can steer you towards a very nice video essay series that goes over some of this with its sources cited that can help you branch off further
I will say that Western countries have used the Ukraine war as a testing field for modern weapon systems.
Most new weapons systems they use are developed in Ukraine not in West. West supplies traditional weapons all the new drone shit is domestic mostly.
The problem, from my perspective, is my "truth detector" is basically, "how much do they shit on the United States?" The more shitting there is, is the truthier the commenter. Throw in a few references like "hegemon" and "Epstein Class" and I'm a happy kitten.
I think what's most important to me is to counter-program years of US indoctrination, and seeing the US as a malign actor on the world stage is really the main ticket of entry.
That said, I have not completely taken leave of my senses and, yeah, the defenses of invading Ukraine never sat right with me. because territorial sovereigty is a core value of mine, and Russia has quite the habit of doing so and the defenses seem pretty far fetched.
I guess the sad reality is that in this space that everyone is selling something.
So, yes, if you'd like to put me onto a good YouTube series on Ukraine, I'll have a listen.
I think your lie detector is broken mate. I could arbitrarily pick a country to shit on and fill pages. It doesn't make my rants accurate. Your truth detector should be based on verifiable facts and information.... Anyways, open my profile and look at my most recent post.
There's truth detector and there's worldview that explains what is happening and can predict what will happen and can predict would happen if something novel occurred.
A collection of facts is really only interesting in if it supports or detracts from world view and what I'm looking for is an outlet that synthesizes facts and contextualizes it within a worldview, while at the same time, you know, prioritizing the truth value of claims over their ability to support their worldview/narrative.
I mean yeah. The worst part about being willing to listen and change you mind, is that people want you on their side. Even if you opinion is 80%, 95% of another person's, if you are not on the same page idealogically, you are wrong.
That's kinda how humans work though, not even in a sinister way. There is plenty of sinister people who know and try to exploit that shit. But people love team sports because we naturally love to form into teams. People will unknowingly create teams out of anything and then create methods to identify if you are in our out.
When you have an open mind enough to actually listen to these arguments and try to form an opinion, or approach a topic trying to have your mind changed, people on a team will treat you like you're fucking stupid.
You seem like you are engaging in good faith which is the highest complement you can give a person on a text forum.
Kind of the fun of talking with people is finding out where you're wrong. I'll often say something I suspect is wrong in the hopes that someone will show me the light...
It got harder to do that on reddit, where if one toe was out of line, you were treated as a bad actor. And, partially, I get it. In large groups, there are more trolls and people's patience is thinner. On the other hand, mob mentality is real...
Ukraine is basically devastasted as a nation, it's industrial base destroyed, it's people fleeing, it's crops unplanted and unharvested, yet it continues to fight. Why?
Because it's their country, if they can't protect their country and fold in just a minor pressure, they can't protect anything. They just had their independent fairly recently of course they gonna fight to their last breath to not rejoin the imperialist that they just escaped. What in Sheogorath is this argument, the mad god have more point than a russian tool.
Edit: you know why i know every tankie is a smooth brain? Apply the same argument to Hamas and Palestine and you will get a different argument from them.
But that isn’t one I’m going to defend because I don’t know enough about the situation, but it is plausible (as the best propaganda is).
Please, name any attack on Russian soil performed by Nato, before Russia invaded Ukraine. I beg you. You can't? Oh.
Man I thought I was the only one. I just got banned from their memes instance for saying people should vote. Like at all.
What compels people to be like this?
They're harmless imo
That's the same mentality that led to the rise of the Tea Party then from there MAGA. Oh, they're harmless, what will you even do if they win? /s

John Palantir invited you to join Palantir
16 members already in workspace.
ACCEPT INVITATION
Free and no setup required. This invitation expires in 30 days.
Invited by john@palantir.com. View the workspace at any time by clicking this URL palantir-dso5020.slack.com.
What is Slack?
Slack is a messaging app for teams, a place you can collaborate on projects and organize conversations — so you can work together, no matter where you are.
Of course, blocate all those who think an other way than you, so you won't understand their arguments. Their is only one good way of thinking and all those who disagree with you are paid or stupid... And you want democratie so eâeryone can express their opinion and discuss them... but only as long as they agree with you..
So one of your premises for making the fediverse better is to remove the parts you don’t like / don’t agree with?
Can you not just scroll past?
Some would suggest that silencing / censoring your opposition is quite a tankie thing to do…
Edit: Judging by the repliers I’ve chatted to some people really seem to care a lot about this. I gotta admire your passion… whilst still having a different opinion.
"Silencing / censoring" by asking that people merely block the propaganda instance via their personal block lists?
Yeah, that’s fine - but this just seems a bit like brigading.
If a person makes their own mind up, one way or another, good for them.
The post is evidence to help them make their mind up. It's not like the OP can block anyone for that person.
Yeah, whilst trying to paint an entire instance broadly with a single brush…
I pop over to .ml for a few communities most days - never discussed anything political whilst there and had a jolly time.
My fediverse experience would be lessened via a blanket defederation / instance blocking.
When their admins routinely push propaganda, ban users and delete content just based on their political disagreements and contrary to their own written rules (as thoroughly documented in this very community), it's much closer to the kind of thing you led with in your comment here. It wouldn't be excessive to want to stay away from the whole instance based on that.
Yeah, I get all that. But it’s opinion… I prefer to hear what everybody has to say, evaluate the source and then process what is said - and possibly why.
I get other people are different and just want to mute etc, nay bother.
I just don’t like people actively calling for a boycott. If you’re a functioning adult, pop over, have a look, maybe keep your mouth shut until you get the feel of the instance - and then make a decision…
it just seems a bit pitch forks and lanterns against the Bwci under the bridge.
(Plus it seems a bit weird to try and drive a wedge and foster resentment against where the devs of Lemmy be.)
I was gonna reply to some of your numerous messages - but this one takes the piss.
“Sucking Up”? Seriously - are you 5?
How I was brought up is if someone does something for you that is of no charge and you benefit from it - you at least say thanks, even if you don’t like the cunt.
Let's make an instance for Nazis, then, while we're at it. Otherwise we aren't tolerant enough /s
They could call it something like @nazi.bar
There are quite a few already. They just blocked everyone including each other and are now single instance dictatorships rather than a federation of instances.
By Nazi I’m assuming you mean fascist and then I saw the word “tolerant” and almost couldn’t reply.
My level of Nazi tolerance varies greatly; I’ll tell you why: words should be countered by words, direct action should be countered by direct action.
Does driving things underground have a history of eradicating said thing?
I would prefer to confront / convert a fascist before they make a move then to have to kill one after they made their move.
You however might be more blase about ending human lives than me, granted.
Words to be countered with words only when a person speaks in a good faith and is ready to listen. Thats almost never the case in the internet, unless you are in some low pop group chat where people value your personal opinion. Thats not a lemmy format, we are too numerous. I'm basically nobody to you, why my opinion even matters?
.ml is not speaking in a good faith, in fact they ban opposing opinions. Its red fash propaganda platform. Block is the way.
Well, the tankie instances very loudly advocate in defense of a terrorist state that is in fact attempting to end my life and life of every person in my country. Is that direct enough for you or am I not passing your purity test?
All valid… but surely you understand that some people just randomly go with the first instance they find?
I’m all for people personally curating feeds.
Not sure about purity tests, or really what that means here - I’m just giving an opinion. I’d be horrified if everybody else agreed with me…
some people just randomly go with the first instance they find
Hence this community, to give people more information on tankie instances.
Honestly, if I was on .ml and had already subscribed to the comms I wanted I’m not sure I’d bother to migrate… and slowly things would get quieter and quieter until I quit and told everybody I know, who’s tech literate, that the fediverse is dying.
I don't know, if I was on .ml and saw links to posts where the instance's admins and mods are saying that killing people like me is a good idea, I would "bother to migrate". And then I would tell everybody I know, who cares to listen, that the fediverse isn't limited to a handful of fascist in red coats.
god it’s a shame that there isn’t a community that could help someone in that situation. maybe somewhere tankie bullshit could be called out and put on blast.
oh wait!
The only thing I disagree with is the active push to defederate / total block list an instance based on the incorrect assumption that every single member can, at will, transmute into a homogenous extremist totalitarian hydra.
Do you know the English phrase: could not see the wood for the trees?
ml has a sign up form last I checked. It isn't just a click the first thing you see situation.
When I first encountered .ml’s instance I actually wondered why the Republic of Mali had such a strong presence in the fediverse.
I’m a bellend - that was for someone else.
Yes driving "opinions" underground has a great track record of lessening their impact, especially when they aren't true.
Look the world is complex, hitler didn't kill a single person himself but his words certainly lead to death.
A lie travels way faster than the truth, we know for a fact that the more acceptable hate speech becomes the more likely real life violence will become.
So words lead to concentration camps in the US and now where is the action against the action that you speak of?
Lefties always make tge stake of believing rightwingers are completely sincere when they speak when in fact they don't really care about the truth and entertaining them often serves only one purpose, getting their message out there.
I
So one of your premises for making the fediverse better is to remove the parts you don’t like / don’t agree with?
Literally this, yes.
top 80 comments