cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/46475483

all 68 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 112 points 6 months ago (1 child)

67 brands of shampoo from 3 different multinational corporations whose CEOs are all best friends

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago

    You think its 63 choices but it's actually 2 when you follow the money back to the parent companies. Oh, and you're prematurely bald thanks to the stress

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago

    The freedom to speak your mind and live the life you want. So long as it conforms to what the ruling class decree.

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 6 months ago
    [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    No because you see you’re free to start your own telecoms company or hospital or bank with the money from your trust fund

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago (24 children)

    That's America, not capitalism.

    Europe, Canada etc, the unemployed have medical coverage.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    Even setting aside America's bullshit Medical industry, yanks have really weird ideas about freedom.

    As an Australian the American concept of freedom always seemed nuts, even pre-Trump. Yes American's have the freedom to carry firearms, but I much prefer the Australian freedom to live without fear of being shot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    I hate that when the world thinks of the US, they think of these 2A freaks. I get why it happens but I still hate it.

    The one thing I'll push back on is your last point. Pretty much no one is afraid of getting shot. Gun violence IS an issue but it's not affecting 99.9% of people

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Americans do not fear being shot on the daily either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Oh they absolutely do. It's one of the reasons they have such an ingrained gun fetish in their culture and incessantly complain about needing the right to open carry in a Walmart to "protect themselves from a bad guy with a gun."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    If you get stopped by the police because you're driving too fast or driving erratically, is there any chance they would draw their firearm during that interaction, even if they dont point it at you?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Not to mention their ridiculous belief in their right to drive over the speed limit without consequences. Canada included.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Ah, yeah I suspect a lot of Australian's do that too.

    Perhaps not over the speed limit, but loads of drivers definitely feel as though they're entitled to zoom around right on the limit and any impediment to their passage is an outrageous insult.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    I just wish we had full pharmacare in Canada. I know we got a partial rollout but I got laid off and lost my insurance and the actual price of some of my medicine is way crazier than I expected.

    The last time I went to pick up medication, it cost me $450 (CAD) for only for 3 prescriptions which insane. Its nearly half of my EI which already pays less than what my rent is

    Luckily I actually just got hired by another place and should have insurance again but damn, our system is still terrible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Crazy idea, but medication should cost nothing. Nobody should have to choose between groceries and getting the medications they need.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    You'd get no complaints from me. I don't understand why you can go to the doctor which is covered by the government, but any medication for the treatment the doctor literally prescribed is something only those with insurance can have

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    It is still capitalism, and capitalism is based off of exploitation regardless of whether you have health insurance or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    All forms of capitalism is exploitative. It is intrinsic to the system of private property ownership in that it creates a hierarchy of owners, who relegate access to necessities and the means of producing them unless one pays a fee, over workers who must labor for the owners in order to access said resources that they need to survive through being provided a wage from revenue that was generated through their labor, while the owner takes the lions share because of said private ownership.

    Someone needs to read theory.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    The sole fact that mostly capitalist countries provide healthcare for the unemployed is by no means a testament that capitalism is fundamentally compatible with this idea.

    No country is purely capitalist or socialist - it's always a mix of the two. Sometimes it's a somewhat even balance, like in some European states. Other times one clearly dominates, like in the USA.

    Universal healthcare is a concept deeply rooted in socialism. It functions within mostly capitalist countries, because they've decided to implement some socialist policies. Not because it follows capitalist thought. Because it doesn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    The sole fact that mostly capitalist countries provide healthcare for the unemployed is by no means a testament that capitalism is fundamentally compatible with this idea.

    That's a wild take. "The fact this exists perfectly fine in a capitalist system doesn't mean that it's compatible with a capitalist system!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    That's just America. There are plenty of capitalist countries where that's not the case.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    The rest of the world may lag behind, but someday everyone will have the 63 shampoo flavors

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    We have the best of both worlds. 63 shampoo flavors and unemployment support.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    My dream is instead of three people that own all 63 shampoo flavors, the workers own them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    Yes, you have concessions by the ruling class. For now...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    TBH nowadays I don't think the US Federal government would ever give a single concession as they are now. Probably would rather roll in the military than make medication a bit cheaper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Well yea that was the goal of all those concessions , to keep the working class pacified while they consolidated power towards the owning class. Now they have consolidated that power and dismantled the foundations which bred the resistance efforts of the past and are comfortable in their assumptions they can now freely abuse the people without the need to make concessions.

    We have reached the point that they were warning would come about by accepting these concessions as if they were progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Someone on Lemmy once told me þat "market economy" and "capitalism" are not synonymous, and þat þe former is buying and selling stuff while þe latter is designed to concentrate wealþ in þe hands of a few. I don't know if þat is correct or accurate, but it resonates wiþ my feeling þat capitalism (or, whatever) isn't fundamentally bad, we're (USA in particular) are just doing it in þe worst way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago

    I wanted to respond to þis on my desktop; sorry for þe necrobump.

    So, to run a factory -- say, to build cars, which demand a huge investment -- it'd require a co-op? Building a high-rise would be a co-op? Once built, would þe co-op be able to rent out space? You mentioned rent, so renting isn't illegal. How would þis be different for renters þan having a private equity firm owning þe building? Wouldn't it just funnel money to þe co-op members?

    Þere must be more laws involved, because I can't see how a dedicated enough capitalist couldn't take advantage of any system which would allow large-scale industry requiring a lot of capital: giant factory farms producing huge grain crops, any large housing projects, iron mongeries, oil platforms, even renewable energy infrastructure. Unless þese were all owned and operated as non-profits by The Public. And running any of þese would be done by, what, a board? Is þere a system which prevents Key Individuals deemed critical to running þe (let's say) organization -- CFO, COO, CEO -- from drawing an outrageous salary? Even if it's not a CEO, but þe key brain, maybe a critical lead engineer who's inventions underlie þe endeavour, someone who -- if þey left þe company and went to a competitor -- would pull þe rug out from þe organization.

    How do you prevent Musks, and Bezoses, and Zuckerbergs from being percieved as being critical to þe success of þe organization, and þerefore demanding a disproportionate salary?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    These are two completely different kinds of 'freedom', that the English language coincidentally calls the same thing. All the other languages that I know of clearly distinguish the two. Interesting, isn't it?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    So does English. The word everyone is confusing is liberty. We do not have freedom in America as is sold. We have liberty. Someone convinced too many they were the same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    liberty: The state of being free from oppressive restrictions or control imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views

    That's the one they're trying to dismantle right now...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    Spoiler …all 63 brands of shampoo are owned by the same shareholders and shadowy investment firm

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Let's ban all marketing, see what happens. They're the ones peddling bullshit.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Freedom to smoke cigarettes after being born in 2008 🦅 🇺🇲

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    63 choices of shampoo, but only 3 choices of automobile

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    Based on my observations, the freedom a lot of 'Muricans are thinking about is the freedom to be racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/islamaphobic/antisemitic/misanthropic/all-around intolerably intolerant assholes

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Capitalism is a shit show and having healthcare tied to employment is horrible but is this person arguing that having a lot of options to choose from is a bad thing?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    is this person arguing that having a lot of options to choose from is a bad thing?

    Probably. In a nation where 56 people are dying from malnutrition every day, having 11 different brands of cheese balls is a disgrace.

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

    is this person arguing that having a lot of options to choose from is a bad thing?

    What if those options are nothing more than bread and circuses to distract everyone from the growing dystopia that the sellers of those options are creating?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Monoculture farming and usurping native species is a significant contributor to green house gases and it destroys the ecosystem. Run off water contains nitrogen from fertilizers. Don't get me started on insecticides and insecticide resistant crops that one company has a monopoly on, they have won lawsuits against farmers for growing last year's seeds instead of purchasing new ones.

    It is absolutely not all farmers but unfortunately farms are going bankrupt and their properties get rolled up into a portfolios and sold. And if you're a lucky* farmer then you lease areas of your land to the mega farming corp instead of out right losing your property.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Shampoo is distracting people?

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

    Thats an impressive level of missing the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    That's the example they used. There's good reason for there to be tons of different shampoos. People have all different kinds of hair and conditions that make it so one size can't fit all. Tons of products are like this. Even if the product is just for entertainment, why is it such a bad thing to have a lot of choice?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    I think most people are in favor of having lots of different products to choose from. The point of the post isn't that it's a bad thing, the point is that freedom should mean more than just having a wide variety of products to choose from.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Positive versus negative freedom. Always mix up which is which tho

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    "Ha nice try! That is not real capitalism! You think workplaces would just give workers health insurance under a free market? They would just tell sick workers to figure it out themselves and replace them with healthy ones if needed!"

    "Some of the first evidence of compulsory health insurance in the United States was in 1915, through the progressive reform protecting workers against medical costs and sicknesses in industrial America. Prior to this, within the Socialist and Progressive parties, health insurance and coverage was framed as not only an economic right for workers' health, but also as an employer's responsibility and liability—healthcare was in this context centered on working-class Americans and labor unions." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#The_rise_of_employer-sponsored_coverage)

  • source
  • 22 comments in c/socialism@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 0 points 5 months ago (21 children)

    @Cowbee@lemmy.ml

    New thread as max thread length reached.

    Let's move on.

    How does holding China accountable for what it currently lacks look like to you?

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (20 children)

    What do you mean by "holding them accountable?" How can any of us do so, if we aren't Chinese, and aren't in any position of power? We should support positive movements where they happen, and focus on improving where we lack.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (19 children)

    I mean taking into account and consideration where the country is lacking or has flaws.

    This does not require one to be a member of the same ethnicity as the nation one is critiquing.

    This is just about views so being in a position of power isn't relevant right now.

    You mention focusing on improving where we lack, but where does China lack in your view?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    I'm not talking about ethnicity, I mean neither of us live in China. Neither of us can hold them accountable. If you mean what problems China is working on that I consider to be pressing, there's the rural/urban development gap, the continuing improvement and struggle for better queer rights, the importance of electrification and energy independence, and more.

    I don't frame this as "lacking," because again, China is the fastest developing and improving country in history, and all of these areas are being actively worked on. They are not regressing. They still have areas to improve, but framing them as "lacking" implies a regression.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (17 children)

    The same applies; if one must live in a country to critique it that means everyone can only critique one country and no other countries at a time.

    Also, you are framing it again as "problems China is working on" and not just "problems in China" which is narrower and filters any issues China may not be working on. The result would be a more positive outlook on the country than could be warranted by reality.

    What evidence exists that the state of china is actively working on queer rights? Specifically the state.

    Fastest developing, in what regard?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (16 children)

    There's a difference between critique, and "holding accountable." One is a matter of judgment, and the latter is not possible without control. As for judgment, it's important to actually have an all-sided view, not just those of foreigners looking in. As for problems in China, the positive is that the CPC is working on the pressing problems in China as seen by the Chinese people.

    As for China working on queer rights, here's a video from CGTN talking about the progress of queer rights, and here's one from Jin Xing on CGTN talking about the progression of trans rights. The state controls media like CGTN, the purpose here is to gradually improve public perception of LGBTQ rights and bring the people upward on it, as in China policy generally comes from below, not above.

    As for fastest developing, in terms of economic growth, life expectancy, literacy rates, you name it. Compare the China of today with 10 years ago, 20, 50, and 100. It's an incredible feat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (15 children)

    By "holding accountable" I meant balanced critique that doesn't exclusively focus on the positives of the country.

    If the state is accepting of queer people (or tries to project that image), it seems hypocritical that the police don't act in accordance to this, given that the police is an instrument of the state.

    We've had police raids on queer events and censorship of gay couples on TV in recent times (as recent as 2023).

    More elaboration on China's state-sponsored censorship of queer populations in media from equaldex:

    Since 2016, China censors LGBT content, including LGBT-themed films, TV shows, and media, under the General Principles for the Production of TV Drama Content which took effect in March 2016. According to The Guardian, the Chinese government has "banned all depictions of gay people on television," calling it "vulgar, immoral and unhealthy content." The popular "boy love" (BL) TV drama "Addicted" was banned in 2016.

    A Chinese broadcaster, Mango TV, which broadcasts Eurovision blurred a rainbow flag during the semi-final of the show.

    In April of 2022, a few lines of dialog were removed from the Chinese release of the film 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore.' The dialog referenced the gay romance between Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald.

    In August of 2023, Chinese officials removed an LGBTQ song from the set list of popular Taiwanese pop star A-Mei, ahead of her concert in Beijing. Security guards at the event forced fans to remove rainbow symbols and clothing. On the 22nd of August, Chinese officials shut down a handful of popular social media accounts on the Chinese social networking service WeChat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    As I already explained, China is not a monolith. You can look at any western country and find similar state repression at the local level, which is even more varied in China due to having 1.4 billion people. You are looking at it one-dimensionally, which is the problem I was getting at earlier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (13 children)

    You say I'm looking at it one-dimensionally, but you always dismiss or shrug off any negatives that may come about w.r.t. China, or frame it as being positively worked on, when you don't do the same for other countries. If I mentioned a different country in such a context you would have called it deflection.

    A monolithic representation of the positive is still a monolith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    I don't present China as universally positive, I have drawn a clear line between socialist countries that are generally working towards a better society, imperialist countries that have been declining and are a net drain on the world, and non-socialist countries in the periphery that ultimately are progressing, albeit not necessarily as much as they could be if they were socialist.

    There's also the fact that we aren't at all on the same page when it comes to dialectical materialism as being the start point for any genuine analysis, and as such I tend to reject framing that involves metaphysics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children)

    You say you don't, but you exclusively discuss positivity or progress w.r.t. China and socialist countries. When anything negative is reframed out of the equation, the resulting assessment necessarily becomes unilaterally positive.

    Imperialist countries being a drain on the world isn't something I'm arguing against, although we do not share a common understanding of imperialism.

    It's true that I don't believe analysis must be through the diamat outlook for it to be rational, though framing away negatives as metaphysical or any other framing that makes them to be other than what they are (i.e. negatives) isn't something that I find compelling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (10 children)

    I've said a number of things are problems, such as the urban/rural development gap. This is a problem to be solved, and thankfully it's one being actively worked upon. How is this not a "negative" in your view? You keep trying to look at things as a laundry list of pros and cons, and try to put things into neat categories, but that's not how the world works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (9 children)

    You did, as a list of "all things china is actively working on". It's the framing away of negatives that makes it not seem as much of a negative whenever you do mention them, however briefly.

    Maybe it's not how the world works, but it does strike me as strange if that's only the case when it comes to describing socialist countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)

    I don't really see any major issues China has that aren't being actively worked on, big or small. China of course has problems, but these aren't static and permanent. China is both socialist and anti-imperialist, so in that way it makes sense.

    Zoom out, 100 years pass. What do you think is going to get worse in China? What is China doing that's actively progressing in a bad direction?

    I think you're confusing my condemnation of imperialist countries as being unable to address their problems due to the faulty mode of production they rely on, with the belief that these are simply "negatives." I see them in the same way all societies have problems, the difference is that some societies are actually able to address these problems by putting needs over profits, and this goes back to the mode of production.

    Why do you think I constantly centered imperialism as a problem unable to be solved without revolution?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children)

    It's not just China though, you approach other socialist countries the same way.

    You say China's problems aren't static or permanent, but you don't append such disclaimers or framing to issues outside of socialist regions.

    I don't see China as anti-imperialist, but I'll drop the words "imperialist" and "fascist" altogether for the purposes of this discussion since we use it to mean different things.

    Not everything is always changing significantly, some things can stay the same over time, but to answer the question, I'd say I see state surveillance, suppression of criticism, censorship, and things like that getting worse in China. Though this is kind of something I see happening globally, I'm inclined to believe this is worse in China because it's already etched into the system at a scale more prolific than in the west.

    You can routinely find criticisms of America online but China censors this. You do not personally take offense to this because in your view the capitalist should be suppressed ("communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat"), but I do. I will also say that it is this framing which makes it such that one has to be a capitalist in order to criticize the Chinese state (and thus be censored), but this isn't true; I'm not capitalist but I would certainly criticize the state. I am staunchly against the notion of a dictatorship altogether, but this is something not everyone is uncomfortable with, I suppose.

    My issue is that you don't frame away the negatives that you mention of non-socialist countries as being part of progress or being actively worked on the way you do for socialist countries.

    I don't see China as being innocent and I retain that China is violent and aggressive when it finds the opportunity, and I've seen examples of this prior but I'd have to research to get into that w citations.

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

    I treat all countries the same way, my evaluation of them changes depending on the country.

    As for your critique of China, surveillance, suppression of misinformation and capitalist viewpoints, etc. are directed against capitalists. It's a working class state wielding authority against reactionaries. The west also uses state authority against class enemies, it just so happens that these class enemies are the working classes. Opposing socialist democracies is a reactionary viewpoint, even if you consider yourself to be anti-capitalist you'd still be going against both the will of the majority and the working classes.

    As for imperialist countries, they aren't generally improving. The reason for this is dependence on imperialism, and putting profit over need. They cannot effectively improve the lives of their people. This isn't me treating them differently, but instead evaluating them based on their own (lack of) merit.

    As for China being "violent and aggressive given the opportunity," this is silly and unfounded.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    I assumed you would say China's suppression and censorship is okay because it's anti-capitalist and I mentioned why that wasn't an adequate explanation. One could criticize the state without being a capitalist. It is not reactionary for one to criticize the state, unless you are asking for unconditional acceptance of the state. If criticizing the state is considered to be going against the will of the majority, then majority be damned.

    I also assumed you would say the west does the same thing, and I mentioned why that wasn't really true either. Despite their suppression you can still easily find and access criticisms of the state within their countries whereas this is not the case in China.

    In my view it is impossible to have a balanced view of a state if all dissent and criticism is cracked down. Labelling all dissent and criticism as capitalist is a wholly inadequate and frankly infantile response.

    On western countries not improving: I would say you're also not considering their existing state of development; it may be easier to develop undeveloped/less developed regions than it is to develop already developed regions further, I would expect plateaus to be a thing in any country's timeline of development to occur. Some decades from now when China reaches the same level of development one could see plateaus there too.

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

    Again, you can believe yourself to be anti-capitalist, but simply calling yourself one is not an adequate explanation for opposing proletarian state power. Further, you can absolutely find criticism against the CPC in China, and the west also censors to a dramatic degree against the proletariat. Censorship is less transparent and more malicious in the west.

    Not all dissent is capitalist. What's absurd is pretending that all criticism is censored in China, which is why I have been repeating over and over that you have no grounds to stand on to criticize China. You have no idea what China is like, just what you hear online, and as a consequence you have an utterly one-sided view.

    As for imperialist countries not developing further, it's because imperialism results in de-industrialization. The plataue for capitalist development was already reached, you need to transition to socialism to begin developing further. You continue to ignore real, material systems like imperialism, because you simply disagree with analyzing it as a stage in capitalism and instead wish to analyze it purely as a policy states take. This is not how imperialism works.

    Really, it's quite disappointing that this is what you seem to take away from this. You have a view of China that doesn't map to reality, and you have a view of imperialism that doesn't map to reality either. Without analyzing both concretely, we can't really move forward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Both of these critiques could be applied to your views as well.

    You can believe the state of China to be for the working class, but that isn't an adequate explanation for censorship.

    Despite censorship in the west, as I pointed out earlier, you can still find extensive criticisms of trump and the American regime in China.

    you can absolutely find criticism against the CPC in China

    Any examples of open media criticism against CPC in China? Direct and detailed criticisms of Xi Jinping would be the icing on the cake.

    You have an utterly one-sided and unrealistically positive view of China yourself, I've been saying that for a while now. It's just in the opposite direction.

    I am not a Chinese national, so of course I am going to be getting my information about it from the internet, as I assume is the case for you. Or have you lived there yourself?

    Censorship is less transparent in the west.

    Highly doubt that. China and transparency are not words I'd put together.

    I am choosing to ignore the term "imperialism" because we don't share an understanding on the term, and I'm not boxing myself into a communist outlook to discuss things.

    Though it does seem we are at an impasse.

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

    Both of these critiques could be applied to your views as well.

    No, actually, they cannot.

    You can believe the state of China to be for the working class, but that isn’t an adequate explanation for censorship.

    You're right, belief alone is not adequate. What's instead adequate is analyzing the mode of production and distribution in China, the class character of the state, and the historical necessity to prevent capitalist disinformation from spreading uncontested. I don't just believe China has a working class state based on hope alone, but based on concrete evidence. Over 90% of the public supports the government, and China is ranked even by western organizations as a thriving democracy even by western definitions of democracy:

    Historically, capitalists have manipulated the press to spread disinformation. Radio Free Asia is an example primarily directed against China. In the USSR, Radio Free Europe contributed heavily towards pessimism regarding constructing socialism. Class struggle does not end under socialism, so the working classes need to continue to win the class war.

    Despite censorship in the west, as I pointed out earlier, you can still find extensive criticisms of trump and the American regime in China.

    Of course you'll find extensive criticism of the west within China, the west is the world imperial hegemon.

    Any examples of open media criticism against CPC in China? Direct and detailed criticisms of Xi Jinping would be the icing on the cake.

    Criticism doesn't work like that. People don't generally make hit pieces. If you want an example of more liberal press in China that desires more liberalization, see South China Morning Post. Institutions are prevented from mouthing off, but people on the ground often consider political critique to be a national pass time. The difference between the west and China is that there is a national hope in China, rather than pessimism.

    You have an utterly one-sided and unrealistically positive view of China yourself, I’ve been saying that for a while now. It’s just in the opposite direction.

    No, I do not. Frankly, I've done far more research into China than you have, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way, but in the sense that I've actually had to grapple with my skepticism of China in the past. I already admitted to many currently existing problems in China, but you've continued to make baseless claims about "Chinese imperialism."

    I am not a Chinese national, so of course I am going to be getting my information about it from the internet, as I assume is the case for you. Or have you lived there yourself?

    Correct, I have not lived there. That's why I focus on not making authoritative claims denouncing China, and instead seek to learn what I can from the outside while focusing on changing the world I live in, the west. That's where my activism takes me. Where we differ is that I have done far more study on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and the history of AES countries.

    Highly doubt that. China and transparency are not words I’d put together.

    Why not? Again, look at the polling from the Perception of Democracy index, China is ranked very favorably by its own people:

    I am choosing to ignore the term “imperialism” because we don’t share an understanding on the term, and I’m not boxing myself into a communist outlook to discuss things.

    You've committed to denying a concrete, materialist understanding of imperialism as a stage in capitalism. I've made it clear that imperialism is a necessary evolution within capitalism once it reaches the monopoly stage, with dominance of finance capital, and switches from export of commodity to export of capital. This is a clear and coherent system with an enormous breadth of study, even if you don't want to call it "imperialism," the fact is that this system exists, that it's the dominant mode of the west, and that China does not practice this system.

    It does not matter if you do not consider yourself a communist. This was first analyzed by Hobson, a liberal. You do not have to be a communist to recognize it, if you leave this entirely in the hands of communists then you're just ceding any right to be taken seriously in any geopolitical matter, as it's the primary contradiction in the modern era.

    I do agree that we are at an impasse, but I hope you'll reconsider your viewpoints and actually commit to studying phenomena in a materialist and dialectical viewpoint.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    You say the people of China view it “very favourably” but if you look at the columns for free speech and transparency it is on the lower side.

    Incorrect, China is near the top of the list. See the bottom:

    Free speech and transparency are the specific aspects I was talking about; public support is not a silver bullet and can be fabricated by state control.

    Free speech and transparency are high in China, assuming you're a part of the working classes, so you should have no problems.

    Capitalists manipulating the press to spread disinformation is not an excuse for the state to suppress and censor all criticism.

    Says who? And further, no, not all criticism is censored, institutionalized private owned disinformation is censored. The working classes need to be able to control which class's speech is allowed to propogate and dominate, otherwise capitalists manipulate the press to spread nihilism towards the socialist project. This has happened historically, and it sounds like you don't actually care if a socialist project succeeds as long as fascists and capitalists are given free speech.

    I meant in America over there, not China. It is not difficult for an American to fire up YouTube and find an English video openly criticizing the trump administration.

    Sure, it isn't difficult to find that, because liberal societies have effectively drawn attention to individual figures, rather than the system itself. Criticize Trump all you want, don't you dare start suggesting socialism as it exists in the real world is a better system though. What you are finding is Great Man Theory, the idea that history is driven not by material conditions but individual great men and women sporadically born throughout history, which serves as a pressure valve.

    You can easily find Americans criticizing trump or the US on YouTube with millions of views, if not more. So this is just false. I can easily provide you with such a video(s) if requested. Can you do the same about China, from Chinese nationals in china?

    Why would people in China make hit pieces on a beloved leader? Why are you taking the absence of such hit pieces as evidence that Xi Jinping is actually evil? You can find articles from South China Morning Post, itself a Chinese media platform, criticizing the CPC! You're trying to have it both ways!

    I have dropped the use of the term “imperialist” in this discussion, but yes I do believe China is violent and opportunistic.

    Yes, you unilaterally dropped one of the most critical parts of this discussion because it wasn't going your way, and you have not once provided evidence of China being "violent and opportunistic." You've hemmed and hawed around these lines.

    Yet you have no problem doing the inverse.

    Do you mean I have no problems highlighting structural issues with the west? I live in the west, I know its problems well. Do you mean that I am more comfortable making claims about China? It's because I have studied it far more than you have, including the ideology driving the CPC. I'm certainly no expert, but there's a clear gap in knowledge here that would be silly to not acknowledge.

    I’m not interested in discussing imperialism here. Jargon asides, I see China as being a violent state in its own ways, “imperialist” or not.

    Yes, again, you're not interested in discussing the single most crucial component of modern geopolitics. You've decided to ignore the topic completely because acknowledging it undermines your points. As for seeing China as a "violent state," this is definitely true with respect to how it treats fascists and capitalists, but not towards the working classes.

    I don’t find your views compelling so I’m not likely to reconsider my beliefs, much less to fit specifically within a communist box.

    It must be very convenient to be able to refuse to discuss topics that are widely acknowledged and studied even by non-communists, in order to retreat to idealism and metaphysics (like race science earlier). I'm being harsh now, because this has become a farce. I am sorry, but if you are going to continue to retreat into vibes and gut-feelings over materialist analysis, then there's nowhere for this conversation to go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    I am part of the working class, but if criticizing the state takes me out of the category then I’d have a problem.

    Standing against the socialist state doesn't take you out of the working class, it just means you have become a class traitor. Critique is valuable, and necessary. Critique based on metaphysics, idealism, and all manner of unscientific grounding is not genuine critique for the sake of a better future, but instead just a tool to be magnified by the bourgeoisie in restoring their rule.

    Says me. That is my stance. You may be okay with that, I’d not be, though.

    If socialism is dependent on censorship for its success, then I do not see socialism succeeding as a good thing. If socialism is truly good for the country, then under a system without censorship and with an education system that adequately teaches people to use reason independently and come to their own conclusions without enforcing propaganda, I would assume it should lead to the majority being in favour of socialism anyway.

    And this, dear reader, is why we actually analyze history, rather than simply hoping that despite all historical analysis, surely this time letting capitalists have free speech will not backfire. There is no successful revolution that has not cracked down on the tools available to the bourgeoisie to restore their order, as all who failed to do so have crumbled. For the sake of your insistence that fascists and capitalists be given equal rights to that of the proletariat, you work against the socialist state, as a reactionary.

    It’s funny you say this given socialist states disallow criticism of socialism too, so it’s really not different in that regard.

    No, you're conflating the censorship of disinformation and fomenting anti-socialist sentiment with all criticism. Criticism is necessary for growth, but all criticism has a definite class character to it, a definite class outlook. It is only working class outlook that should stand in socialist society.

    Alright, if there was criticism against CPC that would be helpful, but the south china morning post you linked to apparently doesn’t have anything to do with the CPC but is about BiliBili cracking down on adult content? Searching for the terms “CPC” and “party” returned 0 results on that link.

    Who do you think is censoring posts in BiliBili?

    Positive claims, yes, I mean that. You’re admitting to working from a biased position where you don’t have a problem making authoritative claims about China when it comes to the positive, but then not doing the same when it comes to the negative (or discouraging others from doing so).

    Everyone has biases. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" position. I have regularly encouraged you to do 2 things:

    1. Study more, be it theory, history, and practice.

    2. Focus on problems that you actually can impact, in your country. Oppose your country's imperialism (as I'm near certain you live in an imperialist country). Organize for socialism.

    I am not about to restrict myself to a hyperspecific and narrow definition of the type of violence that matters and warrants discussion. I will not waffle over specific jargon either because pedantic usage of certain words is not important to me. Violence is something I am concerned about and is however something I’d want to discuss, and China is not as innocent as you like to portray it as.

    Class analysis is critical. If you ignore it, you equate all violence, when violence is sadly an unavoidable aspect of the class struggle itself. There have been no non-violent revolutions, and revolutionary violence is violence that ends the daily violence of capitalism and imperialism.

    I can provide evidence for this, but I already know you won’t waste a moment to assert that every single instance of China’s human rights failures are a hoax and never happened to begin with, or that they are progressing, or some other framing that makes them less than what they are.

    Let's see what you have to offer.

    China being the country with the highest number of yearly executions, in the thousands, being higher than Iran and Saudi Arabia: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/05/executions-surge-highest-recorded-figure-44-years/

    China is the second most populous country on the planet. You'll need to do more than that.

    China on the erasure of Tibetan and minority languages: https://www.tibetanreview.net/chinas-new-language-law-to-criminalise-advocacy-of-ethnic-minority-rights/

    This is bullshit. Tibetan culture is protected, not erased. What's criminalized is the desire to restore the slave-based system of earlier Tibet, back when the Dalai Lama was backed by the CIA and the PLA liberated it. Tibetan Review is funded by the exile government, the state based on slavery and torture.

    China on creating laws to bury evidence of the Uyghur genocide: https://uyghurtimes.com/china-enacts-sweeping-secrecy-law-in-uyghur-region-to-silence-witnesses-and-bury-evidence-of-crimes/

    Epistemic violence against the Uyghur population: https://globalvoices.org/2026/03/11/the-normalization-of-uyghur-repression-in-the-name-of-social-governance-in-china/

    There is no Uyghur genocide, this is an example of China censoring disinformation, and you're proving this to be the correct decision. After all, the west gets to accuse socialist countries of all manner of atrocities in order to manufacture consent for war. Sorry to tell you, but the "free flow of information" you value in the west is just the free flow of disinformation. Read Xinjiang: A Report and Resource Compilation, nearly the entirety of claims of genocide circle back to US-paid propagandist Adrian Zenz of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

    After the introduction of the vocational schools and other de-radicalizing programs, western-backed ETIM terrorist attacks and mass murders went down dramatically, to practically 0.

    Chinese authorities blocking life-saving treatment for human rights (land) activist: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/china-authorities-block-life-saving-kidney-treatment-for-woman-activist-ahead-of-major-government-meetings/

    As for Yang Li, I cannot find much on her, only that "human rights organizations" like Minsheng Guancha that seem to always be in trouble for opposing socialism seem to have her in a few articles. She may or may not even be real, or her story may be heavily doctored for western uses. The west uses accusations of "human rights abuses" all the time in order to give ammo against geopolitical enemies.

    Given what you count as "proof" elsewhere, I'll remain skeptical.

    I have seen enough videos of Uyghur people being oppressed by China and them coming out and speaking about their terrible experiences to know the Uyghur genocide is not a hoax, and that is not something I am debating.

    If that's all it takes to get you to believe in atrocity propaganda, I can only assume you believe white genocide in South Africa is real, that Iraq had WMD, that Iran killed 40,000 protestors recently, and that Hamas beheaded numerous babies during Al-Aqsa Flood. If you aren't already familiar with how disinformation works, and are more than comfortable using it as ammo, then yes, you probably would fall into the category of reactionary.

    Though I don’t expect you to place any weight on any of the other areas either.

    I've done more research on each of these topics than you have, I guarantee it. I place far more weight on them than you have, it seems you're more interested in the narrative they present than their factual basis.

    I am not trying to “win” this. You are free to view my disinterest as convenient.

    More than that, I view it as dishonest.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)