None of my rebuttals are oxymorons, so I’m not sure what you mean by that. Secondly, the fact that China disagrees with the west does not mean that the west is correct. I thoroughly debunked your assertions supporting claims by Alan Donald, who fled the scene before the square was dispersed. You aren’t using rhetoric well, and the LLM nonsense is trained on western information and thus is dominated by the propagandist view.
Cowbee [he/they]
- 26 Posts
- 11.2K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: December 31st, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
That’s because it is, and that’s the source.
LLM slop.
Of the few hundred people that died in the riots and fighting, the square was dispersed peacefully. The truth about Tian’anmen is that hundreds of protestors and PLA officers were killed in Beijing that day as the PLA advanced towards the square, but that the square itself was evacuated peacefully, which matches leaked US cables and the CPC’s official stance on what it calls the “June 4th incident”. This is a rejection of the commonly reported story of 10,000 people being killed on the square itself, which originated from a British diplomat’s cable. Said diplomat was later confirmed to have evacuated well before.
Western nations intentionally sensationalize the quantity of deaths and the character of the events. This is also why Western Nations don’t frequently report on the South Korean Gwang-Ju massacre that occured around the same era, where the South Korean millitary murdered thousands of High School and College students protesting against Chun Do-Hwan’s dictatorship. All of what I said is backed up by the Wikipedia page for Tian’anmen Square Protests and Massacre, such as Alan Donald revising his estimate from 10,000 to the low thousands yet BBC continuing to report the 10,000 figure:
In a disputed cable sent in the aftermath of the events at Tiananmen, British Ambassador Alan Donald initially claimed, based on information from a “good friend” in the State Council of China, that a minimum of 10,000 civilians died,[237] claims which were repeated in a speech by Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke,[238] but which is an estimated number much higher than other sources provided.[239][240] After the declassification, former student protest leader Feng Congde pointed out that Donald later revised his estimate to 2,700–3,400 deaths.
The truth is that hundreds of rioters and the PLA died that day, but the square was evacuated peacefully. You believe right-wing propagandist slander.
No need to bring in misogyny/homophobia. The reason socialists support socialist countries is pretty self-evident, we defend the ruling class in China because the ruling class in China is the working class.
No problem! I suggest you take a step back and try to study China from a less-biased angle. It’s so easy to get caught up in the news cycle.
Only a few hundred died, many were armed and murdered PLA officers (kicking off the millitary response), none in the square itself, and the tanks pictured are leaving the square where nobody died.
No? Harvard studied this, it’s because the government consistently delivers on its ambitious promises in uplifting the lives of working people.
What on Earth are you talking about?
The protestors in Tian’anmen were a mix of Gang of Four hardliners upset at Reform and Opening Up, and student protestors backed by the CIA that wanted to liberalize the economy. They didn’t have a consistent goal. Decades later, over 90% of the public in China support their government:
I didn’t define personal property, my bad. I didn’t think I needed to.
Personal property is anything that one can own that is used regularly for their daily lives. This wouldn’t include multiple residences that one rarely, if ever, uses. Those empty real estate “investments” all over every city in the US would be Private property and therefore abolished.
We aren’t talking about the kid’s toothbrush, but the kid’s lemonade stand. This is private property used to make an income, that the kid owns. This is what makes the kid petite bourgeoisie. If we were to say that the kiddo was giving away lemonade, then it would just be a personal hobby, but this is an income-generating asset for the kid.
You are correct, I’m taking a bottom up view as opposed to top down, because I find that method helps to manage the corruption of the ruling class. I don’t see the PRC controlling their ruling class as much as I see them controlling the lives of the workers. Same for the US. I HATE ALL the liars at the top that steal from the people, and enrich themselves to the detriment of us all.
The ruling class of the PRC is the working class. You even admitted earlier that capitalists that get too uppity are executed or punished. The working classes use state authority to advance their own interests.
I can see the argument that lemonade kid could be considered petty bourgeoisie in the current situation, especially in the US, since the other kids may not have the means to set up their own, but I assumed we were speaking in theory, not what is in practice for that bit.
I meant in both theory and practice, once the kid has a lemonade stand they are petite bourgeoisie. Worker-owners are petite-bourgeoisie.
I read the lengthy explanation, thanks. I can see that the outward explanation does try to align with socialist principles, in practice I have the same gripe about the PRC as I do of the US. They don’t need to know that much about you or me. No government ever does good things with that type of information, and it will always lead to suppression of the workers. I will give the PRC credit that they seem to be heading in the right direction, but let’s not pretend that it is a socialist utopia. As I said, from the outside, and speaking with a lot of your tourists and immigrants, the PRC looks a lot more capitalistic than socialist.
I’m not Chinese, I’m just a Statesian commie nerd, for clarity. As cool as it would be, I am not actually in the CPC nor paid by them, despite what some people have guessed on Lemmy. The key disagreement I have with you here is that you seem to placing too much weight on the existing private property and not on the actual backbone of the Chinese economy, the public sector. This sector isn’t as flashy, but it’s what drives China’s economy forward. Private merely fills in the gaps and helps speed along highly competitive industries.
I do agree that if they tried to go full on communist that is practically inviting the CIA to try to destabilize the country. I just think that if any country actually wanted to support their workers, they would get rid of their billionaires. I also don’t believe any of the governments have any incentive to change the status quo, unless we threaten to burn the whole place down. Peaceful protesting isn’t working. Shooting people seems to get more attention.
Like I said earlier, to get rid of billionaires you have to get rid of private property, which loses China’s position as one of the most integrated countries in the world. In exchange for heightened disparity, China gains:
-
Technology transfer from western countries producing in China
-
A deeply interconnected global economy
-
Western countries cannot war with China without destroying their own economies
-
The ability to rapidly develop, creating independence and a wide enough gap that the US Empire cannot risk war
These aren’t small gains! In exchange for allowing private property in the secondary industries, China has cemented itself as the deciding force of the 21st century.
-
Who is the Gang of Four? I assume I could look it up, but you do seem to be somewhat consistently verbose.
The Gang of Four governed China between Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. Reform and Opening Up was a strategic move under Deng to resolve the contradiction between wanting to move towards communism with productive forces utterly incapable of achieving it. Here’s a comment I wrote before:
long-ass comment
China being socialist has nothing to do with the name of the party in control, and everything to do with the mode of production and distribution in China. Rather than a neoliberal paradise, it’s closer to a nightmare for neoliberals. This editorial from The Guardian explains it quite well, actually:
But Xi’s support for mixing private and public ownership structures was purely pragmatic. It had value, he said in another forum, because it would “improve the socialist market economic structure.” Xi’s assessment is echoed by Michael Collins, one of the CIA’s most senior officials for Asia. “The fundamental end of the Communist party of China under Xi Jinping is all the more to control that society politically and economically,” Collins argued earlier this year. “The economy is being viewed, affected and controlled to achieve a political end.”
…
The party’s overarching aim, though, has remained consistent: to ensure that the private sector, and individual entrepreneurs, do not become rival players in the political system. The party wants economic growth, but not at the expense of tolerating any organised alternative centres of power.
…
“[Capitalists] act as if they are being chased by a bear,” wrote Zhang Lin, a Beijing political commentator, in response to these comments. “They are powerless to control the bear, so they are competing to outrun each other to escape the animal.”
How then, does China’s economy work? Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy. This means that public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, and is what is rising in China, as private ownership is kept to small and medium non-essential industries. No system is static, meaning identifying the nature of a system depends on identifying what is rising and what is dying away. Cpitalists are held on a tight leash, and are prevented from gaining political power as a class. The reason private ownership is allowed at all is because China has very uneven development due to their rapid industrialization, and private ownership does help with filling in gaps left by the primary aspects of the economy like SOEs.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
To call China “imperialist” or “capitalist” is to either invent a fantasy of China or to not understand imperialism, capitalism, or socialism. China isn’t a utopia, it’s a real socialist country.
The one kid having a lemonade stand would fall into personal property. Billionaires are a different thing. Stop creating strawmen. Billionaires are nothing but thieves of the masses.
No, the kid would be petite bourgeois. If we hold to your definition of “personal property” including petite bourgeois private property, then about half of China’s private property is actually personal property. I’m not making a strawman either, I am taking your own point to a logical extreme to see it break. You focus on what is allowed, and not which is actually determining the nature of the society, that being which form of production is principal and which class has political power.
Billionaires exist anywhere because the whole world sucks capitalist dick.
No, that’s not how it works. I want a concrete reason, not an analogy.
Billionaires only exist because the workers have a boot on their necks, and greedy thieves aren’t prosecuted by the state for wage theft.
Billionaires exist because private ownership exists, and private ownership exists because of definite material conditions and levels of development. The PRC could trade their rapid development for a more “pure” socialism, but this would come with the consequence of isolating itself from the world economy like the USSR was, which the CPC identified as a partial cause of the USSR’s dissolution.
Capitalism - an economic system that allows for Private (not personal) property and says that money is the only thing that matters. It’s more complex than that, but that’s the core.
Allows for? If your economy is 99% public, and 1 kid has a lemonade stand, this is capitalist in your eyes? No. The idea of “money being the only thing that matters” is absolutely untrue in China, where the huge publicly-owned industry is used to develop underdeveloped regions, implement strong infrastructure, and more, so I also don’t know what you mean by this.
In reality, capitalism is a mode of production where private ownership isn’t merely allowed, but is the principal aspect of the economy, and the capitalist class in charge of the state. This identifies where private ownership exists in relation to other forms of ownership, and the class nature of the state, both core to capitalism yet lacking from your definition.
Socialism - a worker owned state that gradually abolishes all private, but not personal, property, and works towards a stateless currency-less society.
This is true of the PRC, so I’m not sure what your problem is here.
Communism - a stateless, currency-less society in which the universal safety floor doesn’t allow anyone to be impoverished. Unfortunately can only be implemented world wide at a time.
I don’t really disagree, except that I’d add that production and distribution are run along a common plan.
Billionaires of any type are nothing but thieves. Any country that is actually worker controlled would not allow them to exist in the first place.
Let me be extremely clear: are you supporting the Gang of Four, and their “socialism is collective poverty,” against the will of the working classes? Are you incapable of recognizing the deliberate move to a more dynamic socialist market economy, where the state and the commanding heights of industry retained their class character, but private ownership was allowed in to help speed up development and integrate with the world economy?
If the working classes ruled the government there would be no billionaires.
Why? Why do you believe billionaires exist anywhere? China has billionaires because it still has private property, and if you go back several comments you’ll see why they still have private property. China already tried to dogmatically eliminate all private property, and they ran into problems that came from vast underdevelopment. Poverty isn’t socialism, but the Gang of Four made the case that it was.
They are not socialists, they are capitalist reformers at best.
Again, I already addressed that private ownership is relegated to small and medium industries, and secondary, non-critical industries. Such an economy where public ownership dominates is not capitalist in the slightest, and further the class character of the state is critical as well. Capitalists are stripped from political power in China.
I will admit that China at least has the balls to prosecute some of the Great Thieves, but they allow them to become Great Thieves and don’t stop the theft of the working class.
The people of China allow billionaires to exist because they traded an impoverished, “purer” socialism for a dynamic socialist market economy, which came with dramatic development. Such a shift was built upon the existing socialist system, and is not a change in character but of form. As time has gone on, the PRC has developed, and so too has the Xi Jinping era become known as a “New Era,” where a qualitative shift in development has allowed a sharper turn in the direction of this “pure socialism,” only this time with more developed productive forces.
If that is the standard ML take, then ML are capitalist simps.
I don’t see how MLs are “capitalist simps” for supporting socialist countries. Can you explain what socialism and capitalism are?
Then the standard ML take is actively pro authoritarian and actively acting as class traitors.
The standard ML take is the standard Marxist take, that the working classes should wield the power of the state to collectivize production and distribution and prevent capitalists from taking political power. I don’t know what you mean by “acting as class traitors,” the working classes govern China and that’s a good thing.
The fact that you don’t know about the teams of hackers that actively attack every other developed countries during Chinese timezones, is telling.
Not really. You gave no evidence of this, and I already stated that the PRC does do intelligence gathering on imperialist countries, as all geopolitical adversaries do. The CPC would be foolish not to.
I guess I have to stop thinking of you as a friend of the masses.
I don’t see why the fact that I support socialism and socialist countries contradicts me being a friend to the working classes. You never countered any of my points, meaning it’s extremely unclear what actual problem you have with socialist China at a concrete level.
You have a very strange definition of socialism.
Not at all. Socialism is a transitional status between capitalism and communism, where the proletariat has siezed state power and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. This is absolutely true of the PRC.
The CCP is doing their own thing that looks a hell of a lot like properly regulated capitalism.
No? Private ownership is secondary to public, and is relegated to small/medium firms, as well as highly competitive, non-critical industries like tech. The system of the PRC is typically described as a Socialist Market Economy. The commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned, while private ownership typically is found in secondary industries and highly competitive non-critical industries like tech. The CPC often has controlling shares of private companies as well, especially the larger ones. As these private firms grow, they are socialized and often folded into the public sector. This is why public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and determines the nature of the PRC’s path on the socialist road.
See also the stages of socialism presented by Chinese economists, like Cheng Enfu:
The character of the state is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whole-Process People’s Democracy is the form of consultative democracy in China. Local candidates are directly elected, and then these ladder upwards in indirect elections. The top conducts many surveys and tries to find policy from the people via the Mass Line, while practicing democratic centralism and maintaining the ability to quickly respond to changing conditions. Long-term policy change is slow but positive as consensus is built, short-term crisis is quickly adapted to as needed.
Also, it’s the Communist Party of China, not Chinese Communist Party. The format “CP_” is the internationalist form, like CPRF. “CCP” draws on western orientalist views.
They also have created a digital scanscape and have all the big brother surveillance shit.
Every existing socialist state is still a part of ongoing class struggle, and needs to develop tools to keep capitalists suppressed and prevent them from developing political power.
They have teams of hackers that the state employs to constantly try to attack everyone else.
Genuinely confused by this one, the CPC isn’t attacking everyone. They do have intelligence gathering, like all states do.
They are exporting their version of authoritarianism with their tools.
The CPC isn’t exporting socialism (or “authoritarianism,” which is a meaningless term). This is one part that Marxists sometimes do criticize China for. The CPC focuses on the development of China, and favorable relations with communist parties and existing socialist states. They do not export revolution like the USSR did.
I expect better of you Cowbee.
I don’t know what you mean by this either. I have the standard Marxist-Leninist take on the PRC, because I read a good deal of Marxist-Leninist theory and organize with Marxist-Leninists.
An account existing on Lemmy.ml doesn’t make them a Marxist-Leninist.
The PRC only exists in Taiwan.
No, the capitalist dictatorship in Taiwan that murdered all of the communists and local resistance when the KMT moved in in the White Terror isn’t anywhere close to a People’s Republic.
The CCP is exporting their version of authoritarianism, just like the US and Russian Federation are doing with their versions.
Utter nonsense. The CPC is the party in power in a socialist state, where the working classes use their authority against capitalists. The US Empire and the Russian Federation are both dictatorships of capital, like Taiwan, where authority is wielded against the working classes.
Since all three exist that is proof that all governments will go authoritarian once they have enough power. Hence, reform all governments into a single unified world government that is focused on people not power, or abolish all high level government.
Nonsense. All states wield authority, this is partially correct, but they do so in service of a definite class. In the PRC, those classes are the working classes.
Marx would agree with me here.
No he would not, Marx viewed authority by its class character, not in a liberal view that divorces the state from class struggle. Don’t invoke Marx while erasing class struggle.
The PRC is already such a state, and has been so since 1949. The establishment of socialism is via revolutionary means. The path forward is for the creation of more socialist states, not overthrowing existing ones.
Zionist/Nazi. A fascist that supports the state of “Israel.”
You just put the LLM output there, if you mean Alan Donald is your source then he’s a liar as I already showed.