Having watched that interview, they are either having a manic episode or are on a bunch of amphetamines. She was blinking like 3 times a sec throughout a 15min interview, it looked like they were attempting to blink out a message in Morse code.
Some people are just truly shitty people willing to do anything to stay relevant or make a buck. You really don’t need to have some alphabet man with a gun to a head to get people to do objectively horrible things. It’s why it always upsets people to see how little it actually takes to bribe a politician, they don’t really have any foundational beliefs, so they sell for cheap.
not talking about historical CCP, I’m talking about the CCP of today. Today it is dominated by xenophobic misogynistic billionaires. Xi is President for life because of the belief that only a strongman can protect China from the evil foreigners and run the economy (which is a capitalist economy).
So the CCP was communist at one point and is now fascist even though Mao also served the same role…?
They have a mixed economy, that’s not really up for debate. It’s not purely capitalistic and it’s not completely centralized and planned. Though a lot of the complaints I see in this sub tend to be about the states undue influence over the economic system, which would indicate that there is a lot of centralized control.
Labour unions are illegal in China, workers are oppressed. No matter the CCP may have been in the past, it is a fascist party today.
Western styled independent labour unions are, but every worker belongs to a centralized workers union. Much in the same way the USSR operated their labour representation.
Could working conditions improve in modern China…? Yes, absolutely. Have they vastly improved over the last few decades…? Yes, absolutely.
actually have a science degree. Political “science” was not a credit towards my degree, it’s in the humanities category. They call it “science” to try to give it legitimacy, but there really isn’t a whole lot of science going on there.
So do I… There’s a difference between soft sciences and hard sciences. The point is to study the topic in a scientific manor. The difference being how quantitative the data you are working with is.
They have tenure so continue to have lectures about how “real communism” has never been tried (google the “no true scotsman” fallacy) and a lot of apologism over the atrocities committed by communist regimes.
That appears to be a stawman argument, I don’t think I’ve ever heard an actual professor make that claim. Some might claim communism has never been achieved, but I’d doubt they claim it’s never been attempted. And again, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a professor who claimed a communist government never participated with or enacted an atrocity. Those who make that claim are simply wrong and do not represent the entirety of a political ideology.
You’re not supposed to take those poli sci classes seriously, it’s just an easy credit if you don’t challenge anything the old commie profs say.
Lol, how many old commie political science professors do you think there are in the west…? And yes, you should take every class in college seriously. That claim speaks a lot more about you and your education than anything I could say.
Why not? You have a Pavlovian response to the phrase “late stage capitalism” so I guess late stage communism isn’t something that’s part of your conditioning.
Because it doesn’t make any logical sense? We have achieved the goals set forth in capitalist theory, we’ve never seen a socialist government actually achieve there theoretical end goal. You could say faultering communism, or failing communist, but not late stage.
Multiple communist regimes have failed, so if we’re actually doing real political science (and not just going along with whatever the commie prof says) it would be something that would be studied and the patterns could be identified.
And if you would have said China is failing to achieve communism, it would be open to debate. To say that it’s “late stage” is just nonsensical.
while the system that hasn’t failed is the one you assume must inevitably fail.
Lol, what exactlyis your criteria for assessing if a capitalistic nation has failed?
We know that central planning doesn’t work for a developed economy (it’s too complex for a small group of people to manage), communist regimes have to allow some degree of economic freedom so the economy can function.
It’s almost like political theory eveolves over time… Where exactly does it say that socialist and communist countries have to maintain a strict command economy?
Increased economic freedom results in ideas spreading, which means there’s a greater pressure for political freedom on the ruling regime. Hardliners don’t want this (it’s a threat to their power) coups and crackdowns start occurring.
And what about a “free market” inherently makes “ideas” spread?
But sure, go on pretending that communism is super successful and go along with a religious-like prophecy of “late stage capitalism” that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny
Late stage capitalism describes a measurable effect created by the need for exponential growth. At a certain point growth is dictated by things like population and market forces. It’s when you hit a point where innovation and resources availability fail to meet growth demand, so the only way to achieve that growth is by monopolization, conglomeration, and reduction of labour.
Like why are we now in “late stage capitalism” now but we weren’t in the 1930s? Why did the policies implemented to get out of the Great Depression work, and why wouldn’t they work now?
I would argue that we were experiencing a form of late stage capitalism in the 1930s and the only way we got out of it was by centralizing more power to the government and then implementing socialist policy.
John Maynard Keynes > Karl Marx. Marx identified some real problems with capitalism, Keynes found a solution to those problems.
Lol, and that’s why everyone is doing so great now… Tell me, how exactly did keynes find a way to ensure constant growth in a world with limited resources?
The Marxist solution failed, the Keynesian solution succeeded. It’s obvious to anyone that understands anything about economics. Communism is obsolete, it only exists now as a rationalization for authoritarianism.
If you are claiming that communism failed because one nation dissolved it’s government, then why does that not apply to capitalist governments who have done the same?
The reason a lot of leftist countries are more authoritarian than some liberal ones is because they are aware of how fascism and other reactionary movements work. There is a reason why every actual fascist government has reared itself from a failing liberal government. Fascism was developed to take advantage of schisms within liberal societies to create opportunities for power. You should really read the death of democracy by Benjamin Hett. Don’t worry he is a liberal and advocates for liberalism in the book. But he does have a good grasp on the development of fascism and how it differs from other forms of government.
leftists should just consider the possibility that China is actually a fascist capitalist country now. Fascism isn’t exactly an ideology that’s about being honest to everyone about what they call themselves.
Fascism is not a substitute for authoritarianism, and whether or not China is truly authoritarian is open to debate itself. Fascism holds both a social and economic definition that just does not align with the actions and history of the CCP.
But I suppose this is difficult for leftists to accept that because of the political spectrum bullshit. You couldn’t go from being communist (far left) to being fascist (far right) without there being a revolution of some kind!
What? We are operating under the commonly agreed upon and well defined terms utilized by those teaching basic political science all over the world.
Marxist narratives that say that there’s some kind of inevitable prophecy with steps that have to happen in a specific order. That’s all proven to be bunk if a communist country can just become fascist.
What?
Can’t entertain the idea that late stage communism is identical to late stage capitalism, right?
Lol, late stage communism? When the CCP claim they are communist that’s not saying they have achieved communism, it’s a statement that that’s their goal. Socialism is the system utilized as a transitional phase that helps you reach communism. China having a mixed market means they have obviously not achieved communism, let alone “late stage communism”.
ruling party that’s dominated by xenophobic misogynistic billionaires is somehow still communist.
First of all, people in the politburo tend to be career bureaucrats, not businessmen. Secondly, I do agree that the CCP has had a historic issue with han chauvinism that needs to be addressed. It’s something that even mao spoke critically about on several occasions.
That being said, the CCP has taken a country of billions suffering from historical forces of imperial colonization from both the west and the east. A country that was suffering from famine and economic decline on a monumental scale and reversed its course in the span of a single lifetime. In just about every single category you can think of the government has improved the lives of its own citizens, and it continues to make progress.
Lol, you could have just explained your reasoning behind why you think it would be hypocritical in the time you took to write that. You are making a lot of assumptions and excuses to avoid the topic you brought up in the first place.
comment predicting general avoidance of a certain cognitive dissonance in a community.
Aka making an unsupported assumption.
reply then states, here I am, talking about it, thus you are wrong.
The important distinction is that I am willing to address the validity of accusation of hypocrisy from my own perspective. I didn’t just state here I am therefore you are wrong. I already made a general statement on this thread, and invited a person to explain their reasoning.
trick is a categorical blurring by shifting the discussion about general behaviour of a group
The perceived behaviour of a group described by an echo chamber*
sufficient representative of that community to settle the argument.
I can only give my perspective and the anecdotal accounts of what I have witnessed while engaging with the group. Just as they can only give their perspective and anecdotal accounts of their interactions. The difference is that I am willing to discuss my perspective while they have only relied on anecdotes.
tenor of conversation in an echo chamber
Can’t tell if you are being self aware and acknowledging your participation in an echo chamber or making an accusation…
Your original statement was that ml or hex wouldn’t address the topic because it would be hypocritical. I am someone who frequents those subs, I am addressing the topic. How am I being hypothetical?
You listed anecdotal statements you claim others have made that you claim make them hypocritical, but you haven’t addressed this topic or my response. You continue to just argue with strawmen instead of the person in front of you.
Lol, willfully ignorant and yet the only person who wants to address the actual topic? Even though that was your original dispute…
You must not read comments too much if you’ve totally missed all the posts discussing trans rights, or lack thereof, in the U.S. while being painfully silent on posts like this.
In my experience most people on hex don’t post on .world?
Plus… I am actively discussing this as someone who shares a lot of the same sentiment. You aren’t bringing anything to the current discussion, you’re just attacking a straw man.
I was literally met with whataboutism on a post about a woman being executed for blasphemy in Iran.
And? You’re currently their logical fallacy to justify your own logical fallacy.
don’t have the patience to go through each and every individual instance of hypocrisy coming out of .ml or hexbear.
I didn’t ask you too? I was giving you an opportunity to have a conversation about the topic you claimed no one would dare talk about out of fear of hypocrisy…you chose to complain about it instead?
Equality and equity are kinda foundational beliefs in leftist ideology.
By this logic Obama had zero chance of ever becoming the president. 6 different people of color ran for office before Obama won his presidency.
Sounds like they really aren’t on the “left” then. Also this is the same argument racist made before Obama was elected into office.
Do you make the same claim when the DNC runs center right candidates year after year despite a large portion of Democrats constantly begging for more progressive candidates?
I mean I post on both those fairly regularly and am a lot closer to that political ideology than I am to a server like .world. I don’t really see how it’s hypocritical?
I don’t think there are actually many people who would claim that China is a perfect society in every perceivable way. I think most just tend to compare the same issue with prominent Western countries, and in contrast… It’s hard to argue with a lot of the times.
Eh, there was a bit of a grace period where the government had bigger fish to fry. Any culture that was highly influenced by Confucianism can be more culturally conservative due to the importance of family hierarchy, but the current government seems to be a bit more culturally reactionary in regards to utilizing the state to enforce historic cultural norms.
I think most leftist can and should be critical towards things like the apparent increase in the state directing and enforcing societal norms. Recognizing that the current politburo is lacking more representation than prior governments.
That being said, it does seem that cultural reactionary sentiment appears to be a global trend regardless of ethnicity and culture. Where any state that is actually increasing protections for the LGBTQ community as a whole would seem to be the actual outlier.
Goes back way further than that… The simple fact is that America has never been a progressive nation that ever cared about social equity or equality.
The reason Americans cannot protest like they do in france is because the American police system was molded off of the system the slave owning Confederates developed to fight against potential slave rebellions. A system that marries institutional violence from the state and extrajudicial violence from the populace with a ruling majority to maintain a strict social hierarchy.
Yeah… On the surface that may be true. But it would be hard to say that NATO is as strong as it was ten years ago, even if you include the added members.
Replicating American right wing extremism in Europe is more dangerous to NATO than any kind of actual invasion. Having the adf take off the same way maga did in the US would be devastating to NATO.
I would take that as a reflection on how much of your nonsense I’ve had to correct.