Its like Hillary walking into a working class kitchen for the first time.
They've been shielded from even critical support of China and other AES for so long they literally, not figuratively, literally cannot process that people exist that have beliefs that aren't Reddit Approved. They immediately assume it's bots or wumao. Human beings can't possibly hold these beliefs, so they must be Oriental hordes or actual robots.
Ah yes, because the only way we could possibly admire the achievements of the Chinese state is because we were being paid to do so. Fuck off, creep.
No I think you're just in an echochamber that didn't wanna go full doomer because of how capitalist the entire world is. You wanted some hope for socialism so you clung onto China for false hope.
With the alternative being, what, exactly? Flaccid, impotent doomerism?
Their name is Catholic Socialist, so probably yes lmao
Well the world is almost all neoliberal hell so maybe that'd be better than supporting a fascistic hellscape because they have socialist aesthetics.
I support Cuba and various socialist movements... I don't pretend Xi is a well-meaning person.
Xi isn't China lib, and quit using the word fascism until you learn what it actually means
Removed by mod
Being a dictator is when you're appointed by a democratic body and then there is a confirmation vote and the more democratic the body is and the lower the vote against confirmation the more of a dictator you are.
Maybe you should spend like literally any time at all learning about Chinese politics and system of governance because this is flatly untrue.
For your consideration: https://archive.is/RlAtG
Ofc indoctrinated citizens think they're a democracy, they also probably have different understanding of democracy. America isn't a democracy either but people are brainwashed into believing it is. Most of the Americans that choose "not a democracy" in that poll are Republicans that'll say "democracy is mob-rule, we're a Republic!"
Does this look democratic to you?:
Ah, fortunately we have you, the one and only person immune to indoctrination, to tell us ignorant foreigners what is and is not a democracy, because we're just too damn indoctrinated to know for ourselves.
Please you hexshits are like 80% American.
No we are not, thank God. Would hate to have to pay 1000 dollarios a month for my insuline.
I KNOW you people. Chapotraphouse was your origins. I'm a defector of sorts. There was a demographic poll and you were overwhelmingly American (and white). You're still 90% the same audience. What makes you think the subreddit dedicated to an American political podcast wasn't extremely American?
Well shit, the penalty for desertion is execution my son.
Ngl, original chapo was pretty white cishet, but in the three years we've been stewing here we've gone through some pretty big demographic changes (also like a load of the users got transed)
Also worth noting that the majority of the sub literally just didn't listen to the podcast because its bad - I've been here for years and I've literally never heard a full episode of it. But yeah the radical queer inclusivity of hexbear was what got and kept me in as opposed to any other internet space, and then the hexbears got me to actually read theory along the way.
Uh this is a
fansite, ma'am/sir/themby
c'mon, you can do better than this
Even if that were true, the content of Hexbear isn't. Any time spent in thr news mega thread will show that we have comrades from the Balkans, South America, Africa, and from across thr world. And more importantly their perspectives and insights are valued and their posts are appreciated. So even if 80% of Hexbear's casual readership was American, isn't that a good dynamic - a site where the population of one of the most insular and propagandised countries on the planet is exposed to a truly international and diverse range of information and perspectives?
Which is irrelevant, because I'm not
How do you justify dismissing it as indoctrination? And if the majority think of it as a democracy, under what definition or understanding of democracy is the perspective of the majority not of prime importance?
The first part of this I agree with (other than the notion of brainwashing), but I don't understand where you're getting the second part. According to that poll I linked about perceptions of democracy, 73% of US citizens value democracy, which doesn't fit with 51% thinking it's not a democracy, but liking it that way because they think democracy is mob rule.
I don't consider the contentiousness of elections to be of primary importance when evaluating if a government is democratic, but given the measurable advancements that have occurred in China under Xi's leadership, I can buy that he would have such immense support, particularly if there isn't an equally appealing alternative with such a proven track record.
So, all the neoliberal western countries that largely believe their democracies are also democracies?
So, 27% of US citizens don't value democracy? That's half of the 51% that say it's not a democracy. Which means if it wasn't for the 27% largely Republicans that think democracy is mob-rule, around 75% would say America is a democracy. A lot of Americans simply think it's a "constitutional Republic."
I honestly don't care if western neoliberal countries see themselves as democracies or not, or if they are democracies or not, since that's not really my grievance with them anyway. However, in China the idea of democracy that is promoted by the Xi himself is one of majority rule, the same way nearly everybody uses the term. That's the standard that Chinese people are going to be inclined to measure their government against, especially since their government has actively invited them to think of democracy in those terms.
Quoting Xi: "Whether a country is a democracy or not depends on whether its people are really the masters of the country. Democracy is not an ornament to be used for decoration; it is to be used to solve the problems the people want to solve." (from a central conference speech he made in 2021, you can probably find the whole thing if you look)
That doesn't sound far off from "western" notions of democracy, does it? That's the idea of democracy that they're being "indoctrinated" with over there, and what the vast majority of Chinese citizens believe their government lives up to.
Nothing about Xi indicates that he isn't well meaning, and much more importantly the lives of hundreds of millions of people have been vastly improved during his governance as head of a dedicated communist party.
If you think the CCP is genuinely dedicated to communism I cannot take you seriously.
It's CPC and of course they are, there's no reason to believe otherwise apart from being a dumb little racist baby who thinks only white people can do socialism properly.
What are you on about, it's both?
Maybe the fact it's a dictatorship with no power to the people? Tell me, what Chinese factory workers own their means of production?
Call me a racist? Cuba and Burkina Faso are true attempts at socialism, while the USSR under Stalin was not (Lenin was good though).
CPSU, CPV, CPK, etc.. CCP is a weird, racist neologism coined by the west to emphasize the "Chinese" part of the moniker. CPC is the standard nomenclature.
Lol ok, reaching.
communism is an internationalist movement. why would we ever put nationality before the fact that we're communists?
Also, you really thinking having "Chinese" before "Communist" is racist? If anything the west has fearmongered the word "communist" far more than the word "Chinese"
That is literally the stated intent given for the name, yes. Emphasizing Chinese is the point. If there wasn't a reason to call it CCP they would just call it CPC. Goddamn you are a gullible toad lmao
I've wondered if part of it too is to trick boomers into confusing it with CCCP as their lead-addled brains turn into mush.
yes, older media reported the party as the CPC. restyling it as the CCP is relatively recent and coincides with the drumbeat of aggression between the west and China.
It's worth noting that early on the official English name was actually CCP, probably just following the generic rules of English with putting adjectives before the noun, before it was revised to CPC.
Because they're not real communists.
in what way is your judgment relevant in this context?
Excuse me but as a westerner CatholicSocialist knows a thing or two more about building communism than a hundred million Chinese communists in power, it's due to his superior skull shape.
What makes you think I'm not Asian?
It's pretty obvious.
You don't think most Asian-Americans hate the CCP (or CPC or whatever)?
So you're American.
I'm not telling you who or what I am.
Yeah you are.
Cracker
I think it's time to post hog.
You first, let's see it lib
More than enough of the world has seen my wenis. It's pretty clear that what the people really want, right now, is to see your dick.
I haven't and I really, really want to. How many inches?
Homosexuality and lust is haram in your "religion" so imma have to report you to Jesus for that, sorry.
Show me in WHAT relevant scripture homosexuality is considered a sin. You do realize Leviticus doesn't apply to modern Christians? The old testament laws died with Jesus.
Sure thing bud, even though despite all that most modern
Christiansheretics think gays should be stoned to death. Still filing a report to your demiurge for Lust, sorry man.I don't necessarily support the majority of Christian institutions. I support Catholicism, but I don't agree with most Catholic preachers. Calling homosexuality a sin is as false as saying wearing mixed fabrics or shaving is a sin (which the old testament also banned). Leviticus is not the word of God.
Well I hope you can explain all that to big G upstairs after I file my report for Lust. One of them 7 deadly ones at that, the demiurge isn't gonna be happy with you.
What difference would that even make?
No u
You clearly don't know a damn thing about socialism that you didn't learn from breadtube
I've probably read way more theory than you libshit.
I'd be willing to bet that you haven't. With the dumb shit you've been saying, I like my odds. You're living proof that leftist politics without historical education is nothing more than aesthetics and pedantry. You're impotent, and if you had your way the left would never advance. After all, if it did, you'd actually have to do something other than posturing and pointlessly arguing with people.
Isn't that what you liberals do all day?
Nah, we mostly post hogs. You should try it.
??
your penis. show us your penis.
Weirdos. Why don't yall go fuck the pig with shit slopping off its testicles
Stop arguing in bad faith. Whip it out and send us a picture.
Right I'M the bad faith one after receiving a dozen spam DMs with pig shit, or asking me to post my penis, or calling me a US state department worker, or a Ukrainian spy, or a "wannabe intern for Pope Francis's sex trafficking ring." Total good faith here.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA NEW SITE TAGLINE PLEASE MODS!!!!
i dont make the rules. give the people what they want.
lol, what theory? 1984 and animal farm?
You probably haven't even read the Manifesto.
nice comeback. i definitely havent read the most widely known communist writing. im sure you pretended to read Marx and will continue to bastardize his work with your western chauvinism. good job getting yourself mad bc we called out the pedophile problem with ur religion. good luck in ur journey as the One True Socialist
Well you definitely haven't read Das Capital.
You definitely haven't understood it
😠
So you want Xi to press the communism button?
On a serious note, through a communist party controlled state, Chinese workers clearly have greater control over the means of production than workers anywhere else in the world. That's why they were able to use the resources their own labor created to do things like have an effective covid response.
What makes you think this? Is that why their benefits and conditions are worse than succdem Europe?
China was profoundly underdeveloped, and only began to develop in earnest after a revolution in the 1940s. We'll never know why it's different than Europe. That's a really good question.
Oh hey it's you again, I think you forgot to answer me in the other thread as well: what is your solution to the Ukranian puppet government's ongoing genoicide in the Donbas?
Honestly if Russia ONLY invaded Donbas I think I would support that. But you guys are clearly warmongerers that want as many dead Ukrainians as possible.
This doesn't even make any sense. People normally criticize us for wanting Ukraine to surrender to end the war -- are you just making this up, or??
Literally people endorsing Russia bombing major cities in Ukraine two seconds ago.
Again, please don't compare us to Zelensky, that's really fucked up.
Keep blowing Putin, tankie. I've made it clear I don't like Zelensky either, but there's NO justification for waging war anywhere outside of Donbas.
Homophobia from a Catholic person?
I'm surprised the pedophile projection didn't start, honestly.
Do you really think Russia could've just invaded the Donbass? Obviously Ukraine would call it an invasion and try to retake it, at which point Russia would advance into Ukrainian territory to repel them. We'd be in the exact same situation, except Russia & the Donbass would be in a worse situation.
Why the hell would Russia bother with any of that?
Or maybe, get this, they could defend the border of Donbas and keep the war within there?
Prime military strategy revolves around quick, decisive attacks, after which you come to a complete stop, immediatly short of the enemies artillery lines they've spent the last 8 years sighting in.
And just let their troops die getting shelled for the next who-knows-how-many years, without ever trying to push back and end the war? Clearly a counterattack is called for, at that point
Pro-escalating-war talking points if I've ever heard them.
My sibling in Christ you want Russia to have let their army get shelled by NATO missiles in the Donbass without ever fighting back. Do you see why people here are calling you pro-west?
Is there anything Russia could have done that you would have approved of, other than let Ukraine kill their troops forever while they stand still? Your take is less coherent than that of libs who just think the Donbass should be part of Ukraine -- at least they can say "Russia should have done nothing!".
What exactly makes you think Russia would've fared worse by sticking to one region?
NATO would have kept sending Ukraine bombs to use for years, and Russia would be powerless to end the war, short of abandoning the Donbass. Even though they could hold the territory, they would never win.
Only if Russia forces Ukraine to surrender - or ideally, they just surrender now - can they actually secure peace and sovereignty for Luhansk and Donetsk.
Have you heard of artillery?
Real warfare isn't a bloody strategy game where you can park your units on some line somewhere as a phalanx to protect 'your land'. You do whatever you can to remove the enemy's ability to attack you and if they're not interested in negotiation, you try to take land / diminish their forces in order to force them to the table.
Your suggestion isn't remotely based in reality.
You mean what's been getting done by the Ukrainian army and defended by liberals like you for the last 8+ years?
Not true, liberals weren't even aware of the civil war for the most part
they still aren't
That is so offensive, don't compare us to Zelensky, please.
I never said he wasn't a fascist like Putin.
Low effort bait
Cool
If you think Vladimir fucking Putin isn't a fascist that allows LGBTQ genocides, holy shit.
That's an entirely different context to the one you implied him being a fascist for. The Donbas belongs to Russia, not NATO, regardless.
Ok I don't even disagree with you there, but does Kyiv belong to Russia too?
Did Berlin belong to America?
Is Ukraine trying to take over the world?
Was Germany?
Uh, yeah?
Uh, no.
The Nazis were indeed trending in the direction of attempting world domination (while imploding), though "West Berlin" was a bullshit state.
Does Taiwan belong to China?
How could Russia 'invade' Donbas if they were invited? You've been asked this several times and avoided answering every one.
I'll rephrase it, Russia should've defended Donbas and nothing else. Going further than Donbas is an unequivocal invasion.
I've answered all your "questions" hexshit.
You realise that would mean war with Ukraine, and that it's universally accepted that you can attack an enemy country you're already at war with.
Nope. Crimea stayed within Crimea. This is simply Russia having bloodlust.
I can tell you're a Catholic by the way you think that you just declaring something makes it true.
the only way one could believe this is a viable military strategy is if you have gamerbrain. if Ukraine knew that Russia was not going to go beyond the Donbass then when not just set up a shitload of defense and artillery positions along the border? it would be a massive military advantage to Ukraine and it's not as if the Western response would have been tempered because of it, they were sanctioning Russia even before the war began
Few people here think that the CPC is "genuinely dedicated to communism". It is a party with millions of members, including communists, liberals, nationalists, and others (happy to chat about the specific major factions in the party if you're interested). Many in the party are not ardent communists, and have mediocre to poor historical and political literacy from the perspective of a lot of the Marxist nerds on here.
Some people look at the party and see "hey they're called communists, and many of them are communists, sure as hell better than whatever is going on in the US or wherever" and kinda hop on board with some enthusiasm that way.
I think they're pretty clearly dedicated to communism. It's a long process and a lot of work, especially in a hostile world. Anything I read where they state their intentions perfectly matches their actions. The challenge will be when the actual expropriations begin. The capitalist backlash will be extremely violent.
Overall yes I'd agree that the communists are winning, I like most of what Xi is doing personally and respect him far more than any other world leader.
At the same time the ideological discipline isn't there in the same way that it was during the Maoist period. Liberals and business owners are allowed to be party members. I don't think it's wise to give them such a foothold, but I don't know enough to comment much further or offer any useful criticism.
At the end of the day, I'd love to see the PRC introduce a worldwide expansion of socialist principles as much as anyone else here, although my hope is more cautious than other comrades here. As you say, the result speak for themselves, and they still have a couple decades of runway to dial in their targeting systems and fire off the communism button at the right time.
I think the big signs of hope are the anti corruption campaigns that Xi took, and the fact that billionaires are still losing their wealth (and lives) quite regularly, and will smash any outspoken ones like Jack Ma as well
He's doing very well for the position he's been in
Unfortunately their foreign policy is mid, mostly constrained by US hegemony. To me a shift toward supporting socialism in other countries is what will really convince me, but they aren't there quite yet.
I think there are a lot of valid criticisms to make about China, but this take is ridiculous. China has only survived by taking reserved foreign policy, and it does support socialist states that are actually established like the DPRK, Cuba, and Vietnam (though that relationship is especially complicated). The DPRK would have collapsed with the USSR's dissolution had China not helped them.
That's all good and well, but to me, it reflects that the party has strong socialist ideological roots (of course it does, thanks to Mao), but "past performance does not indicate future returns" and there is still room for them to lib tf out instead of push for socialism. Xi is not an example of this, but his predecessors were liberal dweebs imo. My understanding is that we are lucky to have a Marxist in his position at all (kinda like how Corbyn slipped upward through the cracks due to some Labour infighting).
Im not concerned with Xi specifically, or the track they're on today, but if they ever achieve status as a hegemonic power, are they going to make the push for global socialism? I'm not convinced, but it's far from impossible. I definitely don't see them cracking down and becoming a great Satan 2 or anything, so it's all positive anyway.
yeah my dream is I wake up tomorrow to "China has invaded Russia to spread socialism" (/s nuclear holocaust and all that but I can dream)
"Russia nationalizes key industries in preparation to join an economic union with China, other BRICS countries expected to follow within the next 5 years"
I mean if we're going full fantasy land lets go all the way right? "Both Putin and Zelenskey assassinated in military coups, new juntas rumored to be mulling reformation of the USSR.
I'm down
Dream of it every night. I just want it back
It's an odd thing to think, like I said there are many communists, but it's far from everyone, and the politics are not as straightforward as they are here on our site where we aren't actually in charge of anything.
Many academic Marxists comment on this, read Wang Hui as an example
See other comments, but I would suggest that statement is overly broad on it's own. There is a large liberal continent within the party, although they are still on their heels.
I see what you're getting at, but even the Bolsheviks formed a broad front with liberals, no? Not that that's a wholly comparable situation, but I'm sure the Party has its reasons, even if we aren't privvy to them.
Right, and if I bothered to read more theory/history I'd probably have some criticisms about that too. It is a necessary aspect of having a functioning socialist government while capitalist forces still reign supreme. It doesn't mean it's above me carefully analyzing it, rather than calling it fine and overlooking it.
Oh, naturally. It raised my eyebrows too the first time I learned of the Bolsheviks doing it, and I'd like to read more about it. Might help understand why the CPC took a similar course. Of course, Chinese sources would be better for that, but I haven't the faintest idea where to find them, much less in English.
Hey, at least I didn't say that most communists that support China are doing it because they want to be contrarian. That would be an incredibly ignorant statement to make.
Right? All these fucking tankies don't even believe that there's a current genocide against the Mongolians
Bunch of fucking insane nutcases here
Opinion discarded
Hey, I'm a tankie.
https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/China-Is-Most-Promising-Hope-for-Third-World-Fidel-20171128-0017.html
Dunked on by the man himself!
Cuba's stated goal is communism. They've started to change a bit in recent years, but until recently that was the official position.
For me it's like 5% desperately clinging onto China for false hope, 20% not wanting global thermonuclear war, and 75% the global poverty alleviation they've been achieving both domestically and worldwide.
Removed by mod
Even beginning to compare the fucking mass transportation and enslavement of Caribbean peoples and Africans and the genocide of the native Americans to China is an unbelievable take even from liberals, holy fucking shit. If my brain conjured that up I would send myself to the gulag to punish it. Mass poverty alleviation is actually enslavement? Yeah, how dare the Communist Party of China bind all those hundreds of millions of people to this mortal coil by dramatically increasing life expectancy among the population. Devoting hundreds of billions of dollars in a hundred countries to building infrastructure and helping other countries use and develop their own resources, rather than having all the raw resources be shipped away to some European country for manufacturing so they can sell it right back to the people they exploit, is actually exploitation itself.
The impressive thing about China is that it explicitly DIDN'T require the imperialism of over half the global population to create the world's biggest economy, it was achieved through the efficiencies and foresight of state-guided economics and Marxist theory. Instead of creating new, arcane mortgage scams to generate profit conjured out of thin air and nearly shatter modern capitalism in the process (2008).
Removed by mod
So you're literally saying that the slavery youre referring to is... poverty alleviation???
Huh? What slaves? Where are they getting the slaves from?
Removed by mod
Why don't you just tell us then. Go ahead, educate us.
Do you have any evidence that slavery is practiced in China? What is your source (and why is it Adrian Zenz)?
You have 60 seconds to post a source
Well you clearly don't because you are refusing to post any sources.
What do you propose people do?
Also,
catholic
Not support a capitalist hellscape.
Is my religion a joke to you?
I don't think the world's largest pedophile ring is any laughing matter
This is religious discrimination, is that not against your rules? I'll be reporting either way
The fact that the Vatican operates as a massive, international pedo ring is an empirical fact. I don't give a shit about the theology one way or another.
Removed by mod
It's, like, a very well-known thing to the point of being trite. Look at the countless coverups that got exposed, like in Boston. Given these things, how should I take it when Pope Francis says "Gossip is a worse plague than Covid"? etc.
It's not most churches. You don't think Protestant churches, Evangelical churches, synagogues, etc have the same scale problem?
Obviously he's talking about hate and discrimination.
A lot of those sects have less or nearly no central organizing. The Catholic Church particularly has a history of leveraging its central organizing to reassign abusers elsewhere and cover up their crimes.
That's a joke. Obviously he says those things pretty often, but he was being a lot more coy with the statement I'm talking about.
"Just trust the system, no need to bring in outsiders or warn other potential victims"
You want me to renounce my religion because some churches are abusive? Just admit you're Christianophobic
lmao relax, I'm not throwing anyone to lions. Even if I could, I'd pick a better target, so please climb down from that cross that you're waiting to be nailed to. I have met many Christian comrades and think the matter of liberation theology is a very interesting one.
What you do with the information I raise is your own choice, I don't give a shit, though I really think you shouldn't act as such an apologist for the Vatican, whether you see it as divine or not. I suppose though that if you do believe that Francis is the official spokesman for God, you are forced to choose between interpreting him as speaking about something else (and applying what he says in a deliberately narrowed frame) or else that he is seeking to prioritize the reputation of the Church over bringing abusers to justice. If your God protects pedophiles for the sake of the Vatican's reputation, it is what it is, but that's not up to me to interpret.
You are missing the "highly centralized" part of what I mean. It's not like I don't know about abuse cases in other churches, temples, etc., but most of those entities could get by only on being highly insular, whereas Catholic churches that are integrated into this central hierarchy benefit from having a huge number of potential conspirators elsewhere (see the Boston case as an example of this dynamic). In general, I think reducing insularity is a good enough answer, but for a systemic problem in such a highly-developed organization, the answer cannot be so simple or, frankly, gentle.
Yes, I am christianphobic. I am scared for my future due to your religions genocidal hatred of trans people.
Um, those are not true Christians.
I'm back to thinking this is a bit account. Forgive the misunderstanding.
then pull them into line, or remain a groomer.
get to it
You are a clown. Christianity is an evil hate cult that must be removed from this earth if humanity is to progress. Tear down every church. Jail every priest. Even that would not be revenge enough for what christians did to the rightful inhabitants of the Americas, or the people they genocided in the crusades, or the countless war-dead of the endless struggle of catholic and protestant nations of europe.
that man is not a Scot!
This is bait. There is no way this isn't bait.
But let's pretend this isn't bait. Read more about ``Liberation theology". Not the watered down liberal interpretation of it, but their theoretical marxist and anti-colonialist ideological corpus. Where they saw the "Great Satan '' in capitalism, their interpretation of reality through dialectic-materialism, their support for anti-colonialist movements and socialist revolutions.
They helped in Nicaragua, they opposed reactionary archbishops, they joined the guerrillas in the revolutionary process, they understood that Marxism wasn't the boogeyman the Department of State and The Vatican tried sold them.
Of course they were shunned by the Vatican and persecuted and killed during the 60-70-80 in Latin America (DSN and Operation Cóndor for more).
But hey, they knew who the real enemy was. And China (just like Cuba or Nicaragua) isn't the real enemy. Is an ally. A way to a better world.
Source: Michael Lowy - "El cristianismo liberacionista en Latinoamérica" en "Guerra de dioses. Religión y política en América Latina”,1999.
Get down off that cross, we need the wood, and your weird masturbatory persecution fetish is squicking people out.
Nooooo anything but reporting us to the mods
no, I'm pretty sure it's against our rules not to call a provable pedophile ring for what it is. that's not really much to do with religion, though.
Lmao criticizing the Catholic church for harboring pedophiles -- a well-established fact -- is in no way discrimination
this is the post that convinced me that this is a bit lol, amazing work
As an ex-catholic, yes lmao
I prefer the term recovering catholic
yes
😔
I thought your name was ironic, lmao.
Didn't the Rerum Novarum strictly reject socialism? Affirms the right to private property? Or was it the one time the pope was fallible?
I don't know. Jesus did not.
Its one of the foundational documents of modern Catholicism how could you not have read the part where the pope says worker unions ok, but socialism is bad?
Look, they are what I, when I was a Catholic, would describe as a 'bad Catholic'. Many liberal Catholics operate the same way, with a perverse attachment to the Church as it could be instead of seeing the Church as it has been and continues to be, that isn't to say that good things don't come out of the Church (hospitals, nursing homes, monasteries, etc), just that they are better the further they are away from the central worship and money-making operation. When I was a rigorous Catholic (10-15) I was a very conservative Catholic because I read the doctrine, listened to the scripture, and understood the scripture and how it ought to be interpreted.
If was during my confirmation when I was continuing my theological study, when I stumbled upon Aquinas, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche and other metaphysical philosophers and it struck me that not only was my understanding of Catholicism incredibly shallow, but it confirmed my increasing suspicion that everyone else's understanding of Catholicism was also, if not more, shallow. Upon reading, especially people like Hume and Kant, it became clear that not only did I not actually have very rigorous grounds for what I believed, but that in order to be a 'good Catholic' you had to be a 'bad person' and that 'bad Catholics' were constantly having to deal with this juxtaposition, fighting against the structure of a Church that wants their money, but doesn't actually want them or their ideas.
It wasn't that they were 'bad Catholics' it's that they were 'good people' attempting to be 'Catholics'. That's when I rejected the entire thing and tried to start from scratch to the best of my abilities. It's been a long road and I still don't know where I will end up ideologically, but I do know that I will not make the mistake of seeing 'what could be' for 'what is'.
I've met one person even sort of like you before, and I want to say that I appreciate your existence. There is such an amazing line of theological stuff that's out there and most people (including me) don't engage with. Please keep up your great work 👍.
Thanks. I definitely try to inspect everything, for what little good it brings to me. There is just so much shit and only a short life-time to learn it.
Tell me about it :(. I hope you're proud of yourself, it's really hard to even try and hold yourself to that kind of standard.
The occasional breeze through a liberal arts class that my friends are like 'What the fuck does any of this even mean?' satisfies my ego enough to sustain me, lol. Thanks though, I appreciate it! Best of luck to you as well and solidarity!
This kinda falls in line with my Irish Irish friend (to distinguish from Irish immigrants from the 19th and 20th centuries). She's agnostic now, but has family who are a lot more devout. The Rerum Novarum is sometimes used by anticommunists saying socialism is incompatible with Catholicism. And that line of argument works for some people. The pope is infallible and Leo XIII said socialism bad. Stepping away from the church was one of the factors that led to her being radicalised.
The Pope is infallible, even when he contradicts himself, or someone comes in later and contradicts him. I think if I was still Catholic I would likely be one of those cringe Catholics that only attends Latin mass. Although, to be fair, my personal idea for a reformed Church is to lean away from social conservativism and instead way into the occult, obscure and mystical elements of Catholicism, particularly the crazy ass medieval festivals, with a rigorous return to Latin. Rationalism is not and never has been a good fit for the Church, blame that I lay squarely at the feet of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Do they even do Latin masses outside of the Vatican anymore? I mean I'm sure they do some places but how common is it?
Usually there are a couple of churches in a diocese that do it once a week with the express permission of the diocese. There have been instances of diocese forbidding priests from doing it, or from performing the Eucharist during it (with the general ideological split being if the diocese sees these masses as an outlet for wacky conservative Catholic frustration, or as a gathering place for wacky conservative Catholics to create a different, heretical sect), but in general most of the large population centers in the U.S. will have at least one church that does one mass in Latin a week, usually on a weekday. Monasteries also generally follow their own dictata and are often done solely in Latin, with them only holding common mass in vernacular.
Orthodox Churches are even weirder about this, with them only holding mass in the vernacular that the Church came from (so a Serbian Orthodox mass in Los Angeles will be done in Serbian).
There's a little bit of metaphysics in Nietzsche, but what makes you call him a "metaphysical philosopher"? I struggle to think of any metaphysical statement from him that wasn't just a rephrasing of Schopenhauer, which is fair enough since that wasn't really what he was into as far as I know.
In any case, immense respect for successfully parsing Kant. I can only get the extremely easy texts like Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals
I call him a meta-physical philosopher because much of what he talks about is derivations of ethics and the nature of religion and God in relationship to those ethical categories. It's arguably more tangential to metaphysics than metaphysics itself, but claims like 'God is dead' and the historical-socio-ethical reasoning behind that are incredibly metaphysical statements. However, you are correct that most of his actual metaphysical work is derived from an re-phrasing Schopenhauer, but I didn't read any Schopenhauer until college, so I didn't know that and at the time it blew my little freaking mind.
I will be honest, my preference is for Hume, as Kant is an enormous windbag, though tiny compared to Hegel. That said, you really should give 'Critique of Pure Reason' another go-around, it's one of those seminal texts that will be constantly referenced in everything forever, and really makes up the majority of his and everyone's groundwork for literally everything afterwards particularly liberalism. Regardless if or not you think he actually solved Hume's is-ought pincer and problem of causality, it is basically impossible to understand why Kant leans so hard into deontology without reading it. But if you really want to piss people off, just read and retort with Hume, he is basically the philosophical linebacker for Western philosophy.
Thanks for explaining and I'll take the bit about Critique into account.
Hume is easily one of my favorites too. Even when I think he's being incredibly stupid (e.g. missing shade of blue) you really can see that he's being genuine even about his faults, which is unusual among philosophers.
Of course, I enjoy (most of) Schopenhauer as well, but mainly the short essays he wrote as an afterthought to World as Will, like On the Vanity of Existence. I find the morbidness of it entertaining and there was a time that I was genuinely in one of the worst depressive episodes of my life and I read some of his works for the first time and howled with laughter. I can't not bear some affection for his writing after that. It's like a Kafka Comedy but where the protagonist is a metaphysicist who is just torturing himself with his own ideation, if that makes sense.
I totally understand that. I've always found the idea that Schopenhauer just forgot to eat and got cranky when he was writing sometimes to be very funny (which is an Existential comics bit). You might enjoy Kierkegaard then too, even if he does get a little preachy, he very much loves and hates his morose Christianity.
You are a wise traveller in a strange foreign land, good luck on with journey!
A "capitalist hellscape" that has seen steady improvement year over year for the workers and peasants for like 50+ years?
Yes your religion is a joke. All religions are of course but yours is especially silly and also has a pedophile problem.
Go back to r/atheism. Why did you liberals federate with Lemmy in the first place?
Catholicsm is no more pedophilic than any other religion.
I can't, sorry, reddit banned me for being a little too aggressively anti Zionist
If it was up to me we wouldn't have federated, nothing you people have to post is very interesting
Sorry buddy I know it hurts your feelings but it's at least a little more pedophilic than some religions
Catholicsm is no more pedophilic than any other religion.
good point, in that case it is good to be catholic
Maybe
cw
rape
less kids and I'd like your religion more.
Removed by mod
You are part of a cabal of molestation. Your leaders conspire to molest children and cover it up. The church is rotten to the core. Every priest and bishop either is or is covering for a molester.
Nah it's just that your fake blasphemy against gnosis rapes kids more than other world religions lol
https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
I would never bow to the Bishop of Rome
Give me a single piece of evidence backing this claim up.
No, but almost all of the openly catholic folks I've met suck. Also, the eastern orthodox church got it right so idk.
https://www.google.com/search?q=china+capitalist
I'm giving you the oportunity to pick an actual source. Pick one of those search results you like and send it to me.
https://hbr.org/2021/05/americans-dont-know-how-capitalist-china-is
You haven't connected chinese capitalism to being a capitalist hellscape. America during the 1970s and 80s wasn't as bad as it is now (in certain ways, mainly poverty) because there was more money around. Regardless of the socialist character or lack there of of china, the country's government has intentionally set the country up for vast investments. China is essentially the only country in the far east that has a declining poverty rate.
The article provided agrees with all of my above points.
Literally just linking a google search as a citation oh my god. That's even worse than linking wikipedia
Nah, its not an echo chamber. Im not a big fan of china but its obvious you're talking out of your ass based on habit and conditioning
You could have just told us you don't understand memes
"false hope"
I think someone's projecting a little lmao, sorry your religion is primarily known for protecting pedophiles, but you don't need to assume everyone else is having a crisis of faith.
okay, lemmy user CatholicSocialist
Ok weeb, go jerk off to Xi Jinping's wikifeet or whatever it is you do for fun.
🚨 ATTENTION 🚨
Your account has been flagged for bot-like activity.
Please review the Posting Policy Bulletin and post hog for account verification.
This is an automated message. If you believe you have received this in error, click here to opt out of future communications.
Fucking disgusting link. You liberals are gross (yes, you are the real liberals for supporting China)
You now:
You literally one comment ago:
Shit on balls is a bit grosser than feet.
Speak for yourself pervert
Yeah we're all libs but no where near as
as you are for supporting 
Lmao you admit it.
Here's the crazy thing... I can hate America AND China at the same time 😱
Yes we can all do multiple things at the same time, doesn't change the fact that so long as you hate them equally you're playing into the hands of the ruling class
They want you to think China is worse but they'll settle for you thinking
isn't the most evil coutry in the world
Even if I still believed any of the propaganda about China it still wouldn't make any sense to focus on them when all of the worst people in the world are running this country and they're my immediate problem
Maybe you'll end up right but at least when China rules the world the food will be better and seeing the empire crumble will be worth whatever the cost is
A new empire rising to replace it won't make any difference. The human rights abuses in China, while often exaggerated by mainstream media, are very real. Like there might not be a Uyghur genocide but they are VERY discriminated against.
If you support the Cuban revolution and its government, what do you consider different between them and the CPC?
Genuine question because Fidel at one point endorsed anti gay policy, Cubans suffer in their country just as Chinese do in theirs. Is it purely a belief in 'authoritarianism' in China?
Or to put it differently, what would have to happen in China for you to believe it is progressing towards socialism?
Does Cuba have billionaires? Does Cuba have hyper market capitalism? No. Cuba actually progresses towards socialism, China might improve quality of life (for the Han majority at least) but they're clearly not aiming for socialism. And yeah, China's far more oppressive and authoritarian than Cuba, that sort of thing isn't compatible with socialism.
Do you think if the Cuban revolution had somehow actually happened in China it would have progressed as it had in Cuba?
Accomplishing rapid growth in the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people is a much different task than doing it for a few million and in a mass of land much larger while located such that it cannot be blockaded and pushed around by the US.
Why is it that you cannot critically support the Chinese struggle for socialism?
You would not meet much overt disagreement in saying that the situation of workers in factories is something that must be improved or that there might be questions of state control or rigidity with regards to Uyghurs or LGBTQ+ people. The difference is you seem to ignore why these things may be occuring or dismiss the many achievements of the revolution thus far because there are still areas requiring attention. It is clear that the situation for these groups are improving as well, both as a part of the entire Chinese economy and in their individual qualities of life while the same cannot be said for many people of the world.
Yes we are all libs here and its ok.
Truest thing I've heard all day
At least we're not ultraleftist cranks lmao.
It's the christianity, poor mf never stood a chance. Now the very concept of effective real world action is forever tainted by sin
All of gods creatures are beautiful you fake Christian.
Fake Christian and fake socialist tbh
oh no, we're fully aware of how dire things are globally. but that doesn't mean we have to swallow propaganda whole and go "thank you, may I have another?" it's a deeply servile attitude.
🥺
A shill is someone paid to advocate for something or who has a material interest in fooling others.
China is a capitalist country. I don't disagree with that. However, if you get your head out of your ass and actually read some theory, you will realize that the form of capitalism that is being practiced in China is actually a left-liberal classical capitalism, fundementally grounded in principles of industrial growth discussed by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx, that, if it overtakes the U.S. as global hegemon, actually has the potential to transition into a socialist society.
Their poverty reduction, infrastructure building, and general wheeling and dealing with underdeveloped countries is laudable and far outstrips the history and ability of the West, and while I don't really like their foreign policy stances, particularly on MLM issues, refusing to actually analyze what is going on there and what has the potential to go on there is a sure sign of the typical, unread, left-com martyrdom complex where you have the audacity to criticize the projects of others without ever having done anything particularly productive or revolutionary yourself.
LMFAO I've read plenty of Marx and it clearly does not.
Maybe tinges of social democracy in a fast-growing economy accompanied by mass human rights abuse.
Ah yes because Xi is doing it out of the goodness of his heart, totally not getting anything out of it like imperialist influence in Africa and interest money.
your source chain:
mainstream articles, citing -> the victims of communism fund, citing -> adrien zens, citing -> "an anonymous source told me bro"
go actually follow up on this shit you read
7% of 10-15 year olds are child laborers in China but keep pretending shit isn't happening. "If a western website says it is must be false!"
The 7% statistic seems credible to me at a glance, though somewhat dated. The data are from Peking University's 2010 China Family Panel Study, not RFA or Zenz pulling numbers out of their ass
https://docs.iza.org/dp9976.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Family_Panel_Studies
I’ll wager this statistic is declining over time, but I don’t know. I’m about to go to bed or I would do a deeper literature search.
For me the more important question is: Why? Why is China like this? Why did China liberalize under Deng? What is the worldwide political and economic context? Is child labor in China possibly a difficult problem to address, when we look at the whole situation? What measures have been taken so far? I hope you are at least wondering.
I’m no expert, but I’ll point out two things:
1 ) Not long ago, China was still dirt poor and fighting tooth and nail to industrialize and modernize as fast as possible. China’s economic power today is a fairly recent development.
2 ) China liberalized in order to survive in a hostile global economy. Liberalizing brought in a huge influx of foreign investment and industry expertise. The alternative was to be politically and economically strangled like most other socialist states have been. There’s only so much you can do with a self-contained economy in a hostile world.
Source?
Marx was incorrect about alot of socio-political things, in particular his specific model of social revolution. You clearly believe this otherwise you wouldn't still be a Catholic.
However his historical model for capitalist industrial development is sound, and eventually the internal contradictions will have to be solved, one way or another. My hope that it isn't a violent struggle that overthrows the CPC, but it very well may be. It's either that, aggressive internal reform (which wouldn't be the first time that occured) or they will take a neo-liberal turn themselves and then I will re-evaluate my position, which will also be reflected in the mass degradation of living standards if they take that route. And who knows, that may happen. But it hasn't yet.
'Mass human rights abuses'. Ah yes, the country with a 90% approval rating even by Western studies is the one participating in mass human rights abuses. How is Zenz doing these days?
Who the fuck ever said it was out of the goodness of his heart? It's for multi-polarity, resource access and ally building. Again, as critical as I am in that regard, it is the diplomatic move to make if you are in China's global position. They don't need to shake the boat, because ultimately time is on their side. They are very cynical in that regard.
Lol 'imperialist influence in Africa', where are the military bases? Where is the limited occupations, training camps, invasions and coups? Heaven forbid the Chinese build the things that they are paid to build. No please, keep spouting off IMF talking points.
could you be more specific, because if you're talking about what I think you are ooh boy do I have a pasta for you
You can just send me the pasta and I'll read it and see if it makes sense from my general understanding of Marx and Engels.
lol nice try
I mean you should have just straight up posted it rather than prefaced it. I'm sure I've probably seen it before unless it is one of JoeySteel's or BMF's more obscure posts.
there was so much snark in this thread I got a little carried away there, sorry. let's save it for another time in a calmer, in-group context
Look, there was friendly-fire in r/cth all the time, it was an assumed part of the deal, ans we are getting used to it again.
Consider:
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/china-forgives-debt-for-17-african-nations/news-story/28ab7f45440142634ff8efd0360b2fec
https://fair.org/home/why-comparing-chinese-africa-investment-to-western-colonialism-is-no-joke/
Ok, they're nicer than the west, that doesn't mean it's not still imperialism. Most of the time they don't forgive debt and when they do it's corrupt; they're trying to win them over to become satellite states one day.
Almost like some kind of unfalsifiable orthodoxy is being used to make the judgement here
What do you mean when you say their debt forgiveness is "corrupt"? And why do you believe that they want to win them over as "satellite states" and not as regular-old geopolitical allies?
What about it makes it imperialism to you? Do you see any difference at all between lending money for development projects and imperialism? How does forgiving loans facilitate economic domination of these places?
From that news.com australian article I posted: "But the concept of a Chinese “debt trap” has also been criticised, with a study in 2020 finding China had restructured or refinanced about $21 billion of debt in Africa between 2000 and 2019. The study also noted there was no evidence of “asset seizures”and that Chinese lenders had not used courts to enforce payments, or applied penalty interest rates to distressed borrowers." For a go at economic imperialism, they don't seem keen on putting the choke-hold on.
Should they instead be cultivating enemies that will try to destroy everything they've done to alleviate poverty?
So if you make your friend pay you back the $10 you lent them you're imperialist, ok.
It's more like your billionaire friends gives you a $100k loan to buy a house and expects you to pay them back with interest.
That's literally America lmao
From that news.com australian article I posted: "But the concept of a Chinese “debt trap” has also been criticised, with a study in 2020 finding China had restructured or refinanced about $21 billion of debt in Africa between 2000 and 2019. The study also noted there was no evidence of “asset seizures”and that Chinese lenders had not used courts to enforce payments, or applied penalty interest rates to distressed borrowers. [emphasis mine]"
They've had the opportunity to really milk these countries if they wanted, and actively chosen not to.
EDIT: Here's the study being referenced in that paragraph i quoted: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3745021