okay, serious question, if china's red liberalism is simply them just 'playing ball with america', who already despises them and believes wholeheartedly that they're the continuation of the soviet union, why don't they just push the socialism button? the "material conditions" argument i've heard has not once been actually explained by the person arguing it, and like, yeah, they've got a lot of american manufacturing tied up, but it's in sweatshops, which only benefits western companies. jack ma, multi-billionaire, is a member of their (allegedly) communist party, and he advocates for twelve-hour days and a six-day work week. the allure of 'actually existing socialism' is strong, and i want to believe, but china's socialism ended with deng, may he burn in the same hell as yeltsin.
i postface this with no, i am not a liberal or a fascist, and i am well aware that the uyghur genocide is baseless CIA propaganda. i cannot, however, provide any support to a country that betrayed its revolution harder than khrushchev.
i genuinely cannot read this at the moment because my head is killing me but you probably have some great points in there, on one hand youre right about the "westerner opinions are worth less than dirt" thing and on the other i fucking love arguing with people because my brain doesnt work right. thank you though for the unironic actual nuance in this post and i promise you i will address this properly once i can open my eyes all the way. i see a few things in there that look like things i can genuinely agree on, and i just wanna say if i had to choose it would unquestioningly be china because at least their weird distorted version of "the people's KFC" socialism isn't laced with murdering middle eastern civilians as a cultural tenet and all that shit. im not a lib i promise lmao, and like i said thank you for the genuine attempt at good faith argument
edit tacked onto the end; i get really condescending and a bit bitchy i think in arguments so im probably gonna come off as an asshole once i actually start the rational facts and logic debate but i stg i will remain committed to good faith argument. the chunks of that wall of text i can read seem pretty based and you have full right to call me out if im being worse than just misguided. also sorry if im being weird about this whole thing like i said im damn near unconscious
this post gets the o7 just for writing it on capitalism time lol
thank you though and dont worry i wont scream any racial slurs once our intense seven-hour debate devolves into baselessly psychoanalysing each other based on skull shape and grammar use
hey, sorry for the delay, i'm now able to actually read this, so: what i'm reading your take as is that despite being not as ideologically pure, china's current system is simply them biding their time until they can truly embrace communism without serious action being taken by the west. if that's what you're saying, i honestly can get with that- assuming the things i've heard about china are true, they're taking the western offshoring of manufacturing that would normally go to india, a fascist nation, and using it to ultimately build towards a socialist goal? that's admirable. the 'small military' point stands tall, too, but there's just a small thing that's bothering me: when you think about it, the way western nations compete with and bluster against china without taking concrete action against them seems like the western nations perceive china as a useful scapegoat, but ultimately an ally. additionally, one thing i will ask you to explain is this? i think i see what you're saying, and barring this it all makes sense, but that just doesn't sit well with me.
edit: sorry if this reads poorly, i still feel weird. thanks again also for not being a debatelord about this, aha
Oh, shit, I didn't know that. Terrorism is indeed bad, and I guess it's better to have a reactionary clique in charge that DOESN'T bomb civilians and claim it's your ally than one that does. The Pol Pot thing is way different, though- Pot was a primitivist who was funded by the CIA, so that's pretty awful.
Glad you're open to being proved wrong, though, because I certainly was; I think I'm walking away from this with much less animosity towards China. o7 and thank you for the information, comrade.
What's the diff between state capitalism and social democracy, ultimately? Both are capitalist scum
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
To be confirmed a communist you must submit to a caliper examination by the party
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
:pigpoop:
:cringe:
deleted by creator
okay, serious question, if china's red liberalism is simply them just 'playing ball with america', who already despises them and believes wholeheartedly that they're the continuation of the soviet union, why don't they just push the socialism button? the "material conditions" argument i've heard has not once been actually explained by the person arguing it, and like, yeah, they've got a lot of american manufacturing tied up, but it's in sweatshops, which only benefits western companies. jack ma, multi-billionaire, is a member of their (allegedly) communist party, and he advocates for twelve-hour days and a six-day work week. the allure of 'actually existing socialism' is strong, and i want to believe, but china's socialism ended with deng, may he burn in the same hell as yeltsin.
i postface this with no, i am not a liberal or a fascist, and i am well aware that the uyghur genocide is baseless CIA propaganda. i cannot, however, provide any support to a country that betrayed its revolution harder than khrushchev.
deleted by creator
i genuinely cannot read this at the moment because my head is killing me but you probably have some great points in there, on one hand youre right about the "westerner opinions are worth less than dirt" thing and on the other i fucking love arguing with people because my brain doesnt work right. thank you though for the unironic actual nuance in this post and i promise you i will address this properly once i can open my eyes all the way. i see a few things in there that look like things i can genuinely agree on, and i just wanna say if i had to choose it would unquestioningly be china because at least their weird distorted version of "the people's KFC" socialism isn't laced with murdering middle eastern civilians as a cultural tenet and all that shit. im not a lib i promise lmao, and like i said thank you for the genuine attempt at good faith argument
edit tacked onto the end; i get really condescending and a bit bitchy i think in arguments so im probably gonna come off as an asshole once i actually start the rational facts and logic debate but i stg i will remain committed to good faith argument. the chunks of that wall of text i can read seem pretty based and you have full right to call me out if im being worse than just misguided. also sorry if im being weird about this whole thing like i said im damn near unconscious
deleted by creator
this post gets the o7 just for writing it on capitalism time lol
thank you though and dont worry i wont scream any racial slurs once our intense seven-hour debate devolves into baselessly psychoanalysing each other based on skull shape and grammar use
hey, sorry for the delay, i'm now able to actually read this, so: what i'm reading your take as is that despite being not as ideologically pure, china's current system is simply them biding their time until they can truly embrace communism without serious action being taken by the west. if that's what you're saying, i honestly can get with that- assuming the things i've heard about china are true, they're taking the western offshoring of manufacturing that would normally go to india, a fascist nation, and using it to ultimately build towards a socialist goal? that's admirable. the 'small military' point stands tall, too, but there's just a small thing that's bothering me: when you think about it, the way western nations compete with and bluster against china without taking concrete action against them seems like the western nations perceive china as a useful scapegoat, but ultimately an ally. additionally, one thing i will ask you to explain is this? i think i see what you're saying, and barring this it all makes sense, but that just doesn't sit well with me.
edit: sorry if this reads poorly, i still feel weird. thanks again also for not being a debatelord about this, aha
deleted by creator
Oh, shit, I didn't know that. Terrorism is indeed bad, and I guess it's better to have a reactionary clique in charge that DOESN'T bomb civilians and claim it's your ally than one that does. The Pol Pot thing is way different, though- Pot was a primitivist who was funded by the CIA, so that's pretty awful.
Glad you're open to being proved wrong, though, because I certainly was; I think I'm walking away from this with much less animosity towards China. o7 and thank you for the information, comrade.