Conversation immediately goes towards, well they are solving poverty with Concentration Camps (I didn't even bring this ups). Like I do think shady shit is going down in Xinjiang, but Jesus it's China's issue and the US will absolutely not do anything good for the reason. It's funny how we were pointing out how the US never funds good people, but with China it's different. These people even agreed at the time Bolivia was a coup, just China is different. Only thing that calmed them down was saying "Do you think, given our track record, we could actually help China?" They agreed we would fuck things up more.
Let's assume the worst (actual plausible based on what info we do have) scenario re: Xinjiang: there's reeducation centres which thousands of people have been forcibly sent to. The CCP says they're for the purpose of combating islamic extremism, and I don't really have reason to doubt them there. If it were about murder-genociding muslims, they'd be doing something to the Hui muslims too. If it were about murder-genociding Uyghurs, there's more efficient ways to go about it. Plus there's no real motive for that. So the most plausible (bad) scenario re: camps is that they're re-education facilities that Uyghur muslims considered 'at risk' of extremism are forcibly sent to in order to de-radicalise them. This is obviously open to abuse; who decides who's at risk, etc. The camps themselves don't seem to restrict usage of the Uyghur language, but do have mandatory mandarin classes. Assuming that not every single story about the camps is CIA propaganda, there's also evidence that a) phones are allowed in, and b) some people are chained to their beds in small rooms. This is definitely sketchy, and very, very open to abuse, but definitely doesn't seem to be murder-genocide. An argument can be made for this being Han settler colonialism/cultural genocide, as people are being forcibly taught mandarin, and some of the ideas reek of residential schools in Canada (it's for your own good, etc) but doesn't appear to be actual 'kill them all genocide.' People also seem to be released from the camps eventually, albeit under surveillance.
So I want all one person reading this to imagine that a socialist society exists. It can be anarchist or ML, or whatever. Some region of this society begins to experience lots of radical islamic terrorism. Because you're a socialist, you believe that material conditions cause this terrorism, but despite your best efforts, the situation is the region isn't improving fast enough to prevent terrorism. What should the society do?
a) wage war on the terrorists in the country, devastating the entire area
b) respond to terrorist attacks after they've occurred, letting people die. What do you do with terrorists afterwards?
i) imprison them? If it's not for life, they'll continue once they get out. And prisons are historically a very good spreading point for ideas, so you'd put one terrorist in jail, and ten would come out.
ii) kill them? Seems sorta brutal. Also leads to further radicalisation.
iii) re-educate them? The best option in my opinion, because de-radicalisation could lead to them helping de-radicalise others, and also doesn't kill them.
c) find some way to preemptively reeducate those at risk of extremism, to try and prevent terrorism and the symptoms thereof?
I'd pick C honestly. I think that there's no real pure good option here, all of them are sort of open to extreme amounts of abuse, both personal and systemic, but it seems like the least terrible option.