China's workers don't control the capital, live under a dictatorship, and corporations do most of their manufacturing in China. They're as socialist as the national-socialists.
Marxism-leninism has routinely been shown to not work. China doesn't have a command economy or worker-controlled capital. If China's people were free, they could access the internet. Furthermore, how is secret police a tenet of the Chinese freedom I've had shoved down my throat by Marxist-Leninists? Furthermore, how are the Uyghur people bourgeois?
Let me simplify this. A lot of people in this thread were justifying oppression saying it was for the people. I'm not saying that Muslims are bourgeois, I'm saying that the Uyghur genocide is unjustified as they're not antagonized to the proletariat, but rather an ethnic group.
See folks, here we have an example of a liberal who mistakes "repeating something a bunch" for a fact. Sadly, their brain worms are so numerous that they have a terminal case of the "smug" and are incapable of understanding that they could in fact, be wrong or misinformed about something. This is an important cautionary tale to all of us to ensure good mental hygiene before we end up like this poor fellow, who sadly, is beyond help at this point.
You call me wrong, yet don't bring a source to debunk me. You call me smug, yet speak of me as if I'm an animal. I will say the Communist tendency to hate liberals is why this movement has yet to succeed in the US. You seem incapable of knowing that liberals are just more mild versions of communists and if we want marxist movements we must move within a big tent party, since we don't have large enough numbers to do anything within any democratic country.
Here we see the liberal tendency to "shame" people into co-operating with them. Notice how they have tried to blame the victim (in this case communists, not myself specifically) insisting that if communists stopped being communists and started being liberals, they would "succeed" in their goals somehow. This is practically a case study in how smug liberals with extreme brainworms think they understand everything, yet understand nothing, and think that screaming "give a me source" is somehow a slam dunk argument, despite explicitly rejecting that very offer much earlier.
Very typical behaviour here, refusing to learn, then being mad when we don't bend over backwards to teach. Notice how in the liberal's brainworm addled mind, they are the Most Important Person in the Room at all times, and all others must cater to them, and them alone.
They make no efforts to extend the "civility" they claim to champion, yet demand it of others in all circumstances. Notice how they cannot even perceive their own ignorance or double standards or hypocrisy, but are happy to project their personal faults onto others.
Sadly, there is no hope for libs like this, their brainworms are settled in, and they have no interest in engaging in good faith, they never have, even from the start. Notice how the lib was insisting, nay, demanding I provide a source for my claims, only after it became clear I wasn't catering to them and kowtowing to them, despite me openly offering to provide information at the beginning of this conversation. This is very common lib behaviour.
They are constantly fighting with their own brainworms, and so struggle angrily and impotently against things they refuse to learn about or understand. Notice how they will always fall back to the same half-dozen cliches on any topic they refuse to learn about. They seek not to learn or change their minds, but only to find some excuse to dismiss. They believe they understand the concept of a "source" but sadly, they lack the capacity to actually read or engage with one. So when they insist upon a source, it is only so they can reject it out of hand, without having examined it. Don't be too upset with them, they can't help their own intellectual dishonesty, and aren't even aware they are doing it. In fact, a smug lib's mind is so full of holes from their brainworms that they aren't even aware that opinions and information other than their own actually exist, and will come up with all manner of explanations for why someone who disagrees with them, or understands a topic better than them doesn't really understand or doesn't really disagree, and is in fact, just pretending to, in order to trick them, as one of the symptoms of terminal brainworms is a dangerous swelling of the ego.
First, I am a communist. Second, I'm not victim blaming, I'm saying that we can't attain any progress in a democracy if we dont work with liberals, as we dont have have the number. I'm not saying "become liberal", I'm saying that we need to work within a big teny party to attain power. While I do disagree with you, both as an ML and your specific viewpoint, I will not deny that I'd rather have communists I disagree with than the us' spiral into fascism.
Also, you shouldn't complain about sourcing your arguments. Even if you're not arguing with me, you will argue with other people who, whether you're correct or incorrect, will demand sources.
I don't get how it's controversial to say that communists are not the majority of people, and therefore can't act on our own. If we were an established party and didn't need liberals, I wouldn't be saying that we should work with liberals. But if we alienate ourselves from liberals and vote for our own candidates, who won't win due to our small membership, it will be the right that wins, thereby pushing our progress back.
Hmm, voting. I think you need to read up on Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder by V.I. Lenin. In fact, even State and Revolution and maybe even What is to be done? (I haven't completed this one yet).
It seems like you're rusty on what revolutionary socialism is.
I still don't get how it's controversial to say that to gain power, we need numbers, and we agree with liberals more than fascists, and therefore to get power to us and away from fascists we should unify until we can create a revolution, or a party that will be voted in.
This doesn't really answer the question, but I can see why you made that answer. Maybe I should have asked How they are better for workers? from the start
As per my argument to someone else, this can be better understood by comparing contemporaries in each side. Trump is exponentially worse for workers than Biden, as Biden is doing things such as working with unions and cancelling some student debt.
This still doesn't answer the question. You said "we [communists] agree with liberals more than fascists". Why do we agree more with Biden than Trump? Just because Biden 'works with unions' and 'cancels some student debt'?
Do you think that those workers' lives aren't better because of him? Do you think Trump would do that. Do you think Trump wouldn't try to impede socialist progress more than trump?
Ooh! Notice how the liberal is trying to get behind me, pretending to support me, this is their preferred method of attack, as they like to stab people in the back. The liberal naively thinks that insisting upon something makes it so. Communists of course, are well aware of this liberal tendency to insist on being "one of us" while simultaneously denouncing everything we do and refusing to even understand the most basic concepts of what we actually support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg3dr-o4_fc
This liberal has figured out I am not arguing with them, but am in fact mocking them, but mistakes my mockery for "complaints." The liberal, once again, is under the impression that whining about "sources" will get me to bend over backwards to try and impress them. But this is a common ruse by libs. As stated earlier, liberals with such an advanced degree of brainworms have no interest in reading sources, they simply want me to waste my time, they get a sick, smug thrill out of the idea of others desperately trying to educate them, to get them to think, and they flail about aimlessly, as this one has been doing, when we refuse to play their sick, twisted games.
Notice the entire time this lib has been demanding "sources" despite me making no actual claims, they conveniently ignored the source I posted earlier. This is also an incredibly common liberal tactic. If something is inconvenient to their argument, they will simply pretend it doesn't exist. They cannot engage with something honestly and earnestly, but hypocrisy is one of the greatest of liberal values, so they demand their opponents engage with their arguments in that way.
This ties back to concept of liberals simply not understanding that someone else could know something they do not. Liberals demand sources not to learn, but to dismiss, to deny. The liberal believes that their claims are the Truth, with a capital "T" and thus, despite them making claims this entire time, have not felt compelled to offer any sources themselves. Again, this is due to the liberal's desire to see others cater to them, with no intention of returning the favour. Liberals will insist upon rules that they themselves do not follow, and if they don't follow their own rules, neither should we.
This is why I haven't bothered to directly engage with the brainworm excrement dribbling out of this liberal's mouth, because any counter point I give will not actually be listened to. I would have a more productive time sharing sources with a brick wall. This lib mistakes my refusal to play their games for ignorance, when they are the ignorant party here, if they actually knew what they were talking about, they would know communists have dealt with these exact same empty liberal claims for well over a century at this point. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm
Now we watch and see what the liberal does. In this situation, the liberal will usually deny anything I present entirely, due to me not playing by their rules (which, as we've established, they do not follow themselves). But perhaps this one will surprise us with some new behaviour we've never seen before for liberals, there's always a first time.
Is it that hard to not treat me as if you're a natgeo narrator. You're not debunking the libs by not engaging with them, you just alienate your comrades who don't agree with you on everything.
Oh dear, that's probably it for now, this lib has reached the point that they will simply regurgitate the same circular statements again and again. A well-coordinated team of comrades can keep them going like this for hours, but it will just be repeats of their previous statements over and over again, so there's nothing new to learn here.
I am not following their preferred script and it upsets them, they want me to play their games, and have run out of new ways to try to get me back on their preferred track. Here we see the real tragedy of liberal brainworms. They simply believe that insisting upon something enough will make it so, that just repeating the same things over and over give them more weight, make them more correct, as if simply stating something enough will make it true.
Remember these important lessons when dealing with a lib online:
#1: Determine if they are acting in good faith. Libs with fewer brainworms than this one can be quite agreeable and willing to listen and learn. While dunking on libs is fun, it's important to make sure they choose to reject information first. Always prioritise education and knowledge initially, even if they are being rude.
#2: Don't follow their script or play their games. Once it has been established they aren't interested in learning, a lib is only interested in one thing: stroking their ego. By playing their games and agreeing to their rules, even passively, it shows the lib that they are in control, that the "tankies" will bend over backwards to give them attention. Do not treat them with the respect they demand to be treated by, it will never be shown in kind. Give them the respect their smug attitude deserves.
#3: Hypocrisy is the beating heart of the liberal. The reason we should not play their games is because they will insist upon rules for us, that they will then ignore. Like a child obsessed with winning a board game no matter what, they will make up "rules" as they go along to ensure they win. Even if you follow their rules at first, they will inevitably change them at some point so they can still "win."
#4: Related to the previous point, the primary function of a liberal's online "debates" is ego stroking. All they care about is "winning." Not discussion, not learning, not information, not understanding, simply "winning" and if we abide by their rules, they will invariably change them so they can declare victory. Even good faith liberals will do this, which is why we need to make it clear to them that this is unacceptable behaviour if they show it. If they are interested in learning, that includes learning etiquette beyond the liberal faux civility.
#5: Don't expect them to change their minds. This may seem obvious, but this goes even for those in point 1, even good faith liberals will still need time to digest information that unbalances and confronts their worldview, we all do. While these rules apply to all liberals, we should be patient with those genuinely interested in learning.
#6: I forgot one, an important one! PROJECTION. Libs, when dealing with someone not playing by their rules, will simply assert that their own issues and hypocrisy are actually a trait of whomever is dealing with them, in order to protect their own ego. In the worst cases, they will essentially just regurgitate their opponent's accusations against them, with a "no u" or "actually you do this not me." sort of attitude.
BONUS: As I mentioned before this list, a group of dedicated comrades can keep them ranting impotently for hours, this is because libs always have to get last word in. I've never seen one who can just hit the block button and let someone else finish the interaction. So as a small kindness to this one, I'll not be responding to their final comment below (which they made before this edit, which includes both this point and #6, which slipped my mind when I was originally writing this, but the lib reminded me to put it here, thank you lib).
Don't conflate liberals and the right. Liberals don't actively try to fuck over workers like rightists are. Further, it doesn't matter what liberals were 100 years ago, do you think Biden is as bad as Trump?
Liberalism only appears on the left if your political spectrum extends from "capitalism, but the poor get some scraps" to "capitalism, but the poor don't get scraps".
Liberals literally do fuck over the workers, the very structure they maintain, capitalism, is the exploitation of workers.
By voting for socialist leaders who won't get elected, you allow the right to get elected and thereby deny them those scraps. And I think the homeless would rather have some scraps than none. Also, when in a contemporary democracy, this is the spectrum, no one else would get elected.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the state in capitalism. It's not just by chance that the state has represented the interests of the capitalists, despite them being a tiny minority, since 1776.
The state giving more scraps isn't a response to voters wanting it, if the state represented the people, we wouldn't have capitalism. It's a response to a threat to capitalism, a sort of safety valve.
But on the subject of electoralism, Biden got elected and had both houses. He did fuckall, is bombing yemen, and facilitating a genocide in Israel. If you cannot punish a politician for all that, your interests do not even begin to enter the equation.
Virtually everything you state is false. China does not technically have a command economy, but this is not necessary for socialism in the first place. China engages in plenty of economic planning, far more so than capitalist states. That is precisely why China can build 45,000 km of unprofitable high-speed rail in less than 20 years and install more solar generation capacity than all other countries combined in 2023.
Industries in China are also far more worker-controlled than they are in capitalist states. Estimates for the level of state-ownership range from 20-40%. Much of the remaining "private sector" is composed of worker cooperatives. Search up "Farmer specialized cooperatives", which comprise of more than 100 million households (not people, households).
As for the Uyghur thing, even western media has largely abandoned that point since it was too easy to see that no one was being killed. I mean, you can buy a plane ticket to Xinjang right now and see for yourself. Now the smarter ones have downgraded it to "cultural genocide". In a few years, when the Uyghur language and culture will still be around just fine, they will quiet drop the whole topic.
Have you not heard of the great firewall. Do you think Nike and iPhone factories are coops? Furthermore genocide does not explicitly have to be killing civilians. Xi did things such as forcefully reeducate children, force Muslims to eat pork, and forcefully sterilize them, thereby making them and their culture die out.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China
Whether it prevents bourgeois propaganda or western propaganda, it's not worth it when the people aren't free. I also find it to be very opposite to Marx implying that the Chinese government wouldn't try to control their people if they could.
Marx said that the state was inherently oppressive. But I guess I missed the part where he said that it doesn't matter if the party brands itself as communist.
While this quote does not encapsulate marx's entire view on the state, it shows that Marx sees that the state is bourgeois and therefore antagonistic to the proletariat.
If you bake a cake and you have this magnificent idea in your head; do you gather all the ingredients and then presto magic you have a beautiful cake in front of you? Or is there some sort of process that’s missing? Some sort of transitionary period?
There’s a reason it’s called Marxist-Leninism too, older works can be superseded or reanalyzed by newer works in a more refined context.
Yes it does. A name inherently defines the characteristics of whatever it’s being used for. For example, the names your mother calls me during sex defines the intrinsic nature of our relationship, that is me being the oppressive dom authority figure (because I’m a tankie), and her the submissive proletariat.
Have some humillity kid, you think you know more about the subject than us that been reading about this for years? Or more than the actual chinese communists that have been working towards communism for decades? 😂 You literally just read the Wikipedia entries.
I haven't only read Wikipedia, I've read things such as interviews from former Chinese citizens saying that Google was banned, and on their search engine the tiennamen square never existed. Also, how is China becoming more communist? The government getting profits from wage-slavery isn't becoming more communist, it's becoming the center of capitalism. Even if the government weren't making direct profits from wage-labor, they still make profits from things like taxes and corporations buying land. When the government is making profits from capitalism, they won't go socialist.
I’ve read things such as interviews from former Chinese citizens saying that Google was banned, and on their search engine the tiennamen square never existed.
So what? They banned google as protectionism, this way their infant tech sector didn't have to compete with an already established monopoly. Now China has their own alternatives to all these google services, and the profits of these industries don't go to the West but stay in China. Plus the infrastructure is in China so it's not a security risk.
Also, how is China becoming more communist? The government getting profits from wage-slavery isn’t becoming more communist, it’s becoming the center of capitalism. Even if the government weren’t making direct profits from wage-labor, they still make profits from things like taxes and corporations buying land. When the government is making profits from capitalism, they won’t go socialist.
China is in an early stage of socialism, with a primary goal of developing the productive forces. They have introduced market elements into their economy in a controlled manner to accelerate their development of the productive forces. Taxes don't banish into politicians pockets, financial paradises or into the MIC like in the west, it goes into development.
Communism is a stage of development, you can't just push a button and become communist, it is a process that takes decades of work and correct policy to build.
Maybe you should do your own research. Open report number 590 on this page: https://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-11/09/content_1989024.htm
Oh look, what is it? The report of the State Council published on June 25, 1989 about the protests, from gov.cn themselves!
saying that Google was banned
Oh no how horrible, literally 1997. Can't live without my google, especially when I don't have a much better replacement such as Baidu. Nope, don't exist. Only Google. Well, since 1998 only.
Are you denying that Google is a repository of information. Even duckduckgo is banned. They're not even close to a monopoly. I'm making the point that they're restricting information.
Also I'd be happy to read article 590 if you could provide me with an English translation.
how is banning Google restricting information and why did you not touch on the State Council report about the 1989 Beijing protests?
Since there is an edit: you can OCR the document and run it into an online translator. The State Council of the People's Republic of China writes, understandably, in Chinese.
Would you trust a human-made translation if someone made it? The only people that would care enough to go through the document and manually translate it would be Marxist-Leninists who want to prove a point. I doubt Maoists for example, who consider the Deng government revisionist, would take the time to translate a document that vindicates the 1989 government.
You do know the Tiennamen square is the literal most famous place in China right?
Show
It's the place where there is this super famous building that is one of the country's symbol and that almost every content about China ever can't help but have at least one picture of.
So saying that the name of the place is censored in China is completely ridiculous.
As pointed out by others, the event that you are referring to is known in China as the june 4th incident so yes, of course if you type Tiennamen in the search bar you won't find it, when you look up something on a non-english website maybe try to look up how the thing you're looking for is called in the site's language instead of assuming it's called the same way in english you westernbrained monkey.
Bro, you have to be trolling
Nope, just educated. We'd be happy to explain it to you if you're interesting in understanding the meme.
Nearly all MLs I've seen considering China Communist convinces me you're not educated.
So you're not interested in learning why people will say things like that? Enjoy being a smug dumbass then.
China's workers don't control the capital, live under a dictatorship, and corporations do most of their manufacturing in China. They're as socialist as the national-socialists.
You have shown no interest in listening to us, so I am not going to waste my time talking to you.
To any lurkers though, this counters their "gotcha" argument quite well: https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
Marxism-leninism has routinely been shown to not work. China doesn't have a command economy or worker-controlled capital. If China's people were free, they could access the internet. Furthermore, how is secret police a tenet of the Chinese freedom I've had shoved down my throat by Marxist-Leninists? Furthermore, how are the Uyghur people bourgeois?
I think it's pretty cute that you try to use Marxist terminology without understanding it. I'm sincere 🥰
This is easily a top 3 all time dunk, i can't stop laughing.
Let me simplify this. A lot of people in this thread were justifying oppression saying it was for the people. I'm not saying that Muslims are bourgeois, I'm saying that the Uyghur genocide is unjustified as they're not antagonized to the proletariat, but rather an ethnic group.
Indeed, you didn't say that Muslims are bourgeois, you asked if Uyghurs were bourgeois.
Why would Uyghurs be bourgeois?
It's called a rhetorical question, glad I could help
Why would Uyghurs be bourgeois? edit: we shall never know 😔
See folks, here we have an example of a liberal who mistakes "repeating something a bunch" for a fact. Sadly, their brain worms are so numerous that they have a terminal case of the "smug" and are incapable of understanding that they could in fact, be wrong or misinformed about something. This is an important cautionary tale to all of us to ensure good mental hygiene before we end up like this poor fellow, who sadly, is beyond help at this point.
You call me wrong, yet don't bring a source to debunk me. You call me smug, yet speak of me as if I'm an animal. I will say the Communist tendency to hate liberals is why this movement has yet to succeed in the US. You seem incapable of knowing that liberals are just more mild versions of communists and if we want marxist movements we must move within a big tent party, since we don't have large enough numbers to do anything within any democratic country.
Here we see the liberal tendency to "shame" people into co-operating with them. Notice how they have tried to blame the victim (in this case communists, not myself specifically) insisting that if communists stopped being communists and started being liberals, they would "succeed" in their goals somehow. This is practically a case study in how smug liberals with extreme brainworms think they understand everything, yet understand nothing, and think that screaming "give a me source" is somehow a slam dunk argument, despite explicitly rejecting that very offer much earlier.
Very typical behaviour here, refusing to learn, then being mad when we don't bend over backwards to teach. Notice how in the liberal's brainworm addled mind, they are the Most Important Person in the Room at all times, and all others must cater to them, and them alone. They make no efforts to extend the "civility" they claim to champion, yet demand it of others in all circumstances. Notice how they cannot even perceive their own ignorance or double standards or hypocrisy, but are happy to project their personal faults onto others.
Sadly, there is no hope for libs like this, their brainworms are settled in, and they have no interest in engaging in good faith, they never have, even from the start. Notice how the lib was insisting, nay, demanding I provide a source for my claims, only after it became clear I wasn't catering to them and kowtowing to them, despite me openly offering to provide information at the beginning of this conversation. This is very common lib behaviour.
They are constantly fighting with their own brainworms, and so struggle angrily and impotently against things they refuse to learn about or understand. Notice how they will always fall back to the same half-dozen cliches on any topic they refuse to learn about. They seek not to learn or change their minds, but only to find some excuse to dismiss. They believe they understand the concept of a "source" but sadly, they lack the capacity to actually read or engage with one. So when they insist upon a source, it is only so they can reject it out of hand, without having examined it. Don't be too upset with them, they can't help their own intellectual dishonesty, and aren't even aware they are doing it. In fact, a smug lib's mind is so full of holes from their brainworms that they aren't even aware that opinions and information other than their own actually exist, and will come up with all manner of explanations for why someone who disagrees with them, or understands a topic better than them doesn't really understand or doesn't really disagree, and is in fact, just pretending to, in order to trick them, as one of the symptoms of terminal brainworms is a dangerous swelling of the ego.
Another name added to the victims of communism, if only he hadn't already been braindead
The "art" part of your username is certainly true. Incredible comment!
First, I am a communist. Second, I'm not victim blaming, I'm saying that we can't attain any progress in a democracy if we dont work with liberals, as we dont have have the number. I'm not saying "become liberal", I'm saying that we need to work within a big teny party to attain power. While I do disagree with you, both as an ML and your specific viewpoint, I will not deny that I'd rather have communists I disagree with than the us' spiral into fascism.
Also, you shouldn't complain about sourcing your arguments. Even if you're not arguing with me, you will argue with other people who, whether you're correct or incorrect, will demand sources.
...
I don't get how it's controversial to say that communists are not the majority of people, and therefore can't act on our own. If we were an established party and didn't need liberals, I wouldn't be saying that we should work with liberals. But if we alienate ourselves from liberals and vote for our own candidates, who won't win due to our small membership, it will be the right that wins, thereby pushing our progress back.
Hmm, voting. I think you need to read up on Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder by V.I. Lenin. In fact, even State and Revolution and maybe even What is to be done? (I haven't completed this one yet).
It seems like you're rusty on what revolutionary socialism is.
I still don't get how it's controversial to say that to gain power, we need numbers, and we agree with liberals more than fascists, and therefore to get power to us and away from fascists we should unify until we can create a revolution, or a party that will be voted in.
Why do we agree with liberals more than fascists?
🤨
You're the one that said it. Can you answer the question?
Liberals allow more for workers than rightists.
I'm not sure what "allow more" means here
They're better than rightists for workers
This doesn't really answer the question, but I can see why you made that answer. Maybe I should have asked How they are better for workers? from the start
As per my argument to someone else, this can be better understood by comparing contemporaries in each side. Trump is exponentially worse for workers than Biden, as Biden is doing things such as working with unions and cancelling some student debt.
This still doesn't answer the question. You said "we [communists] agree with liberals more than fascists". Why do we agree more with Biden than Trump? Just because Biden 'works with unions' and 'cancels some student debt'?
Do you think that those workers' lives aren't better because of him? Do you think Trump would do that. Do you think Trump wouldn't try to impede socialist progress more than trump?
We're not talking about workers' lives being better under Biden, we're talking about how we [communists] agree with liberals more than fascists.
Ooh! Notice how the liberal is trying to get behind me, pretending to support me, this is their preferred method of attack, as they like to stab people in the back. The liberal naively thinks that insisting upon something makes it so. Communists of course, are well aware of this liberal tendency to insist on being "one of us" while simultaneously denouncing everything we do and refusing to even understand the most basic concepts of what we actually support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg3dr-o4_fc
This liberal has figured out I am not arguing with them, but am in fact mocking them, but mistakes my mockery for "complaints." The liberal, once again, is under the impression that whining about "sources" will get me to bend over backwards to try and impress them. But this is a common ruse by libs. As stated earlier, liberals with such an advanced degree of brainworms have no interest in reading sources, they simply want me to waste my time, they get a sick, smug thrill out of the idea of others desperately trying to educate them, to get them to think, and they flail about aimlessly, as this one has been doing, when we refuse to play their sick, twisted games.
Notice the entire time this lib has been demanding "sources" despite me making no actual claims, they conveniently ignored the source I posted earlier. This is also an incredibly common liberal tactic. If something is inconvenient to their argument, they will simply pretend it doesn't exist. They cannot engage with something honestly and earnestly, but hypocrisy is one of the greatest of liberal values, so they demand their opponents engage with their arguments in that way.
This ties back to concept of liberals simply not understanding that someone else could know something they do not. Liberals demand sources not to learn, but to dismiss, to deny. The liberal believes that their claims are the Truth, with a capital "T" and thus, despite them making claims this entire time, have not felt compelled to offer any sources themselves. Again, this is due to the liberal's desire to see others cater to them, with no intention of returning the favour. Liberals will insist upon rules that they themselves do not follow, and if they don't follow their own rules, neither should we.
This is why I haven't bothered to directly engage with the brainworm excrement dribbling out of this liberal's mouth, because any counter point I give will not actually be listened to. I would have a more productive time sharing sources with a brick wall. This lib mistakes my refusal to play their games for ignorance, when they are the ignorant party here, if they actually knew what they were talking about, they would know communists have dealt with these exact same empty liberal claims for well over a century at this point. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm
Now we watch and see what the liberal does. In this situation, the liberal will usually deny anything I present entirely, due to me not playing by their rules (which, as we've established, they do not follow themselves). But perhaps this one will surprise us with some new behaviour we've never seen before for liberals, there's always a first time.
Comrade, I’m telling you, you should pursue making documentaries after the revolution, this is amazing 😭😭😭
Is it that hard to not treat me as if you're a natgeo narrator. You're not debunking the libs by not engaging with them, you just alienate your comrades who don't agree with you on everything.
Oh dear, that's probably it for now, this lib has reached the point that they will simply regurgitate the same circular statements again and again. A well-coordinated team of comrades can keep them going like this for hours, but it will just be repeats of their previous statements over and over again, so there's nothing new to learn here.
I am not following their preferred script and it upsets them, they want me to play their games, and have run out of new ways to try to get me back on their preferred track. Here we see the real tragedy of liberal brainworms. They simply believe that insisting upon something enough will make it so, that just repeating the same things over and over give them more weight, make them more correct, as if simply stating something enough will make it true.
Remember these important lessons when dealing with a lib online:
#1: Determine if they are acting in good faith. Libs with fewer brainworms than this one can be quite agreeable and willing to listen and learn. While dunking on libs is fun, it's important to make sure they choose to reject information first. Always prioritise education and knowledge initially, even if they are being rude.
#2: Don't follow their script or play their games. Once it has been established they aren't interested in learning, a lib is only interested in one thing: stroking their ego. By playing their games and agreeing to their rules, even passively, it shows the lib that they are in control, that the "tankies" will bend over backwards to give them attention. Do not treat them with the respect they demand to be treated by, it will never be shown in kind. Give them the respect their smug attitude deserves.
#3: Hypocrisy is the beating heart of the liberal. The reason we should not play their games is because they will insist upon rules for us, that they will then ignore. Like a child obsessed with winning a board game no matter what, they will make up "rules" as they go along to ensure they win. Even if you follow their rules at first, they will inevitably change them at some point so they can still "win."
#4: Related to the previous point, the primary function of a liberal's online "debates" is ego stroking. All they care about is "winning." Not discussion, not learning, not information, not understanding, simply "winning" and if we abide by their rules, they will invariably change them so they can declare victory. Even good faith liberals will do this, which is why we need to make it clear to them that this is unacceptable behaviour if they show it. If they are interested in learning, that includes learning etiquette beyond the liberal faux civility.
#5: Don't expect them to change their minds. This may seem obvious, but this goes even for those in point 1, even good faith liberals will still need time to digest information that unbalances and confronts their worldview, we all do. While these rules apply to all liberals, we should be patient with those genuinely interested in learning.
#6: I forgot one, an important one! PROJECTION. Libs, when dealing with someone not playing by their rules, will simply assert that their own issues and hypocrisy are actually a trait of whomever is dealing with them, in order to protect their own ego. In the worst cases, they will essentially just regurgitate their opponent's accusations against them, with a "no u" or "actually you do this not me." sort of attitude.
BONUS: As I mentioned before this list, a group of dedicated comrades can keep them ranting impotently for hours, this is because libs always have to get last word in. I've never seen one who can just hit the block button and let someone else finish the interaction. So as a small kindness to this one, I'll not be responding to their final comment below (which they made before this edit, which includes both this point and #6, which slipped my mind when I was originally writing this, but the lib reminded me to put it here, thank you lib).
I am begging you, please read a book, any book by anyone on the left written in the last 180 years.
Liberals support capitalism, communists and everyone else on the left seek to abolish it.
Don't conflate liberals and the right. Liberals don't actively try to fuck over workers like rightists are. Further, it doesn't matter what liberals were 100 years ago, do you think Biden is as bad as Trump?
Liberalism only appears on the left if your political spectrum extends from "capitalism, but the poor get some scraps" to "capitalism, but the poor don't get scraps".
Liberals literally do fuck over the workers, the very structure they maintain, capitalism, is the exploitation of workers.
By voting for socialist leaders who won't get elected, you allow the right to get elected and thereby deny them those scraps. And I think the homeless would rather have some scraps than none. Also, when in a contemporary democracy, this is the spectrum, no one else would get elected.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the state in capitalism. It's not just by chance that the state has represented the interests of the capitalists, despite them being a tiny minority, since 1776.
The state giving more scraps isn't a response to voters wanting it, if the state represented the people, we wouldn't have capitalism. It's a response to a threat to capitalism, a sort of safety valve.
But on the subject of electoralism, Biden got elected and had both houses. He did fuckall, is bombing yemen, and facilitating a genocide in Israel. If you cannot punish a politician for all that, your interests do not even begin to enter the equation.
Virtually everything you state is false. China does not technically have a command economy, but this is not necessary for socialism in the first place. China engages in plenty of economic planning, far more so than capitalist states. That is precisely why China can build 45,000 km of unprofitable high-speed rail in less than 20 years and install more solar generation capacity than all other countries combined in 2023.
Industries in China are also far more worker-controlled than they are in capitalist states. Estimates for the level of state-ownership range from 20-40%. Much of the remaining "private sector" is composed of worker cooperatives. Search up "Farmer specialized cooperatives", which comprise of more than 100 million households (not people, households).
As for the Uyghur thing, even western media has largely abandoned that point since it was too easy to see that no one was being killed. I mean, you can buy a plane ticket to Xinjang right now and see for yourself. Now the smarter ones have downgraded it to "cultural genocide". In a few years, when the Uyghur language and culture will still be around just fine, they will quiet drop the whole topic.
They can
Have you not heard of the great firewall. Do you think Nike and iPhone factories are coops? Furthermore genocide does not explicitly have to be killing civilians. Xi did things such as forcefully reeducate children, force Muslims to eat pork, and forcefully sterilize them, thereby making them and their culture die out. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China
Do you understand why the firewall exists?
Whether it prevents bourgeois propaganda or western propaganda, it's not worth it when the people aren't free. I also find it to be very opposite to Marx implying that the Chinese government wouldn't try to control their people if they could.
How is it opposite to Marx?
Marx said that the state was inherently oppressive. But I guess I missed the part where he said that it doesn't matter if the party brands itself as communist.
Where did he say that? Can you quote the passage?
Where in that quote does it say that, to use your words, 'the state was inherently oppressive'?
While this quote does not encapsulate marx's entire view on the state, it shows that Marx sees that the state is bourgeois and therefore antagonistic to the proletariat.
chatgpt answer if I've ever seen one.
Nice response to the content there!
Why is it a nice response to the content there?
If you bake a cake and you have this magnificent idea in your head; do you gather all the ingredients and then presto magic you have a beautiful cake in front of you? Or is there some sort of process that’s missing? Some sort of transitionary period?
There’s a reason it’s called Marxist-Leninism too, older works can be superseded or reanalyzed by newer works in a more refined context.
Baking doesn't cook down the ingredients and claim it's heating them up.
In that case, why do they call it oven when you of in the cold food of out hot eat the food?
You could call any machine anything, yet it doesn't become the thing.
Yes it does. A name inherently defines the characteristics of whatever it’s being used for. For example, the names your mother calls me during sex defines the intrinsic nature of our relationship, that is me being the oppressive dom authority figure (because I’m a tankie), and her the submissive proletariat.
Demolished
Have some humillity kid, you think you know more about the subject than us that been reading about this for years? Or more than the actual chinese communists that have been working towards communism for decades? 😂 You literally just read the Wikipedia entries.
I haven't only read Wikipedia, I've read things such as interviews from former Chinese citizens saying that Google was banned, and on their search engine the tiennamen square never existed. Also, how is China becoming more communist? The government getting profits from wage-slavery isn't becoming more communist, it's becoming the center of capitalism. Even if the government weren't making direct profits from wage-labor, they still make profits from things like taxes and corporations buying land. When the government is making profits from capitalism, they won't go socialist.
So what? They banned google as protectionism, this way their infant tech sector didn't have to compete with an already established monopoly. Now China has their own alternatives to all these google services, and the profits of these industries don't go to the West but stay in China. Plus the infrastructure is in China so it's not a security risk.
China is in an early stage of socialism, with a primary goal of developing the productive forces. They have introduced market elements into their economy in a controlled manner to accelerate their development of the productive forces. Taxes don't banish into politicians pockets, financial paradises or into the MIC like in the west, it goes into development.
Communism is a stage of development, you can't just push a button and become communist, it is a process that takes decades of work and correct policy to build.
No decommodification, no worker owned capital. The US is in an early version of socialism too I guess.
Edit: guys it's called sarcasm
aight little bro tell me how that works out
Maybe you should do your own research. Open report number 590 on this page: https://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-11/09/content_1989024.htm
Oh look, what is it? The report of the State Council published on June 25, 1989 about the protests, from gov.cn themselves!
Oh no how horrible, literally 1997. Can't live without my google, especially when I don't have a much better replacement such as Baidu. Nope, don't exist. Only Google. Well, since 1998 only.
Are you denying that Google is a repository of information. Even duckduckgo is banned. They're not even close to a monopoly. I'm making the point that they're restricting information. Also I'd be happy to read article 590 if you could provide me with an English translation.
how is banning Google restricting information and why did you not touch on the State Council report about the 1989 Beijing protests?
Since there is an edit: you can OCR the document and run it into an online translator. The State Council of the People's Republic of China writes, understandably, in Chinese.
I was wondering if something like that would lose some meaning as things like that are infamously inaccurate.
Would you trust a human-made translation if someone made it? The only people that would care enough to go through the document and manually translate it would be Marxist-Leninists who want to prove a point. I doubt Maoists for example, who consider the Deng government revisionist, would take the time to translate a document that vindicates the 1989 government.
You do know the Tiennamen square is the literal most famous place in China right?
So saying that the name of the place is censored in China is completely ridiculous.
As pointed out by others, the event that you are referring to is known in China as the june 4th incident so yes, of course if you type Tiennamen in the search bar you won't find it, when you look up something on a non-english website maybe try to look up how the thing you're looking for is called in the site's language instead of assuming it's called the same way in english you westernbrained monkey.
It's literally in the country official coat of arms that is used everywhere lol