They lost the lathe of heaven a few decades ago and keep forgetting
"I've read literally zero books on United States foreign policy and subversion tactics in colour revolutions dating back to Hungary 1956
"I've also read zero books on how the US uses atrocity propaganda against its enemies to start war (which is shocking frankly because US has been at war for 93% of its existence)
"But let me tell you how hong kong and belarus were grass roots movements and not astro turfed with tens of millions of Usd by Ned and Cia and how China are nazis for keeping 20 million Uyghurs in camps or how China is imperialist despite what China is doing in Africa is far more humane then the Anglo-european axis ever was."
A prototypic Red-basher who pretended to be on the Left was George Orwell. In the middle of World War II, as the Soviet Union was fighting for its life against the Nazi invaders at Stalingrad, Orwell announced that a “willingness to criticize Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty. It is the only thing that from a literary intellectual’s point of view is really dangerous” (Monthly Review, 5/83).
Safely ensconced within a virulently anticommunist society, Orwell (with Orwellian doublethink) characterized the condemnation of communism as a lonely courageous act of defiance. Today, his ideological progeny are still at it, offering themselves as intrepid left critics of the Left, waging a valiant struggle against imaginary Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist hordes.
-Parenti
China is imperialist despite what China is doing in Africa is far more humane then the Anglo-european axis ever was."
The fact that China has not created an economy based on severed hands as Belgium did in the Congo makes this blatantly clear.
There are criticisms and discussions to be had on China, on its (gentler) imperialistic tenencies, its culturally embedded Han Nationalism (which is being fought by the party, even as it influences it) how its (neccessary) embrace of capitalist mechanisms hurts workers, on how the Chicago School trained economists and their dismissal of planning is damaging.
Even more so on its antagonistic relationship to Vietnam and its support of conservative parties in other nations over proletarian internationalism.
None of these are to be aired anywhere that critical support for anti-imperialism isn't assumed. They will be used as cudgels against not just China but the whole left, and will split the workers. The first rule of leftism is the first rule of D&D "Never split the party"
"My source is The Guardian, they're a well established news outlet with the highest editorial standards they would never print this if it wasn't true" etc etc etc.
In many cases what you are asking is de-programming decades of propaganda, upending an entire persons worldview of what journalism is, of what the west represents, you have to explain the Human Rights industry and it's role in starting wars, the US and it's long history of enforcing the will of global capital the list goes on and on.
welcome to the work of being a communist in the heart of empire
it's like that in the ass of the empire and everywhere else too
hey thats me ur talking about! mom get the camera im famous
Problem is, if you ask for sources you get called a red fash chinazi scum. Can't educate people who aren't willing to learn
Of course. I shouldn't have to educate anarchists and other anticommunist leftists though, for fucks sake
Alright then, teach me how to deal with these people then. Pretend that I just called you red fash chinazi wumao filth. What next?
Shut the fuck up Uighur genocide denier [insert reddit anti-china copy pasta] every single country that matters has denounced China also USSR bad cause Holodomor and great purges also killing of the romanovs I can't believe I'm talking with a child murder advocate
It's not an exact quote I got off reddit but it carries the same message
At that point, a judgement call needs to be made about whether there would be enough people browsing the thread that could be convinced by a patient and thorough rebuttal. On reddit especially, I find it's not worth the effort more often than not.
If there's a lot of engagement in your thread (like 10+ votes) that means there were probably at least 100 people who scrolled by and read that fight.
Staying calm and talking to those hundred people while avoiding the outbursts of the idiot you're arguing with can be effective. It's not anything to lose sleep over, but if even 1 of those hundered people start to question their media sources, it was worthwhile.
No I'm legitimately wondering what I can do to get people to stop deepthroating state propaganda, but this is the sort of resistance I meet when I try and I legitimately do not understand how I can meet eye to eye with the braindead reddit fucks that unironically sling those insults around
edit: also I really gotta point out the hypocrisy in you giving up after two bad faith arguments from me but expect me to "work harder" when I end up having to wade through like 15+ bad faith posts only to end up being blocked because they don't like it when people disagree with them
I just don't get why people in Amerikkka care so much about China when we have concentration camps and imperialism and slave labor and what ever other percieved ills right here at home. Like, worry about yourself more sweaty.
Edit: Especially leftleaning folk, I understand the chud reasoning.
ultimately, in my experience, it comes down to white people being physically incapable of believing that their country is doing worse things than an Asian country. This (especially) includes """"""""""""""""anarchists""""""""""""""""
The anarchists I know personally, and follow online, aren't like that but lots of DemSocs definitely are.
the anarchists i've met are definitely kind of ok with cuba, vietnam and such, like, critical support. but china? to them it's the worse of both worlds, "horrifying cut-throat full throttle dystopian capitalism" and "terribly oppressive orwellian state that films you taking a shower", and they feel like it's genuinely worse than america because america at least still has "civil liberties"
These types of people are okay with Cuba and Vietnam because they're just kind of... There. Neither are going to make any type of change that is going to shake up their lives in the Imperial Core.
China, on the other hand, has the economic and military chops to actually compete against and maybe even topple the West. That type of change would require these people to actually step up and put their talk into action.
I can't think of a better explanation for why they love Vietnam but not China, despite being essentially the same system (billionaires and all).
I just mean I haven't heard them go on and on about China like everyone else and instead talk about the woes of Capitalism primarily.
This post gets the Noam Chomsky activism seal of approval. Congratulations.
So if you literally can't get your point across to someone who wants to understand you, how do you expect to get your point across to someone who neither understands you nor wishes to? I'm literally trying to learn here and you go "excuses excuses" well fucking teach me then
Yeah but it's also our job to explain that to them as patiently as possible once, then with increasingly harsh insults.
Counterpoint: We (non-tankies) might read your post if it wasn't 5000 words long, sourced purely with tweets by people who make zines, and dripping with condescension.
I have a lot of tankie friends in real life, but on this website... damn you guys are tough to talk to. Probably helps that in real life people don't assume everyone else is a teenager who discovered "the left" through the Bernie 2016 campaign.
There is an upside though: on this internet of ours, is there any greater pleasure than replying "wow you seem mad" to a 10 page screed that someone clearly spent at least half an hour on?
No, no there isn't. 😉
Talking generally, meaning no offense to you in particular, I find that tankies often do a good job explaining how the NYT, WaPo, the guardian, etc. lied, but then stop there. That doesn't work for me: it's media criticism, not an example that can be used in any debate over "actually existing 'socialism'". Just 'cause mainstream media sucks, that doesn't mean the exact opposite of what they say is true all the time. As you say, there are tons of books on the facts of these matters: cite those!
Given my background, this particularly annoys me with historical stuff. For example, CIA history--you get a lot of folks coming out here and back on the reddit with a "I read the first few chapters of Legacy of Ashes" level of knowledge. It's a little cringe frankly. Not to say that there isn't plenty of other stuff that ya'll know way more about than me, but seeing some folks really embarrass themselves in one's bailiwick puts a kernel of doubt in one's head. One wonders "If they could be so wrong about this thing I know very well, what else are they wrong about?" And the next time someone comes along making declarative statements and citing the same people--you don't trust 'em.
I get that the academy, the media, and the money isn't on your (or really, our) side, but unfortunately thems the breaks. It means we've got to do more homework than everyone else. It takes work and reading, and then you have to express it concisely, link the books, and not be an asshole about how much reading you did! I know it's a big ask, I know it sucks, but it's the task to which you've set yourself.
Unfortunately, I have encountered quite a few folks on this website who clearly haven't done the reading, haven't done the work, and skip right to being a prick while citing the same handful of pet journalists. So even though I am (clearly) willing to write a long post in response to people who are engaging in good faith, I usually just have fun with it and troll.
cool, but yall freak out when I call you out for sucking off Adrian Zenz. Don't need 10 pages for that
For months the only debunking of the Uyghur genocide claims was pasting "Zenz bad" for pages in every thread it was mentioned. Criticising the medium isn't criticising the message.
He is but everyone was aware of that for the first time. People still wanted to know what's going on in Xinjiang though.
So maybe find a non-zenz source and you don't get spammed with zenz bad? lmao
He is literally, undeniably, fundamentally insane. No one should take him at his word. He can't even speak Chinese, for fucks sake. You want me to come in here and tell you all about what it's like in Italy, despite never having been there in my fucking life, and knowing so little of their language I couldn't even pull off an Italian accent?
Fucking hell how do you god damn anarchists have your lips surgically attached to the ass of whoever is currently being amplified by the state?
This has nothing to do with anarchism or anything lol. this is basic debate culture.
Addressing the origin of the source is basic debate culture, dumbfuck. You don't get to pull quotes from a literal cultist and expect to be taken seriously
I agree, my entire point not just in my comments to you but through the entire fucking post is that you anarchists are incapable of arguing beyond "ok red fash" or other assorted name calling. Not once do you ever provide a single point as to why Zenz should be taken seriously, or another source that does not base its work on his word
I did address if Zenz should be taken seriously, literally my ~~first ~~ second comment starts with "i know he's bad." You're not arguing with me here, we're agreeing in this. I was trying to shed light on how other radlibs or whatever you want to call them are going into these debates.
Could I just say I like the concept of the social credit system? I already hold the door open for everyone that I can. I've never gotten any points for it.
And has anyone currently seen the credit system in the US? Even mattress stores run your credit and won't sell you a bed to sleep on if you haven't met their arbitrary quotas and aren't paying all cash for their overpriced fabric and springs.
Putting aside any possible concerns related to authoritarianism...
A problem with social credit systems is that its implementation can easily backfire. I really hope they are implementing various parts of it only after serious localized testing.
There is a reliable result in behavioral economics that if you reward/punish people for things, they stop thinking about it in moral/ethical terms. They quickly start gaming the system, even if they had better behavior before it was implemented.
What that means is they have to be very carefully about the details. Perhaps something like a system where repeating the same bad behaviors has escalating costs.Also making details publicly available has a risk, since low social credit score could also be used to recruit scummy people for crime, unscrupulous business, or even towards political ends.
And I really dislike the way it places value on publicly visible good behavior, ignoring the so often unmeasurable good that people can do for each other.
Such a system could also easily become terribly ableist. Or even classist, in that rich people have more time and energy outside of work for dogoodery.I am not really opposed to it, but they have to test and think about these things carefully before introducing it on a larger scale.
i see nothing bizarre about a social credit system and i don't understand the fuss. like, if it's only for negative stuff, ok, it's punitive crap, but if you can get good stuff from it? i mean, that's just a substitute for money, and a good one at that. imagine paying your rent by helping set up a community center, or teaching kids, or whatever. that's based
You're forgetting about who gets to decide what 'negative stuff' is, and how they are able to tell what you are doing. Like, if it got implemented in the USA, do you think your social credit would increase if you went to a BLM protest? Not likely.
We already have that in the usa and yes criminal records can negatively effect your credit score and make getting housing, credit cards, and transportation much harder.
this is a "hot take" thread not a "cold extremely obvious and correct" take
