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.

  • CatholicSocialist@lemmy.ml
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • YuccaMan [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Xi isn't China lib, and quit using the word fascism until you learn what it actually means

        • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Omegamint [comrade/them, doe/deer]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe you should spend like literally any time at all learning about Chinese politics and system of governance because this is flatly untrue.

          • CatholicSocialist@lemmy.ml
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?:

            Show

            • brain_in_a_box [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

                  • CatholicSocialist@lemmy.ml
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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?

                    • SuperNovaCouchGuy2 [any]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      I'm a defector of sorts.

                      Well shit, the penalty for desertion is execution my son.

                    • HornyOnMain
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      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. hexbear-pride

                • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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?

            • GnastyGnuts [he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Ofc indoctrinated citizens think they're a democracy, they also probably have different understanding of democracy

              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?

              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!"

              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.

              Does this look democratic to you?

              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.

              • CatholicSocialist@lemmy.ml
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

                So, all the neoliberal western countries that largely believe their democracies are also democracies?

                The first part of this I agree with, 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.

                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."

                • GnastyGnuts [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So, all the neoliberal western countries that largely believe their democracies are also democracies?

                  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.

    • RedDawn [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • RedDawn [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • CatholicSocialist@lemmy.ml
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s CPC

            What are you on about, it's both?

            Show

            there’s no reason to believe otherwise apart from being a dumb little racist baby who thinks only white people can do socialism properly.

            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).

            • silent_water [she/her]
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

                • silent_water [she/her]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  communism is an internationalist movement. why would we ever put nationality before the fact that we're communists?

                  • CatholicSocialist@lemmy.ml
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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"

                    • Sephitard9001 [he/him]
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      1 year ago

                      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

                      • combat_brandonism [they/them]
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        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.

                    • silent_water [she/her]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      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.

                      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        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.

            • YuccaMan [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              You clearly don't know a damn thing about socialism that you didn't learn from breadtube

                • YuccaMan [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

            • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • CatholicSocialist@lemmy.ml
                ·
                1 year ago

                Chinese workers clearly have greater control over the means of production than workers anywhere else in the world

                What makes you think this? Is that why their benefits and conditions are worse than succdem Europe?

                • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

        • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • CatholicSocialist@lemmy.ml
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Starlet [she/her, it/its]
              ·
              1 year ago

              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??

                • SuperNovaCouchGuy2 [any]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  people endorsing Russian bombings

                  Again, please don't compare us to Zelensky, that's really fucked up.

                  • CatholicSocialist@lemmy.ml
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

                    • Starlet [she/her, it/its]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      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?

                        • Zoift [he/him]
                          ·
                          1 year ago

                          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.

                        • Starlet [she/her, it/its]
                          ·
                          1 year ago

                          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

                            • Starlet [she/her, it/its]
                              ·
                              1 year ago

                              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!".

                                • Starlet [she/her, it/its]
                                  ·
                                  1 year ago

                                  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.

                        • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]
                          ·
                          1 year ago

                          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.

                • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  bombing major cities in Ukraine

                  You mean what's been getting done by the Ukrainian army and defended by liberals like you for the last 8+ years?

            • SuperNovaCouchGuy2 [any]
              ·
              1 year ago

              you guys are clearly warmongers that want as many dead Ukrainian as possible.

              That is so offensive, don't compare us to Zelensky, please.

            • brain_in_a_box [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              How could Russia 'invade' Donbas if they were invited? You've been asked this several times and avoided answering every one.

              • CatholicSocialist@lemmy.ml
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • brain_in_a_box [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

        • spectre [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • spectre [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
                ·
                1 year ago

                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

                • spectre [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

                    • spectre [he/him]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      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.

                  • ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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)

                    • spectre [he/him]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      "Russia nationalizes key industries in preparation to join an economic union with China, other BRICS countries expected to follow within the next 5 years"

            • spectre [he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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

          • emizeko [they/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Few people here think that the CPC is "genuinely dedicated to communism".

            I-was-saying

            • spectre [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • YuccaMan [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • spectre [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • YuccaMan [he/him]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

          • Walk_On [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • GaveUp [love/loves]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right? All these fucking tankies don't even believe that there's a current genocide against the Mongolians

          Bunch of fucking insane nutcases here

    • Teekeeus [comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/China-Is-Most-Promising-Hope-for-Third-World-Fidel-20171128-0017.html

      shrug-outta-hecks

    • gaycomputeruser [she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cuba's stated goal is communism. They've started to change a bit in recent years, but until recently that was the official position.