Not just here, but also on reddit and other social media.
Sure, there is a propaganda war brewing wherein a lot of Western media are pushing exaggerated narratives, Adrian Zenz is a theological dope of an academic, and the CIA has a vested interest in accelerating conflict, etc. but surely there's got to be room to also address the shortcomings of China as well? Whether it's about LGBTQ+ issues, or the exploits of Chinese capitalism, or being able to criticize or make fun of Xi, I see posts here routinely and systemically brigaded and comments downvoted to oblivion that even sniff at criticism of China.
I consider myself a free agent, and China's meteoric rise gives me some hope for a brighter tomorrow (in contrast to the US), but this blatant campaign of social media manipulation gives me pause for concern. It just screams insecurity and makes me not trust what feels like a counter-propaganda narrative. (Mods, please never get rid of the downvote counter.)
Anyway, here's hoping for a brighter future, but please let ideas breathe.
Thanks for listening.
I understand that. But if your attempts at engaging in scientific socialism causes you to criticize China, and only China, you're not doing it in good faith. Either be critical of every socialist project (in good faith discussions) in order to build your view, or shut the fuck up about China
It is indeed important that we examine many different examples of socialist projects and states in general.
Again, we should encourage leftists of every variety to do so and to do so properly using the tools of historical materialism and dialectics. It is not encouraging to dismiss any inquiry into China as either irrelevant or as bad faith without the inquirer having already demonstrated their analysis of other projects. The Soviet Union and PRC are the first and most obvious states to examine. Yes, a focus on a single state is not sufficient! It quickly becomes clear in material analysis that we cannot understand why a state does one or another thing without also examining the conditions of the moment and the historical conditions that led up to that moment and informed the response, which naturally leads us to broaden our inquiries. In this way, we can both refine our own practice of applying historical materialism and help others do the same.
This is not to say that every question must be engaged with, but it is certainly not harmful on balance to lead people into a more useful way to examine China and, consequentially, all states.
I agree with all this, and sorry I wasn't trying to claim that you need to be critical of multiple countries to have a good faith discussion.
But I do think it is incredibly apparent when someone is having a good faith, scientific-socialism-driven discussion, vs someone wishing to tear down China and using scientific socialism as an excuse to do so. I'm receptive to the first example, and shut down the second on sight.
Seeing how OP brought up China's influence on Disney as a shield for their views, they clearly fall into that second category, and I'm not gonna play nice and let it happen. For me it's more about someone reading the conversation after the fact and what they walk away with. If we allow bad faith discussions to occur because we are afraid of killing good faith ones, we are gonna get a lot of 'leftists' with very warped views and warped justifications for those views.
It's a tough nuance to hit, but I want to see us do it properly, and not just sit back and allow bad faith bullshit to fester in our spaces
I also agree that this thread is framed very poorly and aggressively if it is in fact trying to address this difficult issue. I just finally felt able to organize my thoughts on this meta-discussion.
I've seen good threads on here about specific criticisms of the Soviet Union that ended with a richer understanding of the situation, fewer on China. Ratcheting tensions and a living, contemporaneous state definitely make things more difficult. I hope we can continue to cultivate a healthy culture here that enables considered and constructive discussion while expediently dispelling common misconceptions or deliberate misrepresentations.