Struggle session engage. Post your pathetic arguments so that I and the other China Good Posters can dismantle them and you can learn.

Key points:

  • China is a democracy. It is arguably the most functional and responsive democracy in a major country today. Its citizens consider it more democratic than the citizens of almost any other country do their own.

  • China is on a clear path to socialism and economic justice. No nation in history has ever reduced poverty in anything like the way China is doing it.

  • The vast majority of people in the PRC support the CPC. This is not due to being brainwashed. Americans are brainwashed and still hate their government.

  • Almost everything you hear about China in the West sits on a spectrum between malicious misrepresentation to outright fabrication with no basis in reality.

  • China's ascension to the premiere global power is an extremely good thing for world peace and the global socialist movement. While China does not actively support other socialisms (sadly it's not as good as the USSR in this regard) it does not do imperialism. China will allow socialisms around the world to flourish simply by not actively crushing them like the US and Europe.

  • cracksmoke2020 [none/use name]
    1·
    4 years ago

    There are 2 reasons I see that leftists should provide support for China.

    The first is the desire for a far more multipolar world, this is absolutely a good thing including for the working class of the existing hegemonic powers. This includes things like the BRI challenging IMF based funding schemes.

    The second is their major accomplishments around poverty reduction. Their existing economic and political framework is absolutely something that should be exported to developing countries in comparison to the DC consensus which leaves countries perminently middle income trapped. It is however worth pointing out that lower population countries might not be as successful in these efforts, but tons of African nation's given their booming populations would benefit.

    Outside of this, China on a domestic level isn't especially good, they are not a model for what communism should look like when compared to either the USSR or Cuba. They are deeply invested in expanded consumerism, freedom of movement is massively limited to the upper eschelons of their society, healthcare access varies a fuck ton depending on where you live.

    I understand you can argue that they are doing some sort of NEP like Lenin did, and I have read translated documents from China so I do know they do have at least some egalitarian goals, but I have tremendous skepticism about how this will play out over the long term. Xi is absolutely a far better leader than the Shanghai clique guys were, and I'm still convinced that such deeply pro business and anti socialist forces could take things over again.

    • Bedandsofa [he/him]
      1·
      4 years ago

      I understand you can argue that they are doing some sort of NEP like Lenin did,

      I’d argue that they did something like the NEP in the 1980’s, and just like with the original NEP there was a very clear risk to workers and peasants that pro-capitalist elements could be strengthened. Unlike with the original NEP, in China those risks played out to their conclusion, and capitalist relations are now the dominant mode of production in China. The state in China plays a much more muscular role than basically all bourgeois states, but fundamentally it protects capitalist relations.

      Pretty eye opening to me personally, was looking at the specifics of their coronavirus response: the massive injections into the stock market, large amounts of loans to small businesses, and tax cuts/incentives for large corporations. Very similar methods to what western capitalist governments did to prop up their capitalist economies through crisis. The costs of capitalist crisis, will, of course, fall on the working class.

    • FloridaWater [none/use name]
      2·
      4 years ago

      freedom of movement is massively limited to the upper eschelons of their society

      Complete freedom of movement, when enacted in a developing country where there are distinct differences in development level between big cities and the villages, invariably leads to slums and/or homelessness like what you would see in India and Brazil.

      • cracksmoke2020 [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Those slums still develop in China, and then the Chinese government destroys them and sends the people back to where they came from. There's obviously going to be a good reason why people move to these places in the first place.

        Additionally, this lack of movement isn't just between rural and urban. It's between lower tier cities and bigger ones. Imagine as an American if you lived in like Detroit or Cleveland being told you aren't allowed to move to NYC or California even though all the economic opportunity left the first city and all new opportunities are in these other places. The levels of wealth disparities in this later case aren't all that different all things considered.

        • FloridaWater [none/use name]
          ·
          4 years ago

          It's a bit different than "not being allowed to move to big cities" as there often is a point based system that favors people with higher education (college entrance exam in China is mostly equal opportunity).

          Also People talk about economic opportunity associated with big cities but city spaces are limited. Moving a person to a big city comes at a potential opportunity cost of not being able accommodate a more productive person.

          • cracksmoke2020 [none/use name]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Yes so the children of the elite in Shanghai get to keep their hukou forever while the rest of the country remains middle income trapped. I've spoken to countless chinese people about this, and it's definitely used as a metric of ones existing class status from birth.

            Schools in lower tier cities also aren't as good, it's going to be harder to get into the top universities this way, hell, there are extra spots at the top universities like Peking for students from Beijing.

            The idea of more vs less productive person is bullshit, let people live where they want too as they see fit and do everything you can to make it all work. It's totally fucked up that China has decided that the population of their top tier cities is no longer allowed to grow.

            • FloridaWater [none/use name]
              1·
              4 years ago

              I don't know where you get that "middle income trapped" from. Western, less developed provinces enjoy bigger percentage development than coastal provinces and cities like Shanghai. Also, just because someone was born in Shanghai does not automatically make them "elite". They may have millions in terms of household wealth, but a majority of that is tied down in real estate. Ironically, he can sell his real estate and move to a less developed province to enjoy better quality in life due to the lower cost. Many chose to do so.

              Schools in lower tier cities also aren’t as good, it’s going to be harder to get into the top universities this way

              Provinces like Hubei, Shandong and Jiangsu routinely outperform in college entrance exams.

              there are extra spots at the top universities like Peking for students from Beijing

              Not by much. It's mostly proportional.

              let people live where they want too as they see fit

              Isn't that, you know, capitalism? It only encourages more unneeded competition in the big cities.

              do everything you can to make it all work

              That's why China is also focused on developing the inland provinces, thus solving the inequalities at its root, instead of further exacerbating the rural/urban divide.