I talked with a communist the other day, who was advertising for a communist newspaper he, I'm guessing, works for. Well he asked me if I am organised, to which I said yes and we started talking.
At some point I said smth positive abt China and he was like: "uh.. So China is socialist to you?". That's when I took a deep breath and started having a discussion with him.
I stated that there are only like 24 capitalists in the bottom part of the Party, which consists of thousands of people. I also said that the government is known to support workers on strike. But he in turn argued that the Chinese gov may support strikers, but since it's "state-capitalism" they still have to bend in the direction of the companies, cuz of the profits and so on.
He also said that their economy is sure to collapse soon. I just thought abt the metric shitload of videos that comes out every year claiming China's economy will collapse any second now My guy cited the fact that Evergrande, a company that according to him makes up a rly big part of their economy, filed for bankrupcy in the US or so.
Well quite frankly I was standing there, I'd say a pretty good understanding of China, but I couldn't outright refute his claims or present a compelling counterargument. So I've been looking forward to talking with any comrade abt that so that I could learn abt how to deal with this in the future, and to learn abt valid counter arguments as well.
I think political convictions aren't normally swayed by debate. You can dispute individual claims all day but beliefs are more than the sum of their parts. I mean, even if you debunk every single justification he has, that doesn't mean he'll stop believing that China is capitalist. No, he'll probably just invent new reasons instead. So rather than asking why he believes it, you should ask why the idea is compelling to him.
Part of the reason is surely because his job depends on it. But besides that, what about China does he take issue with? That they do business with the US? That their capitalist class still exists? That they're unlike western "socialists"?
"I think political convictions aren't normally swayed by debate. "
If I could tattoo that part on my brain to remind me every time I get in a dumb debate about this shit I would have a happier life I think. Great point
I've found with a lot of ultras, they will say things that are technically true but are non-sequiturs, they aren't relevant to the central question of the argument, but you're put on the defensive to "debunk" them, and when you can't, because they are technically true, but sort of miss the forest for the trees. They use the same sort of logic as conspiracy theorists, where a huge pile of garbage evidence for their position substitutes for an actual direct answer to their question. The question of "is China socialist" is answered by "who holds political power in China?" not through examples of billionaires existing or corruption or them trading with capitalist nations or supporting governments that fight Maoist uprisings. A million bits of circumstantial evidence will never add up to the same thing as a single piece of direct evidence.
It's like bigfoot. It doesn't matter how many blurry photos or foot casts or recordings of random animal noises in the woods they have, the thing that proves bigfoot real is a real bigfoot. It's the same thing with China. It doesn't matter how many examples of some small thing that isn't "pure enough" for them, what matters is who holds political power in the country.
The trick is to not get pulled into their games, they aren't interested in challenging their ideas about China, which is why they ignore the big picture in favour of tiny little "examples" instead.
The only way you can beat them is to not waste your time with them. If you let them go on long enough, they will inevitably start spouting bullshit from the CIA sooner or later, and I think that really shows their true colours. They'd rather critically support the organisation that has done more to harm socialist movements in the world than any other rather than critically support a socialist nation that doesn't pass their purity tests. They're western chauvinists at their core, even if they refuse to admit it.
I talked with a communist the other day, who was advertising for a communist newspaper he, I'm guessing, works for. Well he asked me if I am organised, to which I said yes and we started talking. At some point I said smth positive abt China and he was like: "uh.. So China is socialist to you?". That's when I took a deep breath and started having a discussion with him.
I stated that there are only like 24 capitalists in the bottom part of the Party, which consists of thousands of people. I also said that the government is known to support workers on strike. But he in turn argued that the Chinese gov may support strikers, but since it's "state-capitalism" they still have to bend in the direction of the companies, cuz of the profits and so on. He also said that their economy is sure to collapse soon. I just thought abt the metric shitload of videos that comes out every year claiming China's economy will collapse any second now My guy cited the fact that Evergrande, a company that according to him makes up a rly big part of their economy, filed for bankrupcy in the US or so.
Well quite frankly I was standing there, I'd say a pretty good understanding of China, but I couldn't outright refute his claims or present a compelling counterargument. So I've been looking forward to talking with any comrade abt that so that I could learn abt how to deal with this in the future, and to learn abt valid counter arguments as well.
I think political convictions aren't normally swayed by debate. You can dispute individual claims all day but beliefs are more than the sum of their parts. I mean, even if you debunk every single justification he has, that doesn't mean he'll stop believing that China is capitalist. No, he'll probably just invent new reasons instead. So rather than asking why he believes it, you should ask why the idea is compelling to him.
Part of the reason is surely because his job depends on it. But besides that, what about China does he take issue with? That they do business with the US? That their capitalist class still exists? That they're unlike western "socialists"?
"I think political convictions aren't normally swayed by debate. "
If I could tattoo that part on my brain to remind me every time I get in a dumb debate about this shit I would have a happier life I think. Great point
Fr. Sankara and Mao would've probably added a few caveats to their teachings if they had to deal with the fortified ignorance of westerners
I've found with a lot of ultras, they will say things that are technically true but are non-sequiturs, they aren't relevant to the central question of the argument, but you're put on the defensive to "debunk" them, and when you can't, because they are technically true, but sort of miss the forest for the trees. They use the same sort of logic as conspiracy theorists, where a huge pile of garbage evidence for their position substitutes for an actual direct answer to their question. The question of "is China socialist" is answered by "who holds political power in China?" not through examples of billionaires existing or corruption or them trading with capitalist nations or supporting governments that fight Maoist uprisings. A million bits of circumstantial evidence will never add up to the same thing as a single piece of direct evidence.
It's like bigfoot. It doesn't matter how many blurry photos or foot casts or recordings of random animal noises in the woods they have, the thing that proves bigfoot real is a real bigfoot. It's the same thing with China. It doesn't matter how many examples of some small thing that isn't "pure enough" for them, what matters is who holds political power in the country.
The trick is to not get pulled into their games, they aren't interested in challenging their ideas about China, which is why they ignore the big picture in favour of tiny little "examples" instead.
The only way you can beat them is to not waste your time with them. If you let them go on long enough, they will inevitably start spouting bullshit from the CIA sooner or later, and I think that really shows their true colours. They'd rather critically support the organisation that has done more to harm socialist movements in the world than any other rather than critically support a socialist nation that doesn't pass their purity tests. They're western chauvinists at their core, even if they refuse to admit it.