There has only been socialist societies like the USSR. There hasn't been a communist society yet. China is currently working toward a socialist society. What I think you're talking about are capitalist/imperialist countries with social safety nets built off exploitation of the 3rd world.
Anyway, the citizens in China approve of their government at a much higher rate than Americans do, and more Chinese citizens believe they live in a democracy that represents them than Americans do. So no, the vague wishy washy "power imbalance" you're referring to is not "worse" in countries run by communists.
It's not worse? In the west, you're generally fined, at worse jailed, after having a go at a trial. In China and North Korea, you get disappeared or executed if they feel like it, or sent to a labour camp. If that's not more of an imbalance, not sure what it is.
But by all means, if you think it's so much better in China because the population approves (lol), be my guest!
First, the US is not "the west". It's one of the countries in the west, and it's not nearly similar to other western countries.
Second, what numbers would you believe for China? The one that doesn't mention the millions in labour camp, or the ones that don't list indebted servitude, or the one that denies any kind of abduction ever took place?
The U.S. is The West. It's the hegemon. What determines if a country is a 1st world country in "the West" is if they are subservient to America or not. That's why Japan is "the West" despite being as far east as you can get relatively. America is also coincidentally the topic of the article we're discussing so I'm not sure why you're trying to draw a line there either way.
And what do you mean by labor camps? The interment camps that western media has even conceded were temporary and have already closed since 2018? The ones where the estimated millions was just a number extrapolated from interviewing a handful of people? Did you even read the original report on this topic or are you just half remembering alarmist BBC articles about it
Wtf you're talking about about the west being the US?
The west is generally accepted to mean Europe and America.
Also, good job chilling the Chinese discourse about how the Uyghur situation would not be true...
There is nothing close to that, and the other things I mentioned but you just ignore, in the west. The closest would be Guantanamo, which is a few orders of magnitude smaller.
That's not true. Japan and Australia and even South Korea are also considered western nations despite being across the Earth. Specifically because they are subservient to the U.S. and oriented their societies to serve capital and U.S. geopolitical interests.
What happened when Australia tried to seek independence from America's leash in the 70's? They got slapped back down into their place. South Korea was established as a fascist dictatorship by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur invading after Korea started to buck off America's Japanese attack dog. The fascists there held hands with America while slaughtering or jailing leftists and other dissidents all the way up to the late 80's. Despite that, they're "western". Only because they're subservient to the U.S.
Can you find me a "Western" nation that opposes U.S. interests?
And no, the re-education camps are not similar to Guantanamo, since you are not tortured and you are released. You do not learn trade and language in Guantanamo Bay lmao. Also it's interesting to me you didn't mention Abu Ghraib
‘In the report, the scholars estimated that India suffered 165 million excess deaths due to British colonialism between 1880 and 1920. “This figure is larger than the combined number of deaths from both World Wars, including the Nazi holocaust,” they noted.’
No, Feudal China is not relevant to a discussion on the relative violence and oppression done by capitalist and socialist states, because it is neither.
That's not the point of that whole thing anyways, but people moving the goal posts lead to that. The whole point is that the problem is not capitalism, it's the imbalance of power, and the people actually wielding that power.
The point other people are making though is that you're selectively emphasizing stories of brutality from socialist countries while discounting the brutality that exists under capitalism in order to draw a false equivalence between the two systems; an equivalence that needs to exist in order to justify your position that it doesn't matter whether a state is socialist or capitalist.
The fact is that the violence done by capitalist states is far greater than that done by socialist states. In any time frame. The violence of colonialism belongs to capitalism, the violence of fascism belongs to capitalism, the violence of gunboat diplomacy - of wars fought by private contractors for the bottom line of arms manufactures and mineral exploitation companies - is the violence of capitalism. This doesn't even cover the internal, inherent violence of capitalism. To dispose of food while people starve, because feeding them is not profitable, is violence. To deny lifesaving medical treatment, because it cannot be supplied at a profit, that is violence. To spill poison into drinking water to save money, then when people protest, to lock them away and force them to labour, that is violence. Strike-breakers, Pinkertons, McCarthyism, police killings of activists, funding of right-wing militia to coup socialist governments, embargos denying medicine and food to socialist countries. All of this is violence, done by capitalists, to protect the rights of capital.
You are told that these things are not capitalist violence, they are just society functioning as normal. However you are flooded with rumour, conspiracy theories and propaganda about the violence in socialist countries, so you come to the conclusion that both are bad and that it isn't worth understanding the difference.
Again, the whole point I'm saying isn't "there is nothing wrong with capitalism". It's that most of what's wrong within capitalism is also wrong within other systems because they're not proper to capitalism.
Capitalism is being able to accumulate capital and use them to your benefits. This survey pretends that 51% of the youth are not individualistic, that they would prefer that whether or not they work hard or not shouldn't benefit them individually, and that they'll just be happy being provided whatever the people as a whole deem proper.
That's just plain false.
Are people disillusioned about how things are? Of course. They're unhappy because they are in a weak position, not because of the system itself.
You're like a child who still thinks Santa is real, you welded some half-baked Tolkienian conception of power onto your brain, where power is some nebulous metaphysical, all-consuming entity that corrupts everything it touches, instead of what it really is which is a series of social relationships meditated thru the dominant mode of production and its environs
The first step in forming coherent political beliefs is recognizing you severely miseducated yourself with mass media and literary tropes, there's a real world out there, and you should engage with it instead of shooting your mouth about concepts you don't comprehend
Capitalism is what causes that power imbalance, how anyone can sit there and pretend the mode of production that reproduces all human civilization doesn't effect the balance of power is beyond brain broken, you are literally arguing with reality dumbass
So you're saying there is no power imbalance of similar scale in socialist or communist societies?
of similar scale? there absolutely isn't, especially when you get off your own head and realize your country (meaning the main tool of your dominant classes) doesn't exist in isolation. and the fact you're talking about "socialist or communist" societies really shows you have no idea what you're talking about, despite all your unwarranted certainty
Well, there necessarily is still a power imbalance on an individual or per-capita basis, but that's what the DotP is meant to counteract on an absolute basis.
I replied with the same kind of stupidity as the comment I was replying to. The difference is that I marked it explicitly as sarcasm because I knew it was absurd, while the comment I was replying to was supposed to be serious.
lmao holy shit you're a dumbass, you're comment and the haphazard comparison you were trying to make is irrelevant because we don't live under feudalism, we live under capitalism, try to keep up
Your social democratic circlejerk country of choice only exists and can only exist at the moment based on the actions of the US. It simply isn't escapable when discussing the present state of things. It is like disparaging the crassness of a hog when you are a flee on its back; The thing you are insulting is the very basis of the thing you're praising continuing to exist, so you cannot coherently grandstand about it.
Do you not have any US military bases? Are you not a member of NATO? Are you not a beneficiary of sweatshops in countries the US destroyed? Think critically
In the West you have your entire village leveled, your wedding drone striked, and your government overthrown and replaced by fascists who use dogs to torture dissidents.
Pure vibes-based politics. You cannot name a single law the DPRK has besides "no entering or leaving without approval" "internal internet only", and laws every other country has.
There has only been socialist societies like the USSR. There hasn't been a communist society yet. China is currently working toward a socialist society. What I think you're talking about are capitalist/imperialist countries with social safety nets built off exploitation of the 3rd world.
Anyway, the citizens in China approve of their government at a much higher rate than Americans do, and more Chinese citizens believe they live in a democracy that represents them than Americans do. So no, the vague wishy washy "power imbalance" you're referring to is not "worse" in countries run by communists.
It's not worse? In the west, you're generally fined, at worse jailed, after having a go at a trial. In China and North Korea, you get disappeared or executed if they feel like it, or sent to a labour camp. If that's not more of an imbalance, not sure what it is.
But by all means, if you think it's so much better in China because the population approves (lol), be my guest!
If the Chinese are more oppressed, why does America have 4x smaller population but more prisoners per capita AND total number?
First, the US is not "the west". It's one of the countries in the west, and it's not nearly similar to other western countries.
Second, what numbers would you believe for China? The one that doesn't mention the millions in labour camp, or the ones that don't list indebted servitude, or the one that denies any kind of abduction ever took place?
The U.S. is The West. It's the hegemon. What determines if a country is a 1st world country in "the West" is if they are subservient to America or not. That's why Japan is "the West" despite being as far east as you can get relatively. America is also coincidentally the topic of the article we're discussing so I'm not sure why you're trying to draw a line there either way.
And what do you mean by labor camps? The interment camps that western media has even conceded were temporary and have already closed since 2018? The ones where the estimated millions was just a number extrapolated from interviewing a handful of people? Did you even read the original report on this topic or are you just half remembering alarmist BBC articles about it
Wtf you're talking about about the west being the US?
The west is generally accepted to mean Europe and America.
Also, good job chilling the Chinese discourse about how the Uyghur situation would not be true...
There is nothing close to that, and the other things I mentioned but you just ignore, in the west. The closest would be Guantanamo, which is a few orders of magnitude smaller.
That's not true. Japan and Australia and even South Korea are also considered western nations despite being across the Earth. Specifically because they are subservient to the U.S. and oriented their societies to serve capital and U.S. geopolitical interests.
What happened when Australia tried to seek independence from America's leash in the 70's? They got slapped back down into their place. South Korea was established as a fascist dictatorship by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur invading after Korea started to buck off America's Japanese attack dog. The fascists there held hands with America while slaughtering or jailing leftists and other dissidents all the way up to the late 80's. Despite that, they're "western". Only because they're subservient to the U.S.
Can you find me a "Western" nation that opposes U.S. interests?
And no, the re-education camps are not similar to Guantanamo, since you are not tortured and you are released. You do not learn trade and language in Guantanamo Bay lmao. Also it's interesting to me you didn't mention Abu Ghraib
Yeah, the West. Famous for not disappearing people. Famous for not having labor camps.
You're huffing your own farts.
Not nearly at the same scale, and in the same time period either.
‘In the report, the scholars estimated that India suffered 165 million excess deaths due to British colonialism between 1880 and 1920. “This figure is larger than the combined number of deaths from both World Wars, including the Nazi holocaust,” they noted.’
https://mronline.org/2022/12/14/british-empire-killed-165-million-indians-in-40-years/
That’s just the British in India for a forty-year period. Do you want to talk about how many people the USA has killed since 9/11?
Oh, right. Then let's look at the time of the Han dynasty and feudal china then, because that's what's relevant! /s
No, Feudal China is not relevant to a discussion on the relative violence and oppression done by capitalist and socialist states, because it is neither.
That's not the point of that whole thing anyways, but people moving the goal posts lead to that. The whole point is that the problem is not capitalism, it's the imbalance of power, and the people actually wielding that power.
The point other people are making though is that you're selectively emphasizing stories of brutality from socialist countries while discounting the brutality that exists under capitalism in order to draw a false equivalence between the two systems; an equivalence that needs to exist in order to justify your position that it doesn't matter whether a state is socialist or capitalist.
The fact is that the violence done by capitalist states is far greater than that done by socialist states. In any time frame. The violence of colonialism belongs to capitalism, the violence of fascism belongs to capitalism, the violence of gunboat diplomacy - of wars fought by private contractors for the bottom line of arms manufactures and mineral exploitation companies - is the violence of capitalism. This doesn't even cover the internal, inherent violence of capitalism. To dispose of food while people starve, because feeding them is not profitable, is violence. To deny lifesaving medical treatment, because it cannot be supplied at a profit, that is violence. To spill poison into drinking water to save money, then when people protest, to lock them away and force them to labour, that is violence. Strike-breakers, Pinkertons, McCarthyism, police killings of activists, funding of right-wing militia to coup socialist governments, embargos denying medicine and food to socialist countries. All of this is violence, done by capitalists, to protect the rights of capital.
You are told that these things are not capitalist violence, they are just society functioning as normal. However you are flooded with rumour, conspiracy theories and propaganda about the violence in socialist countries, so you come to the conclusion that both are bad and that it isn't worth understanding the difference.
Again, the whole point I'm saying isn't "there is nothing wrong with capitalism". It's that most of what's wrong within capitalism is also wrong within other systems because they're not proper to capitalism.
Capitalism is being able to accumulate capital and use them to your benefits. This survey pretends that 51% of the youth are not individualistic, that they would prefer that whether or not they work hard or not shouldn't benefit them individually, and that they'll just be happy being provided whatever the people as a whole deem proper.
That's just plain false.
Are people disillusioned about how things are? Of course. They're unhappy because they are in a weak position, not because of the system itself.
You know what really benefits capitalists, taking over the state, and you know what makes that easy, having lots of capital
In other words a systemic incentive for capitalism to degard into capitalist oppression because of an inherent feature specific to capitalism
You literally dont know what capitalism is or how power manifests in the world
So I guess there is no power imbalance in other systems either... lol.
Yeah dumb fuck that's definitely what I said lmao
You're like a child who still thinks Santa is real, you welded some half-baked Tolkienian conception of power onto your brain, where power is some nebulous metaphysical, all-consuming entity that corrupts everything it touches, instead of what it really is which is a series of social relationships meditated thru the dominant mode of production and its environs
The first step in forming coherent political beliefs is recognizing you severely miseducated yourself with mass media and literary tropes, there's a real world out there, and you should engage with it instead of shooting your mouth about concepts you don't comprehend
Capitalism is what causes that power imbalance, how anyone can sit there and pretend the mode of production that reproduces all human civilization doesn't effect the balance of power is beyond brain broken, you are literally arguing with reality dumbass
Keep coping
So you're saying there is no power imbalance of similar scale in socialist or communist societies? Funny man.
of similar scale? there absolutely isn't, especially when you get off your own head and realize your country (meaning the main tool of your dominant classes) doesn't exist in isolation. and the fact you're talking about "socialist or communist" societies really shows you have no idea what you're talking about, despite all your unwarranted certainty
No power imbalance caused by the accumulation of capital, yes you dumb fuck, how is this difficult for you to grasp?
Well, there necessarily is still a power imbalance on an individual or per-capita basis, but that's what the DotP is meant to counteract on an absolute basis.
There is not.
lmao what a stupid and irrelevant comment, you literally think like a 5 year old
I replied with the same kind of stupidity as the comment I was replying to. The difference is that I marked it explicitly as sarcasm because I knew it was absurd, while the comment I was replying to was supposed to be serious.
lmao holy shit you're a dumbass, you're comment and the haphazard comparison you were trying to make is irrelevant because we don't live under feudalism, we live under capitalism, try to keep up
Doubling down on the fart huffing. Propaganda and privilege got you. You're just not a perceived threat.
You're right, the scale is much higher in the West.
What do you think prison labor is? Have you not read the 13th Amendment?
Again with the US...
Your social democratic circlejerk country of choice only exists and can only exist at the moment based on the actions of the US. It simply isn't escapable when discussing the present state of things. It is like disparaging the crassness of a hog when you are a flee on its back; The thing you are insulting is the very basis of the thing you're praising continuing to exist, so you cannot coherently grandstand about it.
Sure bro, sure.
Do you not have any US military bases? Are you not a member of NATO? Are you not a beneficiary of sweatshops in countries the US destroyed? Think critically
Sure buddy, sure.
Liberals when their beliefs are challenged at all.
Is that the best you can do?
damn thank god the u.s. doesn't execute anybody
Right, that's EXACTLY what I claimed and you're not just twisting words.
okay my bad. thank god the u.s. doesn't just "disappear or execute people if it feels like it". close enough to exact?
The scale is not even in the same ballpark. Also, the US is not an example to follow in anything but self-interest.
Source: vibes
Yeah, imagine if the US imprisoned huge numbers of a particular ethnic minority and made them do forced labor for essentially free
In the West you have your entire village leveled, your wedding drone striked, and your government overthrown and replaced by fascists who use dogs to torture dissidents.
In the US.
The US isn't the west as a whole.
I'm sure that means a lot to the people getting carpet bombed.
Pure vibes-based politics. You cannot name a single law the DPRK has besides "no entering or leaving without approval" "internal internet only", and laws every other country has.