You should mostly be gaslighting liberals that enter conversation with no good faith toward you - it is your job there to weaken liberalism rather than defend socialism
Yep, and this tactic is far easier to pull off if you have the numbers on your side. It's more difficult for a lib to fall back on cultural hegemony when they're isolated.
OK, and so that means you can’t say 1 bad thing about China?
You can. You've already done it, several times in fact. Don't focus on can, focus on should. Where does this urgent desire to say bad things about the PRC come from anyway? What I'm really asking you is: When you exercise your speech, what do you hope to accomplish by saying PRC is bad sometimes? Who are the people you hope understands and agrees with you that the PRC is bad sometimes? What do you think is most likely to result from you saying that the PRC is bad sometimes?
But I don’t understand why a leftist shouldn’t be able to bring up the number of billionaires in China, for example, when talking to other leftists without being labeled as some sort of traitor or propagandist or some other dumb bullshit. “They have less and more regulated billionaires than the U.S.” – yeah, I think that’s awesome, I would still prefer if billionaires didn’t exist though. And me saying that doesn’t mean I’m equating China to the U.S.
Why should you bring it up in the first place?
Or human rights – yeah, I know and constantly criticize the U.S. on their human rights violations – what kind of hypocrite would I be if then I stay silent or just says “well, the U.S. is worse” when China is brought up. Fuck that.
You would indeed be a hypocrite if you believed that the PRC was a particularly egregious offender of human rights or are anywhere near the level of the US. Do you?
Leftists that don’t support American/western bullshit should absolutely have a right to level reasonable criticism towards China or any Marxist country.
Sure. Make sure it is constructive though. To make a constructive effort in criticizing, you should be taking your concerns to the CPC itself, built on an educated foundation and with viable solutions taking into account the material conditions. What you've been doing so far has been complaining to us. Congratulations, you've felled a tree in the forest while the CPC was away in the city. There are 2 ways this criticism can go. You can go tell the CPC that you've felled the tree, or you can fashion a spear from the bark of the tree with which to stab the CPC with (destructive criticism). This latter thing is what the libs/China watchers do btw, which is complain to Big Brother (US gov) so that he hurts (regime change) that meanie (PRC) over there. We socialists actually do the same thing but with regards to the US instead: complain to Big Brother (US masses) so that he hurts (revolution) that meanie (US gov) over there. Why? Because we seek its destruction, hence destructive criticism, just as the libs seek the destruction of the PRC. Now apply this logic to when the left sets its sight on the PRC and does what you're doing. Can you see why I'm your questioning your intentions?
Because you’re allowed to criticize stuff you support dude. What, if China tomorrow started, I don’t know, killing gay people for example, should I just not talk about it ever?? Come on, don’t be such babies.
This is not a reason and you probably know it already. This is just doing it for the sake of doing it. I didn't ask whether or not you were allowed to do whatever. You spent so much time wondering if you could, you never stopped to think if you should. Again, when you exercise your speech, what do you hope to accomplish by saying PRC is bad sometimes? I want to know why you just HAD to let us know that the PRC is bad sometimes, when "PRC isn't perfect" has probably been repeated a million times in every defense ever made at this point.
Or if you have a friend that you love and support, is it a sin to criticize them or call them out when they’re doing something bad?
No, but in this scenario, you actually have the power to do a constructive critique. Because here you have a better understanding (educated foundation) of your friend and you're more aware of their material conditions and can hence come up with proper solutions. Most importantly, you are talking to them directly and not rallying a group of bullies to denounce your friend. The citizens of the PRC are in this position whilst you on an online forum in the heart of Empire are not.
some people in these circles have a way too delusional view of China for my liking, and will defend basically every part of it.
Which defenses have you found to be problematic in these supposed circles, enough to warrant the title of 'delusional'? Have you realized we're in a new cold war, with an increasing possibility of a hot war by the day? What need is there for any western leftist's unheard "nuance" in the current moment? You see people defending the PRC fiercely because they understand the stakes and rightly treat a dangerous moment with utmost seriousness.
Yeah, I wish it was better and I do think there are serious issues.
Why are you telling us this and not bringing your vague concerns to the CPC itself? What is the reason any western leftist even brings this up in the first place anyway?
I mean it's not that complicated. It means quote: "while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
I mean we live under capitalism right now and so our imaginations are understandably limited by what exists in society today. How would you see it then? I think the OP kinda sees humans being encouraged to take up a more generalist lifestyle instead of today's specialist lifestyle where people have careers and professions.
Of course, now they've figured out that the PRC gives them a better deal and they can break off 1 chain of imperialism. The 2nd chain is much harder to break. That one as you know is laced with spikes as the DPRK, Vietnam and other socialist nations can tell you.
The loans aren't a one time thing. If a hypothetical 3rd world country refuses to meet the terms or defaults, the IMF will simply cut them off.
Ok now that I've answered this question for you, I'll provide the next lines of questioning. What I'm doing is I'm asking questions over and over again, each time trying to get us both deeper into the root of issues like this.
Why then, would they even need the loan in the first place?
Answer: Because they lack the money to do what they want to do.
What do they want to do?
Answer: Develop, become rich, so they can feed, house, clothe their people.
Why do these things require money? Just fucking do them.
Answer: They lack the natural resources and the technology since they've been plundered by the imperialists. The best way to acquire them now is via trade and to do trade with the global market requires money AKA participating in capitalism.
Well I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you've said so far. I'm just asking in a rhetorical way to make a point.
Anyway, why do they have to restructure? Why not just take the loan and then give the IMF the finger if they wanna collect? Actually, why even take the damn loans in the first place?
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not asking so many questions because I'm ignorant. I'm attempting to herd you towards a certain train of thought.
You mentioned this earlier with regards to toppling the US:
Or something like the global south freeing itself from imperialist chains
And then later you mentioned this with regards to 3rd world liberation:
help in the transfer of knowledge that would enable the downtrodden nations especially the ones in Africa and Middle East to cast off the chains of IMF debt traps and of the hyper-specialised industrial bases that come with it and able to achieve the basic requirements of self-sustenence like food security.
How does the latter point achieve the former point? How would casting off IMF debt traps free a country from imperialism?
Sure, but your answers don't really get to the root of the issues. Why are these countries bourgeois states? Why are they aligned with NATO? Why DON'T they have the political will?
The reason I see this as the more important factor is that anti-war movements of all flavours in the USA have not been able to achieve much
I wasn't talking about anti-war movements though. I was referring to a case of US collapse where logistical support would be cut off from the military, forcing a withdrawal. In other words, material action. Let's be honest, peaceful protesting and anti-war marches of the like are ultimately just noise to an uncaring ruling class.
downtrodden nations especially the ones in Africa and Middle East to cast off the chains of IMF debt traps and of the hyper-specialised industrial bases that come with it and able to achieve the basic requirements of self-sustenence like food security.
Why do you think they haven't done this yet? Why would they even need the aid of the PRC in the first place?
One thing I haven't seen articulated too often is what has to come first. Does the US have to fall before imperialism is stopped (the intuitive position) or does imperialism have to stop before the US falls (the not so intuitive position)? Here you are making the case that the US cannot see a change unless imperialism stops but also, how will imperialism ever stop if the US does not change?
Many American left movements watch their tone as to not offend the White working masses of America and in doing so play in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
And here we run into a giant contradiction. How then will the American left movement ever reach a point where they might take power without the support of said white working mass?
·4 years ago
Yep, if it should be done, it should be done when the US itself denuclearizes.