Chinese propaganda is rampant on the fediverse
-
Which again gets back to do you not care or think about the people living in the cities?
Or it okay as long as a legal order? Cause there's others on lemmy who love to say that's fine even if order is to target civilians
Yes it's okay as long as it's a legal order. And there are plenty of legal targets in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
-
Sure. US takeover of TicTok is really direct example. The current ethnic cleasing operation empowering state protected slavery. Tighter interaction between buisness and goverment where failure to toe the party line is punished through unfavorable legal action and loss of goverment contracts for them or assoiciates. A heavy investment into domostic survellence and again forced cooperation for survellence capitalists.
On the US side.
On the PRC side, the expainsion Hong Kong style loan aggreements in order to establish maritime control globally. The attempt to expand territorial rights in the south china sea in order to expand their of control on their neighbors. Exporting survelence and censorship systems and models to keep favoriable dictatorships in power (as well as probally establish backdoors though that is an assumption). The funding of any group that fights their rivals influence as well. Just things imperialist do.
The US taking over Tik Tok isn't "PRC style domestic policy," though. The PRC has knowledge transfer agreements with any company that does business with China, I think this may be what you're hinting at, but this is just the standard "sell it to us or we'll ban it" style of US policy.
The PRC isn't committing ethnic cleansing nor is it enslaving Uyghur peoples in Xinjiang, just like South Africa wasn't committing "white genocide," nor is there "christian genocide" in Nigeria. These are all examples of atrocity propaganda, where the west heavily distorts and often fabricates narratives in order to foment resistance and to give their own populations free excuses to not support anti-imperialism, in essence supporting it.
In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of "genocide." Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens. I highly recommend Qiao Collective's Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation for more on this subject.
In the context of tighter control between the state and business, it's important to understand the class dynamics. The US Empire is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the large firms and key industries are privately owned, and the state entrenches their power. In the PRC, public ownership is the principle aspect, and the working class is in control of the state. The commanding heights of industry in China are all SOEs, and the bourgeoisie that controls small and medium firms are kept in check by the socialist state. You're confusing form for essence, by only looking at similarities and ignoring the differences, you come to false conclusions.
Here's more on the SOEs governing the commanding heights of industry in China:
As for surveillance, the US Empire has a far deeper level, the PATRIOT Act makes that clear. The US never copied China on this, they've always been worse. Further, in China surveillance is largely used against capitalists, while in the US Empire it's used against the working classes.
On to the PRC side.
The PRC is expanding trade, but not dominance, nor does its trade deals come at the barrel of a gun. The PRC recognizes territory that has been consistent with what China had while the ROC held the UN seat for China, until it was transfered over to the PRC, leading to territorial disputes, not naked piracy and invasion like the US Empire does. They also are not "exporting surveillance and censorship systems." They trade with pretty much everyone, and support their allies, but this is not imperialism.
To the contrary, the PRC is acting against imperialism.
-
Is China a Better Partner for Africa than Europe and the West?
-
The Fallacy of Denouncing Both Sides of the US-China Conflict
And many, many more sources back this up. It's no secret that imperialists have been trying to smear China into being "no better" than the west, but the reality on the ground is that partnering with China results in mutual development and cooperation, while partnering with the west results in stripped autonomy, underdevelopment, and exploitation.
-
Fair point those workers trying to organize against unfair labor practices would undermine the state. The state was surely handling super well already actually. /s
Thank you for the reads though i will check those out even if we disagree on this so fat
Rogue unions aren't simply "workers trying to organize against unfair labor practices," though, which is my point. There are already unions, and the state already punishes bad actors. There's extremely minimal grassroots opposition to the socialist system in China, so recognizing this context is important.
And no problem, let me know if you have any questions!
-
Communists govern the largest economy in the world by PPP, and capitalism is falling apart at the seams as the spoils of imperialism are beginning to be cut off. The global south is escaping underdevelopment, and this is forcing austerity in the west, explaining the surge to the right. In the US Empire, communists are more and more common than ever before:
Famine was ended by communists in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. These areas had woefully inefficient systems of agriculture, such as the kulak system, which served to enrich one group of people over the laborers they employed. Collectivization combined with industrialization is why food security was achieved after the introduction of socialism to these countries, and the famines commonly attributed by western historians to communism were the last of a long line of regular famines.
Similarly, purges in the largest majority of cases meant expulsion from the party or position, not execution, except in times of crisis, like the 1930s when fascism was on the rise. They were not done arbitrarily, but as a response to corruption, subterfuge, and sabotage.
It's also a bit silly to suggest that people spent "40 years trying to escape communism." Right up to the end, the majority of people in the USSR wished to retain both the USSR and the system of socialism. This is proven not just from eyewitness reports of support, but also vote totals:
Moreover, after the fall of socialism in Europe, the majority of people want it back or say they are worse off. This is compounded by the fact that over 90% of the Chinese population supports their government and system. Socialist countries run by communists have higher approval rates than capitalist states.
Looking at Adam Tooze, I don't see much indicating him as a former communist. He grew up in West Germany in the height of the Cold War, is trained in liberal economics such as Keynesian economics, though his grandfather was allegedly a soviet recruiter, which is cool. I'm not really convinced I could find much out of his mini-series on Luxemburg, Trotsky, Stalin, or Lenin, considering I've already read works both by them and about them in greater detail than a podcast is going to cover.
Right up to the end, the majority of people in the USSR wished to retain both the USSR and the system of socialism. This is proven not just from eyewitness reports of support, but also vote totals
This isn't entirely true. The question posed essentially meant the USSR would reform into a more supranational organisation, granting more sovereignty and independence to the constituent republics. Voting "yes" was basically a vote for "'less' Soviet Union", as there was no option to vote to dissolve it entirely. It's also why after the yes-vote won, Soviet hardliners tried to coup the government.
When the New Union Treaty wasn't fully implemented, member republics took it upon themselves to run full independence referendums, which were passed with overwhelming numbers (see the results on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Referendums_in_the_Soviet_Union, 90%+ pro-independence in most countries. Remember, most happened in 1991 just like the Union referendum, and no large population swings to the complete opposite direction that fast). The massive disapproval of the communist party was also very visible, as the vast majority of republics started electing non-communist leaders.
And of course there were people still in favour of the Union, but they were largely outnumbered. Pro-union manifestations were met with large protests that often ended in police action to suppress them. Pro-Union sentiments started increasing again after the economic crises post-collapse, but it has never become so popular again to lead to a reformation.
-
I cant remeber tbh. They kind of benign places like asklemmy but on the lemmy.ml server
I'm sure plenty others have said so already but you can block the instance if you find its content not to your tastes. It's the beauty of Lemmy after all.
-
Right up to the end, the majority of people in the USSR wished to retain both the USSR and the system of socialism. This is proven not just from eyewitness reports of support, but also vote totals
This isn't entirely true. The question posed essentially meant the USSR would reform into a more supranational organisation, granting more sovereignty and independence to the constituent republics. Voting "yes" was basically a vote for "'less' Soviet Union", as there was no option to vote to dissolve it entirely. It's also why after the yes-vote won, Soviet hardliners tried to coup the government.
When the New Union Treaty wasn't fully implemented, member republics took it upon themselves to run full independence referendums, which were passed with overwhelming numbers (see the results on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Referendums_in_the_Soviet_Union, 90%+ pro-independence in most countries. Remember, most happened in 1991 just like the Union referendum, and no large population swings to the complete opposite direction that fast). The massive disapproval of the communist party was also very visible, as the vast majority of republics started electing non-communist leaders.
And of course there were people still in favour of the Union, but they were largely outnumbered. Pro-union manifestations were met with large protests that often ended in police action to suppress them. Pro-Union sentiments started increasing again after the economic crises post-collapse, but it has never become so popular again to lead to a reformation.
I'm aware that after the votes, crisis in politics caused a dramatic swing in faith in the system. The question of viability of the socialist project wasn't unclear, however. The dissolution of the USSR was something that happened not due to some inevitable death clock in socialism. Contrary to what you believe, popular opinion can swing that fast, such as in the US Empire, where within a single month sentiment on Israel flipped from overwhelmingly positive to majority negative.
Further, as I already showed, the large majority of people in post-soviet countries feel worse off and/or regret its fall. Socialism was an effective system at meeting the needs of the people, and though liberalization and a harsh recovery process from World War II strained the system, it was not on the way to collapse.
-
What you called "clear worker rights violations," was just the fact that unions are required to be a part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, and aren't allowed to be independent from that federation. This isn't a violation of worker rights, though, as the only purpose rogue unions would serve is undermining the socialist system, and would be vulnerable to foreign backing (such as from the US Empire).
The socialist state is already run by the working classes, I recommend Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the Theory and History of Socialist Governance to get a better idea of how and why socialist countries hold the structures they do. Roland Boer also has a good book called Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners, which is more specifically about the PRC and goes beyond the structures of governance to the more broad system of socialism in China.
Regarding your participation in MeanwhileOnGrad, you should know that EmoPunker cut off the final replies, where they called defenders of Pol Pot "genuine socialists." These are the kinds of posts on that comm, they selectively remove context that makes themselves look worse, deliberately misframe reasonable comments, and the comm itself is run by a zionist. This kind of anti-communist bar is a gathering spot for genuine fascists, but it seems you're fine with participating there.
I'm curious if you have any good video essays, I really enjoy learning while doing things, which is much more difficult with reading, though I have started Socialism With Chinese Characteristics and it is interesting!
-
I'm curious if you have any good video essays, I really enjoy learning while doing things, which is much more difficult with reading, though I have started Socialism With Chinese Characteristics and it is interesting!
Not nearly as in-depth due to time limits (and mostly focused on the Xi Jinping era) but Red Pen's A Summary of Xi Jinping's Governance of China can be a good primer! There's also This is how China's economic model works: Explaining Socialism with Chinese Characteristics by Geopolitical Economy Report.
Really, in order to understand the PRC, you at least need to understand Mao, the Gang of Four, Deng Xiaoping, and Xi Jinping. There were other leaders, but these have perhaps had the largest impact on the PRC of today. Xi Jinping Thought upholds Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, while believing the Gang of Four to have been left-deviationists and the Cultural Revolution to have contained more excess than was worth.
Also, the Prolewiki page for Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is pretty poorly formatted, and extremely lengthy, so I recommend either going to the anna's archive link and downloading the source directly, or reading these:
-
Qiao Collective's Introductory Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Study Guide
-
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics ProleWiki page
-
Socialist Market Economy ProleWiki Page
-
People's Republic of China ProleWiki Page
-
My "Read Theory, Darn It!" Introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading Guide
-
Has China Turned to Capitalism? Reflections on the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism by Domenico Losurdo
-
China Has Billionaires by Roderic Day
-
Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism by Vladimir Lenin
-
Super-Imperialism: The Origins and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance by Michael Hudson
-
Marxism is a Science by Deng Xiaoping
-
Regarding the Construction of Socialism With Chinese Characteristics by Xi Jinping
-
-
Chinese propaganda is rampant on the fediverse. We need to discuss ways to combat this. One group- memes or something is wholly controlled by Chinese state actors. What do you think?
Iβve noticed a lot of pro Israel propaganda and post critical of Israel and their many crimes getting removed
-
I'm sure plenty others have said so already but you can block the instance if you find its content not to your tastes. It's the beauty of Lemmy after all.
Tbh, I guess I'm more frustrated with moderation there then content, you know?
-
Treat it like a troll post. Downvote and move on, if the name becomes familiar block them.
This goes for all propaganda not just the stuff you are against.
Downvote and move on, if the name becomes familiar block them.
Sorry, but you forgot a step:
Downvote and move on, if the name becomes familiar report them and then block them.
Moderators should help so not all users will need to block these bad actors.
-
Not nearly as in-depth due to time limits (and mostly focused on the Xi Jinping era) but Red Pen's A Summary of Xi Jinping's Governance of China can be a good primer! There's also This is how China's economic model works: Explaining Socialism with Chinese Characteristics by Geopolitical Economy Report.
Really, in order to understand the PRC, you at least need to understand Mao, the Gang of Four, Deng Xiaoping, and Xi Jinping. There were other leaders, but these have perhaps had the largest impact on the PRC of today. Xi Jinping Thought upholds Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, while believing the Gang of Four to have been left-deviationists and the Cultural Revolution to have contained more excess than was worth.
Also, the Prolewiki page for Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is pretty poorly formatted, and extremely lengthy, so I recommend either going to the anna's archive link and downloading the source directly, or reading these:
-
Qiao Collective's Introductory Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Study Guide
-
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics ProleWiki page
-
Socialist Market Economy ProleWiki Page
-
People's Republic of China ProleWiki Page
-
My "Read Theory, Darn It!" Introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading Guide
-
Has China Turned to Capitalism? Reflections on the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism by Domenico Losurdo
-
China Has Billionaires by Roderic Day
-
Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism by Vladimir Lenin
-
Super-Imperialism: The Origins and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance by Michael Hudson
-
Marxism is a Science by Deng Xiaoping
-
Regarding the Construction of Socialism With Chinese Characteristics by Xi Jinping
I'll check these out soon, thanks!
And yeah the formatting was rough lmao, I'll check some of those out!
-
-
I'll check these out soon, thanks!
And yeah the formatting was rough lmao, I'll check some of those out!
No problem! The material is great, but unfortunately it needs to be formatted on Prolewiki, haha.
-
Chinese propaganda is rampant on the fediverse. We need to discuss ways to combat this. One group- memes or something is wholly controlled by Chinese state actors. What do you think?
I'm sorry to say that lemmy is not popular enough to be on CPC's radar.
The CPC's propaganda budget is mostly focused on what Chinese people would read if they get over the great firewall (mainly YouTube and Twitter).
Second to that is the general "feel good" stories, like scenery, food, or panda (recently high-speed trains), aiming at the mainstream Western public. You may see those on lemmy, but it's very unlikely that the state propagandists are the ones posting them here.
-
I'm sorry to say that lemmy is not popular enough to be on CPC's radar.
The CPC's propaganda budget is mostly focused on what Chinese people would read if they get over the great firewall (mainly YouTube and Twitter).
Second to that is the general "feel good" stories, like scenery, food, or panda (recently high-speed trains), aiming at the mainstream Western public. You may see those on lemmy, but it's very unlikely that the state propagandists are the ones posting them here.
That sounds like something chinese state propagandists would say.
-
I'm aware that after the votes, crisis in politics caused a dramatic swing in faith in the system. The question of viability of the socialist project wasn't unclear, however. The dissolution of the USSR was something that happened not due to some inevitable death clock in socialism. Contrary to what you believe, popular opinion can swing that fast, such as in the US Empire, where within a single month sentiment on Israel flipped from overwhelmingly positive to majority negative.
Further, as I already showed, the large majority of people in post-soviet countries feel worse off and/or regret its fall. Socialism was an effective system at meeting the needs of the people, and though liberalization and a harsh recovery process from World War II strained the system, it was not on the way to collapse.
such as in the US Empire, where within a single month sentiment on Israel flipped from overwhelmingly positive to majority negative.
It didn't go from +90% to -90%. That's what I mean with the huge 'swing' seen here. Negative attitudes on Israel went from 42% to 53% in 3 years time. Yet this supposed "total reversal of opinion" happened in months? Nonsense of course. Remember, the Soviet referendum did not have "dissolution" as an option. People picked the option closest to it.
the large majority of people in post-soviet countries feel worse off and/or regret its fall
This is irrelevant to the false notion that the Soviet Union dissolved against what the people wanted at the time, which that graphic is often used to misleadingly suggest.
Even then, opinion polling on the subject is highly unreliable. Even the same pollster slightly rephrasing the question nets wildly different results. In the Baltics opinion is pretty consistent that the fall of the USSR was a good thing. But Belarusians tend to disagree with that. But when Belarusians are asked if they prefer to follow a Soviet system or a western democratic system, they choose the latter. And when another pollster asks them again in the same year, opinions flip again.
There's certainly a strong sentimental nostalgia towards the Union, though not in all former member states. Yet it seems unlikely the population would be willing to vote it back into existence.
-
Yes it's okay as long as it's a legal order. And there are plenty of legal targets in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
So you see how people react to that and go wow that person wants <insert country here> to be able to kill civilians?
Especially after saying and I quote
Yes it's okay as long as it's a legal order. And there are plenty of legal targets in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
it's fine if a legal order?
Edit
Oh people quoting you is probably what you meant by
But this is what it's like on .ml. Someone will twist your argument into something that can get you banned without you even saying the words that you are getting banned for. It's a worthless place to be.
-
Idk which I dislike more. Those types of accounts or the ones upset when you point out the I want x country to attack y country means people/civilians will get killed
-
Are you trying to be ironic? Of course the BBC is pro imperialism.
Never said anything about imperialism. Only that they're not corporate media.
Chinese media is also imperialist. Any media that is controlled by an imperialist state is imperial media.
-
Your wish is my command!
![Cowbee [he/they]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg "Cowbee [he/they]"){kind=avatar}
