- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Okay but like what happens in Beijing when you say you’re not satisfied? Also, weren’t there large scale protests there not to long back?
Tanked. You get tanked.
Careful where you say that, you’ll be sent one for four articles saying it didn’t happen
-
Nothing
-
USA propaganda
-
USA conditions are so shitty for black people and other minorities that cities were being burned
-
French conditions for minorities are so shitty that there are protests there every day and many cities are on fire
Conclusion: Socialism >>>> (Capitalism = shit)
Hahahahahaha
Oh wait, you’re serious? Let me laugh even harder.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Are we still pretending that China is a socialist country? Their social safety net is much worse than the US, which is regarding among the worst of OECD countries. I guess they still have a red and yellow flag so must be socialist utopia right?
China’s retirement age is 60 and it is governed by a proletariat party.
China’s President sent his own daughter to Harvard and China has wide income inequality, as well as the greatest proportion of millionaires and billionaires in the world. The wealthy in China go on day trips to Paris to literally eat cake.
Fuckin tankies man, hurts my brain.
Living in the US sucks
Living in China sucks (unless you’re on their soil, then it’s great!(please don’t take my organs))
Well, it may come as a shock to them, but having wealth in China improves your life considerably more than in the US. Unless of course, you challenge the Chairman.
-
Can you please define what socialism is for me?
-
Apologies, I thought China would’ve taken over by now. But quite a few do relocate to the US. I do see them travel quite a bit. I travel a lot too, and they do spend a bit of time in the US, but that’s mainly just shopping.
-
I would but this would be irrelevant. Can you define what Socialism with Chinese characteristics means?
Response to both 1 and 2:
because socialism isn’t defined by how many people in a country have a certain level of wealth. socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism, where the proletariat hold state power and build the conditions necessary for communism. before you can have communism you need to have the productive forces in place to make that economically possible. China chose the route of allowing capitalist investment to help develop its productive forces, while maintaining state power and overall control of the economy in the hands of the Communist Party. they decided that it was better for the country to become wealthy unevenly at first, rather than to keep socialising poverty
What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this in the past. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people’s material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People’s Republic was that we didn’t pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism
as it happens there did arise a great degree of wealth disparity, which the state has begun to tackle since Xi’s leadership took over
and that’s something they’ll need to iron out over time
but the existence of billionaires isn’t a reflection of the class character of the state
you might find this article a worthwhile read https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
-
deleted by creator
Dude they’re fucking state capitalists, not socialists. Also, cities were not being burned but way to parrot right wing talking points. In fact you could easily be a right winger hoping to drum up support. Hell, if you support China you already support anti-lgbt legislation so you probably are just some dumb fuck who thought he knew anything about the left.
Ugh such tired, ignorant arguments. Disappointing, especially for someone so sure of themselves.
Dude they’re fucking state capitalists, not socialists.
- Read this on why China is not capitalist and the justification for reform
- Also read this on “capitalism” in China
- Read this on monopoly state capitalism (specifically applies to underdeveloped countries under the DOTP)
Hell, if you support China you already support anti-lgbt legislation
Social development is a matter of and emerges from material development, and so it is absurd to expect equal social development between countries of varying material development (of which China’s underdevelopment was a matter of Western colonialism/imperialism). It is inaccurate to say “anti-lgbt legislation”, and more accurate to say “lack of desirable pro-LGBT+ legislation” (same-sex relationships are legal in China, although same-sex marriage is not legally recognized for instance, with some concessions in this field, of which improvement has been occuring.
2020 report published in BMC Public Health: “For member of the Chinese LGBT community, the greatest source of pressure to conform to societal norms of sexuality and identity comes from family members—particularly parents […] a higher level of economic development in provinces was associated with a decrease in discrimination, and we identified that every 100 thousand RMB increase in per capita GDP lead to a 6.4% decrease in discriminatory events perpetrated by heterosexuals […] he prevalence of this discrimination is associated with the economic development of the province in which it occurs.”
As such, development is conducive to progressive change, and development is prioritized in China, especially poverty alleviation, which more rapidly builds the base for improving LGBT+ acceptance/equality. Please read and don’t misrepresent things in the future.
So what did all those Uighurs do then?
Edit: you gonna bring up racial and ethinc issues in the US and not expect people to bring up China’s fuck ups?
Oh sure, your propaganda is true.
Suck a dick tankie.
There’s the thought-terminating epithet. The site doesn’t just link “propaganda”, it directly refutes what you have to say through hundreds of sources and direct rebuttals, but naturally that is impossible for you to admit or engage with.
Great to see some more scratched liberal homophobia as well.
Oh, see I’m asexual and don’t care what your orientation or gender is. It’s a known way to upset people. You’ll also notice that the only slur was tankie. So, suck a dick tankie.
Thought-terminating nonsense. It’s a homophobic insult regardless of your sexual orientation. Either way, you couldn’t refute my sources so it doesn’t really matter that you’re resorting to insults. Very clear coping mechanism.
Tankies don’t do everything they can to discredit the left challenge
-
On top of everything else, you’ve used the meme format incorrectly. Do better.
It’s so interesting that in a country where bitching about the government will land you in prison, people don’t publicly bitch about the government
“Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being” – Harvard study; this also shows people complaining about shit, admitting to lodging complaints/being willing to protest surrounding main issues. You had this cited to you back in another thread (where I refuted your claims on another topic, as did others), and yet you couldn’t come up with a single intelligent response. Now you’re saying the same bs with the same ignorant confidence, as if you have any evidence that simply disapproving of the government lands you in prison, despite the claim being disproven empirically (see above) and logically (“Idk why this is” and then “you can figure it out yourself” being your only responses; I don’t believe you have an actual answer to this refutation). The only reason I recognized you is because this is almost verbatim the exact comment you made in the other thread. You have brain worms.
It’s almost like people won’t publicly criticize the government when the government imprisons and kills people who publicly criticize it and their families.
“How’s life in China ?”
“We can’t complain.”
"Really, that’s great. "
“No, we seriously can’t !”
Huh, is that why the people of Hong Kong seemed so happy in that last bout of protests? You know, when over 1 million people took to the streets, protested and set the city on fire? Also, and just out of interest, is your government still using “prisoner’s of conscience” as an organ donor pool or have they finally shut down their concentration camps?
You know, when over 1 million people took to the streets, protested and set the city on fire?
They also set people on fire. The protests were started because they opposed an extradition bill designed to address a loophole that just allowed a man in HK to murder his pregnant wife and flee to Taiwan and avoid criminal prosecution; you shouldn’t support the HK protests.
Is your government still using “prisoner’s of conscience” as an organ donor pool
Glad we’re taking the claims of religious zealots as established fact
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=b-nl0Hklwvg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Also, and just out of interest, is your government still using “prisoner’s of conscience” as an organ donor pool
Don’t try to equate a bill that allows someone to make a choice to decrease prison time, with a concentration camp where they harvest organs and hair, and “reeducate” people to believe China #1. One is dumb, the other is evil.
I get worried sometimes about my country’s (Australia) invasive online privacy laws. China doesn’t allow proper internet access, and if you think you have nothing to worry about, just Baidu-search “Tiananmen Square 1989” or “why did the Dalai Lama leave Taiwan”. I’m sure you’ll be fine…
“Tiananmen Square 1989”
“why did the Dalai Lama leave Taiwan”
That’s easy, the CPC and Tibetan masses didn’t let him keep the theocracy that allowed slaves/serfs to be tortured by the feudal lordship and women to be barred from education.
Don’t spend your 5 mao all in one place
or people in China could be scared to say anything bad about their scene.
Well, that’s the US fault for not thinking about that smh.
My I ask which one of these countries has freedom of speech?
I’m pretty sure if you say anything in either place that isn’t “allowed” you get treated equally.
Definitely not the USA, if a black man says something to a police that they don’t like, they get shot in the spot.
That happened once
“Once”
US military promises ‘hellscape’ of drone swarming in future China war
Freedom coming to China real soon, just like: Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Uganda, Niger, Iraq again, Syria, Libya again…
edit: again…
What? No, I don’t think the US will invade China.
Yeah, it’s quite unlikely, we’re both making too much money off each other.
It all depends on Taiwan and the SCS regional partners now.I mean even discarding that. Hypothetically, let’s say the US and China declare war on each other. Neither country would be able to invade the other. I mean, the US is good at force projection, but how in the world would any nation conduct an amphibious invasion of a country like China and manage supply lines across the Pacific sufficient to support an invasion force?
It just… it doesn’t make coherent sense.
The US could definitely do that, their logistics capabilities are immense. On top of that you have the submarine fleet, as well as assistance from regional allies. Probably not enough to take the entire country, but enough for it to capitulate through conventional means.
I mean we could land an army and send them support, just not enough to execute a conquest of China. Home field advantage is a major thing, you know
Iraq needed a double dose of freedom.
Always go for the double tap.
