I have been a lurker here on lemmy for a while and I have hesitantly made an account because I wanted to create a post on politics.
I want to preface this by saying, I lived a childhood being indoctrinated on politics. I was constantly being told that free markets are the pinnacle of human intellect and that free markets (in literally an absolutist way on every aspect of life) is the only way that leads to progress. It honestly took me a while to challenge these beliefs with I attribute to Shaun and Hbomberguy on youtube, and eventually embrace leftist ideas in my personality.
When the recent drama regarding the Uighur muslims occured recently I was a bit let down. I have looked around and saw posts that I understand to be supportive of the CCP in China and other communist states.
So here is my question. Why? Even if we forget about the Uighur, what about the Tianamen square massacre? Is that also false information? China’s tightening grip on hong kong despite being met with resistance from people of Hong Kong, is that also false information? The repercussions of Mao’s leadership? The complete absence of gay and trans rights in modern day China? China being a police state? Is that all false propaganda?
If your answer might be that western states have also failed to protect the interests of common people, I agree. I think western states do see a resurgence of far right movements exactly for this reason. But this is not a comparison of who is the worst.
Why exactly do people here (at least that is what I perceive) turn a blind eye to the brutalities of an authoritarian government such as the CCP?
How do you define support? Have you looked into dialectical materialism? One can support *an entity and still see the contradictions, and still strive for the resolution of these contradictions. This is said a lot - communism is not a religion. It is not a static set of rules and principles. It is a science, and it aims to resolve the contradictions of capitalism through materialist means. We should not succumb to the black and white dichotomy that monotheism has been instilling into us.
When I say support, I want to describe the “western propaganda” argument. That my perspective is skewed because I have only been influenced by media in European countries (where I live) and the US.
I mean, ok, I can make an attempt to reconsider. But then I see the same pattern. “Incident A” was not as bad as portrayed by media, “Incident B” the same, and so on. It ends up demanding that I change my perspective of history, which I am not willing to do, because it really is too much to ask for.
I am sure that upon examination of history, people here will unequivocally condemn the massacre that happened in Nanking during WW2 by the then japanese imperial army. But when discussing the tianamen square massacre, it was suddenly not that bad?
This gives me exactly the same feeling as nationalist apologia. We were the good guys when we inhabited this land (completely neglecting possible harm to others), and other nations were bad when they attacked our beautiful country.
It ends up demanding that I change my perspective of history, which I am not willing to do, because it really is too much to ask for.
You deliberately choose not to re-examine the legitimacy of claims made by your sources, and then accuses us of holding extremist beliefs 🙃.
people here will unequivocally condemn the massacre that happened in Nanking during WW2 by the then japanese imperial army. But when discussing the tianamen square massacre, it was suddenly not that bad?
How is this even comparable?? what do you think happened in Tiananmen Square?
What I think happened in tianamen square aligns with the wikipedia article on it.
I transparently said that I can attempt to reconsider my perspective. A demand to reconsider my perspective repeatedly on the argument that I only read the “western propaganda”, is too much to ask for.
I can go ahead and admit that there is no cultural cleansing of Uighur muslims. Next talking point, the tianamen square. Again, “western propaganda”, it did not happen. The Maoist era? Again, it is intentionally portrayed as horrific by media, therefore “western propaganda”.
I do not accept to change my mindset and perception under a repeated, and frankly easy to abuse argument, that it is all some CIA conspiracy.
Oh, OK I misread your argument, you’re right that ‘everything is western propaganda’ is not a good argument. But that’s not the sole basis of our historical analysis it’s just an important part of it. I’ll provide you a learning list on the Uyghur topic to demonstrate this
The Truth behind the Uyghur problem
We don’t dismiss every bad thing socialist countries did as western propaganda, it’s understable why you might think that since most of these ‘bad things’ are just western propaganda, there are legitimate criticisms of the CPC, other Socialist countries and their leaders, we acknowledge that, we don’t think those mistakes define them. and most importantly we won’t let those mistakes overshadow the great achievements they made for our movement.
I went through some of the links. To be honest, no matters the sources, I don’t think I can let myself trust viewpoints that align with highly authoritarian entities. I believe that you share the links in good faith, but that is a world view that I prefer to stay away from.
On the other hand I am more than willing to discuss socialism, in fact book recommendations would be welcome.
You accused us of dismissing sources as western propaganda and now you are doing the same by labeling it as authoritarian propaganda.🙃
I don’t think I can let myself trust viewpoints that align with highly authoritarian entities. I believe that you share the links in good faith, but that is a world view that I prefer to stay away from.
Read that again comrade, I hope you’ll see the fallacy 🤗
On the other hand I am more than willing to discuss socialism, in fact book recommendations would be welcome.
I’m still learning theory, I don’t think I have read enough to give recommendations you can ask for that in communities dedicated for learning.
There might be an irony, and I kinda see it, but also I have the right to withhold my suspicions which at the moment I think harms noone comrade.
Removed by mod
You are conflating different events. The massacre in nianjing was different from European colonialism which was different from the Tiananmen protests. Therefore they have to be studied independently.
In order to fully understand the processes of communist thought you have to look at the history and the reasons things happen (see Hegel). Why did Mao’s movement take a hard stance on landlords and property owners, and aristocrats? Because landed classes always come back from exile to claim what’s “rightfully theirs” (see 19th century French monarchs or the Kuomintang in Taiwan). When East and West Germany merged 30 years ago, thousands of landlords and property owners flooded back in and evicted thousands of East Germans from their homes. Some of these lawsuits are still going. As a result of the maoist purges, 90% of Chinese people own their homes vs. 65% in the US or 58% in South Korea.
Now consider the situation with education centers in Xinjiang. Look at which countries border this province: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both of these places have been extensively involved in US conflict with the Soviet Union and the War on Terror. Extremist groups in these regions (Mujahideen, Taliban, and ISIS) were trained with American funding and with American equipment to A. Remove Afghanistan’s communist govt from power in the 90s and B. destabilize the region in a 20 year war for resource extraction and arms dealing.
The War on Terror is important because ISIS and similar groups have filtered into China, which responded by cracking down on violent religious extremists in order to prevent any caliphates from appearing in their borders. There are numerous posts here and on other communist sympathetic sites on how Chinese mistreatment is overblown. If you trace back through secondary sources enough times you tend to arrive at Adrian Zenz who is a warmongering conservative. And if proponents of the idea that China is committing an actual genocide are pressed, they can’t turn up any actual evidence for it. Every Xinjiang concentration camp I’ve seen ends up being a photo of a prison in South America or the US.
Hong Kong is bit more complicated and can’t be effectively summarized in one post. But to put it bluntly, the US and UK have a vested interest in rotting the CCP from the inside out so that they can paternalistically turn it back into a colony. I’ve even seen posts on reddit and heard self-proclaimed libs in real life parrot the talking point that China should be turned “back into a third world country.” Hong Kong’s independence is about lassaiz-faire capitalism and big business tied into its historical status as a territory of the UK, not individual rights.
Tiananmen Square could be an entire book. The Party fumbled handling an anti-corruption protest. The core group was Pro-America and advocated the dissolution of the Party, but most participants weren’t aware of this and they switched slogans in large crowds. Party officials attempted to talk it out for several months and listen to their demands, but they didn’t seem to find any resolution acceptable and the situation turned chaotic. The military relatively peacefully cleared the square, but some time afterward a group of about 300-500 decided to take on the army. Western media blew this completely out of proportion, painting the situation as a bloodbath where thousands died. In this scenario the party fucked up, but the protests themselves were rudderless and reactionary (to most ML readers, this feels sus like the Jan 6 riots). They didn’t incur followup protests as one tends to see elsewhere when the general populous finds a protest to be legitimate, and they didn’t seem to increase anti-party sentiment in the long term.
As an aside, I’m an anarchist. I don’t think any state is infallible, and anyone that claims a state to be infallible has some greater ideological issues to work through. But once you sift through the dreck of exaggerated news article and info manipulation, the CCP seems significantly less (emphasis on the less) terrible than western countries that people treat as infallible bastions of freedom and fairness. China may openly censor their press, but they don’t fund plantation slavery in Africa, they don’t send Pinochet in to assassinate your president, they have actual functioning poverty alleviation programs based on heavily taxing the rich, and they have an actual functioning process in place to combat global warming (the green new deal hasn’t even been drafted yet in tje US).
If leftists don’t at least do a lukewarm defense of Marxist countries then liberals will see it as a failed project. Instead it is a political experiment that’s still in progress and actively gets less violent and more stable over time.
I read your entire response, and my brief follow up is this. I don’t like or defend the US involvement in any country they have intentionally destabilized.
On the other hand, I cannot accept an answer such as, “you have only read the western propaganda”. You are asking me to deny any credibility of sources coming from western nations, either state media or independent. Even if there exist inaccuracies, I am not willing to just change my perspective just because of “western propaganda”. It really is too much to ask for.
And to add to add further to this, I remember another comment of yours saying you are trans (just to be clear I love and support trans people). Are you not concerned at all for the absence of gay or trans rights in china?
Removed by mod
I am not sure as to how respond to this one. I think it is a cheap effort to link the footage of tanks coming to a halt in front of the protester, as an example of “see, no harm done, therefore debunked”. Like, could the massacre not happen later on during that day?
And for any possible accusation towards the ccp, there always comes some source claiming the accusation is false. As of now, I have been told that the Uighur cultural cleansing is not true, the tianamen square massacre is not true, and that Lgbt rights are recognized in china. Wikipedia points to the opposite for each one of these questions.
Is wikipedia inaccurate? Maybe. But china is known for filtering the entire influx of internet to prohibit specific content from being viewed. North korea has a linux distribution that is configured to only connect to local intranet. Why exactly would I trust a secretive state more than wikipedia or reuters?
I am sure Lukashenko can cite many sources as to why he is the best president ever, but what worth are they when he owns them? Freedom of press is important for this reason.
I fear that you might think of my response as an insult. Honestly I don’t wish to “own” anyone with “gatcha” moments.
Like, could the massacre not happen later on during that day?
No, because the tanks were leaving the square in the picture!
Removed by mod
Ok this is a difficult discussion but I will try.
I actually was aware that the war for the “liberation” of Libya was in reality serving US interests, just like the war on Afghanistan. I am also aware how freedom of press CAN also have huge downsides, with the Murdoch family owning Fox and Sky news, which spew heinous propaganda everywhere they go. As for instances of colonialism by european counties and the US, it is something I fully condemn. And even if Belarus is under threat by ploys from big banks (which I knew nothing about till now), Lukashenko is still a deplorable human being.
But why should we twist reality and not acknowledge the wrongdoings of the CPC as well? You are so ready to bring me these sources (with majority of which I agree), why is so difficult to agree on the crimes of the CPC?
Removed by mod
If you ask this on !communism101@lemmygrad.ml , you’ll likely get more cordial and patient answers than you’re expecting.
Removed by mod
Can you tell me what happened in what you call the Tiananmen Square massacre?
1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre … “Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.”
First of all, that estimate ranges from several hundred to several thousand. Doesn’t that seem odd.
Secondly, I would like people who actively point fingers at this massacre to paint a more tangible picture of the events that happened. Who were the protestors and what were they protesting against? Who were they allied with and what means did they use to try and achieve their goals? Why should those condemning this massacre (in which no one died in the Square itself) just throw the eight words of “but what about the Tiananmen Square massacre”, along with a Wikipedia page that is filled from top to bottom with western sources and be absolved from having to support their position?
I am not and Wikipedia is not Chinese. I realized that it’s better that Chinese solve this question for themselves.
Removed by mod
👍
So here is my question. Why?
The main reason is that the lead developers are Marxist-Leninists (aka tankies), and so they attract fellows tankies to join their platform.
Why people hold onto such believes varies from case to case, but I make the following observation:
Political positions are still widely understood as singular dichotomous (left/right), as extremes that oppose each other. If you don’t like what is presented on the one site, you tend to choose what is opposing it. And so does this political compass also present one authoritarian position as a solution for another authoritarian position.
Many grown up in the so called west, have been grown up within a propaganda machine that presents itself as the protectorate for human right. As soon as you begin to research into post-colonialism, their war-crimes, their exploitation through capitalism you’ll notice that it’s nothing but a lie. And then you gonna look for answers why that is, and what alternatives there are.
The so called west has made lot’s of campaigns against communism. While at this point you are well aware that “the west” spreads lies, you might start to study communism.
You’ve grown up in an nationalist reality. Nearly everything is divided among nations with top down command chains. Alternatives to organize society in large scale without such authoritarian tendencies are underrepresented. Even so there are many examples, you don’t learn about them in school and you barley read about them in history books.
Conspiracy theories are attractive, as they present simplified reality that is easier to understand, offer often a clear defined enemy and a solution. They usually also offer an answer if challenged, that will continue to uphold the conspiracy thinking. Once you’re in, it gonna be hard to break through. In terms of tankies, criticism of their ideology often result in answers like: “this is cia propaganda”, “you are a shit lib”.
5
Conspiracy theories exist because the government’s version is a shameless lie attempting to cover its involvement in risky affairs. People being confused as to what actually happened, stapling cliches and chanting extremist ideas is not unique to this phenomenon, but is the reality of what happens to many people.
Conspiracy theories exist because the government’s version is a shameless lie attempting to cover its involvement in risky affairs.
If you’re giving an example of something that is one among several reasons why conspiracy theories exists, I agree with you. If not I strongly disagree with you.
Governments are justifying their existence with conspiracy theories. Governments use conspiracy theories to distract and create fear, or to justify an action. Common people create/follow conspiracy theories to find stability and feel superior. Common people create/follow conspiracy theories for personal gains. Common people create/follow conspiracy theories because they present an simple answer. …and many more reasons.
Makes sense, I think this sums it up for me.
When you say “extremist” belief, while you may assume a view is extremist based on how far down some imaginary political number line it is, that’s not the case. What you truly mean is someone whose ideas are outside of the acceptable list of ideas put in place by liberal hegemony.
From my perspective, however, a liberal is just as much of an extremist as I am. Liberalism has left in its wake untold destruction, death, and genocide and done a very good job of obscuring or whitewashing that history to declare itself the superior moral ideology. To support that is extreme, in my opinion, but to go around declaring liberals extremists outside of communist spaces would only get me funny looks.
At this point, anything I say or learn about communism and history outside of the mainstream liberal interpretations of it will get me labeled an extremist, so why stop trying to learn about these different perspectives? It’s not like it makes me close-minded. On the contrary, it takes a pretty open mind to even begin to learn about communism in good faith.
I do self-doubt and self-criticize what I believe in, by the way. You would assume I don’t because why would “extremists” do such a thing? Well, think about how much self-criticism and self-doubt pave the way when learning about communism in a world dominated by liberalism. You learn the Cold War narrative of communism all of your life and it’s not something you can easily escape, so I always have self-doubt in my mind about what I believe in, but that’s why I have to keep an open mind and be both critical and self-critical when I learn. It’s self-criticism, though, not present-your-criticism, so it’s a private process, but that doesn’t mean you should assume it doesn’t happen.
Anyways, I didn’t address any of your specific points. I really just wanted to paint you a picture of why some people may be the way you’re describing and how the term “extremist” in this context is loaded with a lot of assumptions about people and politics. People like to immediately jump to psychologically profiling “extremists” and I think that’s rather annoying.
I would actually like discussing communism, and if someone would point out some books, I would like to study a few things around it. If you can recommend bibliography that explains the wrongdoings of liberalism, I am interested in that well.
Sure! Here are a couple of books that discuss some of the history of liberalism and its wrongdoings:
One’s I’ve read:
- Domenico Losurdo’s Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend (this has sections that describe the genocidal history of liberalism. You don’t have to like Stalin to read this, and if you want just skip to the parts about liberalism’s history)
- Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
- Thomas Frank’s Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (this is a more US-centric book that talks about liberalism’s shortcomings in the US rather than its genocidal wrongdoings. I’m assuming you’re from the US.)
Ones I haven’t read:
- Domenico Losurdo’s Liberalism: A Counter-History
- William Blum’s Killing Hope
For a starting point in learning about Marxism, I’ll point you to a comment I made the other day. I very very highly recommend reading anything in these lists that discusses historical or dialectical materialism, including Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy. Dialectical materialism is the tool Marxists use to analyze the world. Marxism without a good understanding of dialectical materialism won’t do you any good. Huey Newton said as much in his autobiography Revolutionary Suicide, so I think more importance needs to be placed in teaching newcomers dialectical materialism.
On the topic of Huey Newton, I think reading about his life and the life of all other black revolutionaries is incredibly important to understand liberalism’s wrongdoings. They all had to live through those wrongdoings and were able to understand them well.
Finally, just read philosophy in general. It’s fun, it helps you see the world in new ways, and it’s just mentally stimulating.
Huey Newton on his journey learning philosophy in college and how he incorporated it into his revolutionary programs:
I was also impressed with A. J. Ayer’s logical positivism, particularly his distinction between three kinds of statements—the analytical statement, the synthetic statement, and statements of assumption. These ideas have helped me to develop my own thinking and ideology. Ayer once stated, “Nothing can be real if it cannot be conceptualized, articulated, and shared.” That notion stuck with me and became very important when I began to use the ideological method of dialectical materialism as a world view. The ideology of the Black Panthers stands on that premise and proceeds on that basis, to conceptualize, articulate, and share. Some key aspects of Black Panther ideology and rhetoric, like “All Power to the People” and the concept “pig,” developed out of that. They were not haphazardly introduced into our thinking or vocabulary.
Ok, I was not expecting such an extensive response. Anyway, thankyou for putting in the effort.
Sorry, I got a bit carried away. I hope you find my responses to be adequate. Feel free to ask any questions here or on any of the Lemmygrad communities.
It’s a counter-reaction to western politics I think. Don’t underestimate that factor, even if you think this explanation is too simple. A lot of peeple here will like socialist ideas to spite of American healthcare and insurance costs and such. I doubt anyone in the right mind would support the rule of terror.
I get you man. I am from Venezuela, and i was raised into a very leftist environment, and Leftist indoctrination since i was little. But then my country collapsed, and the crisis was very hard, so i had an identity crisis, and started to question all the propaganda i was thought. Also I absolutely hate the right wing, they have their own indoctrination methods, but I also hate tankies who supports my country’s dictatorship at all cost. The thing about political extremist, is that they will justify anything what their side does, genocide, repression, famines, invasions, while criticize the other side for the exact same things. There are no good guys in politics, or history, everyone has numerous shades of shitty behavior, and everyone will point at their enemies for doing the exact same thing they do, in order to drive away their followers attention and make them ignore their own crimes.
My stands are, to do NEVER support dictatorships: China, Cuba, Russia, the URSS, Nazi Germany, Franco’s Spain, Pinochet’s Chile, maduro, etc. I’m the end, every dictatorship is inmoral to defend, no matter is a left or right wing one, that’s something that tankies do not understand, or don’t want to see. Also, 2 things can be truth are the same time: Yes, the USA, is a colonialist genocidal state with too much military power that attacks others countries sovereignty in order to protects their own interest. So does china. Both things are truth, but is you talk to tankies or US nationalist, they will say that their side does nothing wrong.
Also, no human is worthy is being treated like a god. All humans are shitty beings, even more if they have power, no person with power is a good person, period.
I hope this might help you. Never go to the extremes.
Why exactly do people here (at least that is what I perceive) turn a blind eye to the brutalities of an authoritarian government such as the CCP?
cause there is no brutality, you have fallen for western media propaganda
Removed by mod
All extremists act the same way. They shelter themselves in a few strong beliefs, and hate whatever is different, different opinions, etc. Look at the nazis, fascists, communists, anarchists, this is all the same. This is why politics suck, because it’s basically a mean for people to be divided, make clans and hate each other.
This sounds like an extreme strong political believe you hold that does not allow any nuance.
I’m an anarchist, and there are many communists I get well along with, except for the authoritarian branch of communism.
I guess I worded my sentence weirdly. If you get along with other people with a different mindset, then you’re definitely not an extremist. What I criticize is extremism, not necessarily every ideology. The problem is when it becomes an extreme, that makes you hate others, etc.
How does a middle term that is not “extremist” apply to the animal slavery context (it is some quite ideological too)?
So your issue isn’t about extremism, but with hating others just for being others? The ideology of facism is very much about that. Anarchists and anti-authoritarian communism are opposed to such, and actually wish that different concepts how to life can peacefully coexist.
The concept of extremism is strongly tight to a status quo bias, where you define a status quo as norm, and everyone who’s strongly opposing it as extremists. If that is your definition I am an extremist.
The ideology of facism is very much about that.
That’s true, but how do opposing ideologies deal with it? I see the exact same hate that the worst bigots express, so both are extremists for sure, and an extreme is never good by definition.
That’s true, but how do opposing ideologies deal with it?
There are many means. Some of them are: Practicing mutual aid. Building spaces that try to be non-discriminant. Listing to marginalized people and learn to one can be supportive to their cause. Learning about structural oppression and how oneself takes part in upholding such and how one can undo that. Building mutual respectful relationships. But of course it also means to confront those who are discriminating especially if they aim to uphold/organize society in a way that brings huge risks for those they discriminate.
What remains true: humans aren’t prefect. And we easily reproduce behavior that we actually wish to abolish. Machismo in antifa structures is a good example of such.
and an extreme is never good by definition.
Do you notice that by your own definition, this statement is “never good” and so it is contradicting itself, because you present it as an extreme that does not allow other options. This means you don’t argue based on logic but based on ideology, and I would argue an ideology that is by your definition extreme, because it is strongly opposing those ideas you call to be extreme.
This is not my definition, extreme means what it means, it’s right at the edge.
What I’m saying is that you are at such an edge.
1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre … “Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.”
That was just a typo,
I downvote it myself,
I cannot delete it completely it will just show :
“deleted by creator”
Don’t bother to downvote it because it doesn’t make sense !
