• UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The former acted because he was personally affected by a person supporting exploitation within a liberal system, the latter leads an authoritarian regime that allowed their CEOs to do what they do until they got annoying for whatever reasons.

    So if you want to talk objective results here, sure, one of them got a higher kill count. However, who has the moral high ground here is not even up to debate IMO

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      One has a 95% approval rate, which amounts to some 900 million working age adults alone, and is the leader of a party of over 93 million. His actions also don’t stop there, but rather continue in the monumental BRI uplifting hundreds of millions in Africa and Central Asia, as well as the total eradication of poverty in China and the development of twice as much green energy than the rest of the world combined.

      I liked Brian Thompson getting his due, absolutely, but let’s fucking pipe down lmao. The point was if y’all want to really stick it to CEOs, you better start organizing so y’all can get em in a way the pigs would be helpless to stop.

      allowed their CEOs to do what they do until they got annoying for whatever reasons.

      Again, libs just going by vibes and absolutely zero investigation, let alone evidence.

      • TimeNaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Ah yes, just like every beloved dictator ever he has over 90% approval, just trust him, the statistic is surely real!

        Authoritarians really have zero critical thinking skills.

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          46 minutes ago

          The authoritarian Harvard and Pew polls which reported such a number? Lmao yall are so stubbornly committed to chauvinism even if a million Chinese came up to you to tell you you’d be unconvinced. There’s literally dozens of western polls which confirm it, it’s not up for debate, denying it is as ridiculous as denying the existence of the moon.

          Being incredibly adept at mental gymnastics isn’t critical thinking. What part of parroting the headlines you get from corporate media says “critical thinking” to you? I feel super bad for my American comrades trying to organize and make things better when half the country is somehow even dumber than this.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If you’re that shook just from somebody mentioning the commies I don’t think you’re gonna provide much in the way of productive discussion anyway, so, by all means.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      which is why it boggles my mind that liberals don’t connect the dots

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Won’t someone think of the poor billionaires?! 😭 Communism is scary… I don’t think I want the Proletariat to have power after all, those billionaires seem so cool and fun… /s

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Nothing is more terrifying to liberals, than a government having capitalists under their thumb, and serving the people, rather than the other way around as is normal in their “superior” capitalist dictatorships.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Bro but they did it dictatorshiply 😭 in a real democracy you’d yell at them online, get arrested by Homeland Security, and politicians give them another 500 million in subsidies and tax breaks.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Not sure. But the US just executed an innocent man, Marcellus Williams, just a few months ago.

        Some more US legal system fun facts!


        • The US currently operates a system of slave labor camps, including at least 54 prison farms involved in agricultural slave labor. Outside of agricultural slavery, Federal Prison Industries operates a multi-billion dollar industry with ~ 52 prison factories , where prisoners produce furniture, clothing, circuit boards, products for the military, computer aided design services, call center support for private companies. 1, 2, 3
        • The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world. Even individual US states outrank all other countries.
        • The War On Drugs, a policy of arrest and imprisonment targeting minorities, first initiated by Nixon, has over the years created a monstrous system of mass incarceration, resulting in the imprisonment of 1.5 million people each year, with the US having the most prisoners per capita of any nation. One in five black Americans will spend time behind bars due to drug laws. The war has created a permanent underclass of impoverished people who have few educational or job opportunities as a result of being punished for drug offenses, in a vicious cycle of oppression. 1, 2
        • In the present day, ICE (U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement), the police tasked with immigration enforcement, operates over 200 prison camps, housing over 31,000 undocumented people deemed “aliens”, 20,000 of which have no criminal convictions, in the US system of immigration detention. The camps include forced labor (often with contracts from private companies), poor conditions, lack of rights (since the undocumented aren’t considered citizens), and forced deportations, often splitting up families. Detainees are often held for a year without trial, with antiquated court procedures pushing back court dates for months, encouraging many to accept immediate deportation in the hopes of being able to return faster than the court can reach a decision, but forfeiting legal status, in a cruel system of coercion. 1, 2
        • Over 90% of criminal trials in the US are settled not by a judge or jury, but with plea bargaining, a system where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in return for a concession from the prosecutor. It has been statistically shown to benefit prosecutors, who “throw the book” at defendants by presenting a slew of charges, manipulating their fear, who in turn accept a lesser charge, regardless of their innocence, in order to avoid a worst outcome. The number of potentially innocent prisoners coerced into accepting a guilty plea is impossible to calculate. Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients. Plea bargaining is forbidden in most European countries. John Langbein has equated plea bargaining to medieval torture: “There is, of course, a difference between having your limbs crushed if you refuse to confess, or suffering some extra years of imprisonment if you refuse to confess, but the difference is of degree, not kind. Plea bargaining, like torture, is coercive. Like the medieval Europeans, the Americans are now operating a procedural system that engages in condemnation without adjudication.” 1
        • A grand jury is a special legal proceeding in which a prosecutor may hold a trial before the real one, where ~20 jurors listen to evidence and decide whether criminal charges should be brought. Grand juries are rarely made up of a jury of the defendant’s peers, and defendants do not have the right to an attorney, making them essentially show-trials for the prosecution, who often find ways of using grand jury testimony to intimidate the accused, such as leaking stories about grand jury testimony to the media to defame the accused. In the murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice, all of whom were unarmed and killed by police in 2014, grand juries decided in all 3 cases not to pursue criminal trials against the officers. The US and Liberia are the only countries where grand juries are still legal. 1
        • The US system of bail (the practice of releasing suspects before their hearing for money paid to the court) has been criticized as monetizing justice, favoring rich, white collar suspects, over poorer people unable to pay for their release. 1
  • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    17 hours ago

    This thread is funny because it’s filled with a bunch of libs criticizing but bringing nothing of value to the table except vibes, and communists and comrades providing extensive source material to support their arguments, while avoiding low-hanging fruit like ad hominem.

    If you’ve ever done any sort of research into democratic socialism, you’d quickly learn that this is the way. Criticism and self-criticism are at the forefront of cadre training and will make you a better person. If you view a person trying to provide you with educational material as your enemy while you spout off vibe-driven nonsense, you’re not getting the picture and are still hindered by your country’s propaganda, as well your own apathy and ignorance. You’re criticizing people that are passionate because they see a chance to have a better world for all working class—you included—while responding with empty words.

    Unchain yourself from the criticisms of figures your country has implanted in you over your lifetime, and think in terms of ideas.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Unchain yourself from the criticisms of figures your country has implanted in you over your lifetime, and think in terms of ideas.

      Realistically, that’s not gonna happen for most people. Hear me out:

      In 1500s when the printing press was invented, Martin Luther (not to be confused with Martin Luther King) saw the opportunity to print “bibles for everyone” to transform everybody into a priest - an enlightened being that always (or at least mostly) does the good/right thing.

      We know from history that that didn’t succeed. Not everybody turned into a priest, not even close. Instead, he caused Evangelism, and is partially causal for the Thirty Years’ War.

      Realistically, people thinking in terms of ideas is an inclination you’re born with (or so I believe). There’s just a lot of people who are not gonna do that. Especially if people see themselves at a (economic) disadvantage because of it. Most people just wanna live through ordinary life.


      BTW, I guess something similar happened with the internet. When the internet was first invented, people guessed that it would lead to the total education of all human beings. Instead, it has caused smartphones, “social” media (which is more antisocial media tbh), and a lot of spreading dumb narratives. So i’m not sure it really “enlightened” the people.

    • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      15 hours ago

      and communists and comrades providing extensive source material to support their arguments, while avoiding low-hanging fruit like ad hominem.

      sorry I’m late

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Really, I think anyone considering themselves a Leftist needs to read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Both are excellent examples of why people don’t change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn’t mean Communists don’t do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these “licenses” to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Huh, I’ve come across this False Witness article before, years ago.

        In retrospect, this desperate, shotgun appeal to religious authority demonstrated why the dossier itself was probably futile. It was an acknowledgment that the people they were attempting to convince were beyond the reach of mere fact or reason — people who did not find reality compelling.

        This reminds me of the requisite Parenti quote:

        During the Cold War, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Any “leftist” that thinks the fact that China has billionaires means it therefore isn’t actually Socialist needs to read Marx and Engels. There are many such liberals here in these comments. Marx predicted Socialism to be the next mode of production because markets centralize and create intricate methods of planning. As such, he stated that folding private into the public would be gradual, and by the degree to which industry would develop. From the Manifesto:

    The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

    In even simpler terms, from Engels in Principles of Communism:

    Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

    Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

    That doesn’t mean billionaires are good to have, necessarily, either. It remains a contradiction, but not an uncalculated one. I highly recommend anyone here read China has Billionaires. As much as Marxists want to lower wealth inequality eventually as much as possible (insofar as thr principle "from each according to ability, to each according to needs applies, Marx was no “equalitarian” and railed against them), in the stage of developmemt the PRC is at this would get in the way of development, and could cause Capital Flight and brain drain. Moreover, billionaires provide an easy scapegoat that the USSR didn’t have, and thus all problems of society were directed at the state. It’s important to consider why a Marxist country does what it does, and not immediately assume you know better. The CPC has an over 95% approval rate, you can’t just assume you know what’s best.

    The phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is meant to depict higher stage Communism. Until that is possible, the answer becomes “to each according to his work,” because as Marx said in Critique of the Gotha Programme:

    these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

    At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis. There are genuine Marxist critiques of the PRC that don’t rely on nonsense. If you consider yourself a Marxist, correct your study. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you need one.

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Some resources for a lot of the people below claiming that China is just like any other capitalist country.

    Is China State Capitalist?

      • Anarcho-Bolshevik
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I actually agree that the PRC is still presocialist but at least I didn’t spit out your useless ‘lol fuk u’ reply.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Presocialist as in the economy isn’t yet at public ownership and planning levels to be considered fully Socialist, or preparing to transition to Communism? I know you’ve read a lot more than I have so I’m curious what you mean here. I’m still a “baby ML.”

          • Anarcho-Bolshevik
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            As far as I know, capital, the law of value, and generalized commodity production remain phenomenal in the PRC. Their prevalence does seem to be diminishing, though, which is one reason why I think that equating the PRC with something like Imperial America is wrong.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              14 hours ago

              I agree largely, I suppose I just use the term “Socialist” because I believe the Public Sector to be primary and the trends to be towards collectivization. The “stages” of Socialism model common among Chinese Marxists at work.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Are you dumb libs still claiming an Uyghur genocide despite being like 10 years, zero evidence, and multiple western sources calling out the atrocity propaganda? How does that look like, if Xinjiang’s economy is growing enormously, there’s tons of video evidence from travel bloggers of the bustling cultural and religious activities there? Plugging your eyes and ears to let the state department guide you doesn’t seem like a wise way to go about anything.

      The people boosting claims of an Uyghur genocide are still denying and aiding the fucking Palestinian genocide ffs.

          • GrammarPolice@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            15 hours ago

            My source

            Now go ahead and try to discredit them that they’re a bourgeois run agency so their journalism is biased

            I had to make my point. The mods can proceed to ban this account too

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Cool, so now we have the idea that states pay influencers money. This still hasn’t translated to execution of billionaires being done out of opposition instead of mass corruption and breaking the law. You need to provide sources for your arguments, not justifications that they could be true.

              You are directly decieving yourself because you license yourself to. If you actually looked at real sources and didn’t reject them reflexively, instead of accepting bourgeois media at face value, you’d sit much closer to where I do. You should read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Both are excellent examples of why people don’t change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn’t mean Communists don’t do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these “licenses” to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.

              • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

                Libs are probably not gonna read them but thanks for linking them because I will

              • GrammarPolice@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                13 hours ago

                We both know the corruption claims were cover ups for the corporate witch-hunt. Also, you’re very aware of my readiness to change my views in the presence of convincing evidence. This evidence is however not so convincing.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 hours ago

                  What do you mean “corporate witch hunt?” I believe the evidence of corruption is valid, do you have evidence to the opposite? Why do you say it isn’t convincing?

                  Furthermore, I believe you have displayed the exact opposite of being willing to change your views in the face of evidence, and have proven the articles I provided here quite accurate given your refusal to read any of the evidence I provided in our last conversation where you not only refused historical books, but even an 8 minute article.

                  You shattered any impression of openness back then, so you’ll forgive my lack of faith in you.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      20 hours ago

      The original was funny to me because people thought the second guy was fine when the reality would be if a woman is calling human resources there’s probably something there. It’s a joke told from the perspective of someone who’s unable to see anything wrong and is only representing their side of the story. So I thought this was a riff on that idea, and viewed in that light this version is funny too.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      58
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Oppressing the owners of capital is good, actually. If you don’t do it you end up like the US where everyone has to pay them for everything all the time and the police is only there to prevent you from doing anything about it.

      Chinese people don’t have to go out and get jailed for doming a mass murdering CEO out of desperation, the government gladly prosecutes and makes an example of them.

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        57
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 day ago

        Except Xi Jinping is not oppressing owners of capital. China has lots of oligarchs that in some ways have a tighter grip on society than their western counterparts. He’s oppressing people that are “inconvenient” to him.

      • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        24 hours ago

        China ranks second in the world in number of millionaires as well as number of billionaires.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago
          1. Quantity of bourgeoisie is not an indication of who runs the country or which is primary, public or private property

          2. China has the second biggest population in the world, period.

          The PRC saw what happened when you cracked down too hard on wealth inequality too early in the USSR, there was significant brain drain and people took what they could elsewhere. This eventually led to decreased growth and contributed to collapse. The PRC instead allows billionaires (so long as they don’t commit crimes), and as a consequnce they now have the largest economy by PPP and second largest by GDP. It’s a “boiling the frog” approach.

          • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            And capitalists have no choice but to partake now, even western companies are tripping over themselves to set up shop in China because that’s the biggest market now that the leeches have bled the US population almost dry and destroyed their supply chains. They literally can’t compete, unless they invest and build in China.

            They’re selling them the rope, and that’s why the US has gotten progressively more rabid against the CPC.

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Brother the US has ONE FIFTH of the world’s inmates (in dire conditions that provide slave labor) despite having less than 5% of the world population.

          If y’all didn’t thoughtlessly and immediately internalize whatever outlandish shit your media tells you about the yellow peril you’d be envious of their living standards and, honestly? Their political freedom too.

          That’s the point.