Blaming China for monitoring data is heavily dishonest, as the US also monitors data. As does the EU. As does Russia. As does Japan. As does the Commonwealth Sphere. Every notable governing body monitors data.
It’s logical to monitor data, doing so has had an effect on counter-terrorism and on the effectiveness of law enforcement. Only a foolish government would refuse to monitor data in the information age, it’s like asking a house inspector to wear a blindfold. That’s only going to cause problems down the line.
China uses a lot of CCTV cameras. But again, so does every notable state. They also have had a big impact on crime, and contribute to Chinese cities being relatively safe places to live. As well, China actually puts in an effort to reduce the core sources for violent crime and theft, by addressing poverty, homelessness, education, and starvation. CCTV doesn’t do much in the west, because the west doesn’t do shit to reduce those key issues.
Surveillance isn’t a component of communism, it’s gods damned common sense in this current age.
I think Enver Hoxha (Imperialism and the revolution, Reflections on China) and the delegate of North Korea Cao de Benós would answer that they’re simply revisionists, but the site seems to be oriented towards a catch-all somehow label of ML like the PSL by mods and debunking bourgeois propaganda against those tendencies. Hoxha broke with Mao since he claimed to side with Yugoslavia and even defended Pinochet with the third worldist justification in the end of his life (and more), he also attacked Castro for siding with Khruschev the revisionist anti-Stalin among other ones.
In the first years after revolution, according to ML, the class struggle under socialism is intensified. The reactionaries have to be dealt with, frontiers have to be defended in a disciplined way, prevention of sabotages, etc… There’s a cultural battle to bury the birthmarks of capitalism. Lenin banned the factions of the communist party of the USSR, I think that if you consider that the ban wasn’t needed anymore after the civil war that’s out not even of Stalin but out of Lenin (because of the date, Lenin kept the ban briefly after the end of the civil war then he died). Another thing is going towards the path of the NEP in a prolonged period instead of expropriating when it can be done and starting the planned economy, I think here Hoxha would disagree with China.
But the communist word means abolition of classes, doctrine of liberation for the proletariat, the real movement, etc. it can be seen from Babeuf before, even if it’s not called scientific socialism or marxism; apart from not taking into account primitive communism or the consideration that Plato’s Republic was somehow communistic and reactionary at the same time and Pythagoras’s considerations.
The highest stage of communism is called communism by Lenin, the lower stage of communism is called socialism by Lenin (High and low can be seen in Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx), this is somehow claimed by leftcoms to bash Lenin and say Marx considered socialism and communism as interchangeable terms. But this is other debate.
There are more tendencies claiming to be communist that are against surveillance, but ML criticizes spontaneism (Foundations of Leninism for example) and asserts that the state is used as an oppression tool against the class, this case the bourgeoisie as a monopoly of violence. The consideration of the state as having public services in the highest stage of communism in the form of administration or not is another debate. Lastly, this leads us to a debate of the state in which we have to see to which extent it is independent of the bourgeoisie or how much is controlled (directly, just obeying the capitalist economy? They let reformists to prevent revolution? etc.) and here neomarxists have their literature too.
Thinking myself now out of literature, if technology changes in such a way that it has automated ways to check, it may put out of work some of the needed surveillance. Or if there’s popular support in some circumstances and interest at the same time, etc. I think it’s more rigid for the XIX and XX centuries, but I can’t exactly say what we will have if revolution comes now and where. Some of the forms of surveillance may be outdated focusing in certain technological trends for technology or not technological but bottom-up approaches, we may have to apply surveillance on the state instead of the population, etc. Right now technology is forced to be repressive because the far-left is right, they don’t have other means beyond indoctrination, manipulation and ignorance that control by force. This isn’t eternal in the socialist trends maybe with the exception of Bordiga, because we aim for the abolition of classes and oppression, the “natural impulse” so to speak to rebellion is senseless in utopia as the highest stage of communism.
deleted by creator
Blaming China for monitoring data is heavily dishonest, as the US also monitors data. As does the EU. As does Russia. As does Japan. As does the Commonwealth Sphere. Every notable governing body monitors data.
It’s logical to monitor data, doing so has had an effect on counter-terrorism and on the effectiveness of law enforcement. Only a foolish government would refuse to monitor data in the information age, it’s like asking a house inspector to wear a blindfold. That’s only going to cause problems down the line.
China uses a lot of CCTV cameras. But again, so does every notable state. They also have had a big impact on crime, and contribute to Chinese cities being relatively safe places to live. As well, China actually puts in an effort to reduce the core sources for violent crime and theft, by addressing poverty, homelessness, education, and starvation. CCTV doesn’t do much in the west, because the west doesn’t do shit to reduce those key issues.
Surveillance isn’t a component of communism, it’s gods damned common sense in this current age.
deleted by creator
I think Enver Hoxha (Imperialism and the revolution, Reflections on China) and the delegate of North Korea Cao de Benós would answer that they’re simply revisionists, but the site seems to be oriented towards a catch-all somehow label of ML like the PSL by mods and debunking bourgeois propaganda against those tendencies. Hoxha broke with Mao since he claimed to side with Yugoslavia and even defended Pinochet with the third worldist justification in the end of his life (and more), he also attacked Castro for siding with Khruschev the revisionist anti-Stalin among other ones.
In the first years after revolution, according to ML, the class struggle under socialism is intensified. The reactionaries have to be dealt with, frontiers have to be defended in a disciplined way, prevention of sabotages, etc… There’s a cultural battle to bury the birthmarks of capitalism. Lenin banned the factions of the communist party of the USSR, I think that if you consider that the ban wasn’t needed anymore after the civil war that’s out not even of Stalin but out of Lenin (because of the date, Lenin kept the ban briefly after the end of the civil war then he died). Another thing is going towards the path of the NEP in a prolonged period instead of expropriating when it can be done and starting the planned economy, I think here Hoxha would disagree with China.
But the communist word means abolition of classes, doctrine of liberation for the proletariat, the real movement, etc. it can be seen from Babeuf before, even if it’s not called scientific socialism or marxism; apart from not taking into account primitive communism or the consideration that Plato’s Republic was somehow communistic and reactionary at the same time and Pythagoras’s considerations.
The highest stage of communism is called communism by Lenin, the lower stage of communism is called socialism by Lenin (High and low can be seen in Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx), this is somehow claimed by leftcoms to bash Lenin and say Marx considered socialism and communism as interchangeable terms. But this is other debate.
There are more tendencies claiming to be communist that are against surveillance, but ML criticizes spontaneism (Foundations of Leninism for example) and asserts that the state is used as an oppression tool against the class, this case the bourgeoisie as a monopoly of violence. The consideration of the state as having public services in the highest stage of communism in the form of administration or not is another debate. Lastly, this leads us to a debate of the state in which we have to see to which extent it is independent of the bourgeoisie or how much is controlled (directly, just obeying the capitalist economy? They let reformists to prevent revolution? etc.) and here neomarxists have their literature too.
Thinking myself now out of literature, if technology changes in such a way that it has automated ways to check, it may put out of work some of the needed surveillance. Or if there’s popular support in some circumstances and interest at the same time, etc. I think it’s more rigid for the XIX and XX centuries, but I can’t exactly say what we will have if revolution comes now and where. Some of the forms of surveillance may be outdated focusing in certain technological trends for technology or not technological but bottom-up approaches, we may have to apply surveillance on the state instead of the population, etc. Right now technology is forced to be repressive because the far-left is right, they don’t have other means beyond indoctrination, manipulation and ignorance that control by force. This isn’t eternal in the socialist trends maybe with the exception of Bordiga, because we aim for the abolition of classes and oppression, the “natural impulse” so to speak to rebellion is senseless in utopia as the highest stage of communism.