this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
312 points (68.6% liked)
Memes
45887 readers
1174 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Working class executing CEOs that work against them
Ruling class executing CEOs who don't work for them
Slight difference
That's an anti-Marxist view of class. What is the "ruling class" you speak of in the PRC? Government isn't class, but an extension of the class in power, so which class is in power?
It's the latter part of "no god's no masters"
I'm sorry if I've insulted Marxist purity
You can be an Anarchist if you want to, but you should at least do so using actual analysis and not sloganeering.
No toilet paper no homework
Oh no, you depicted me as a nerd! My point is ruined 😭
My point is you had no point. You responded to a FANTASTIC explanation of the difference by splitting hairs on what by your definition qualifies as a class.
Instead of addressing the argument, you just threw a semantics argument, which I maintain is the terminally online version of pocket sand.
I addressed it entirely. The Proletariat executing Billionaires who go against the proletariat is perfectly in line with Marx and his concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The CPC has 96 million members, it isn't a distinct class, it represents the will of the people and as such has a higher than 95% approval rate. Their implication is that the CPC is some third ruling class, and not the instrument of proletarian supremacy, which is why I corrected it.
Your response doesn't address any of how I analyzed their argument, by insisting I am "splitting hairs" by pointing out how the class dynamics of a bourgeois state and a proletarian state are fundamentally different, and that difference is that the proletarian state represents the real will of the people while the bourgeois state does not.
This is where I think the conversations always break down on ml.
You fervently assert things like a 95% approval rating while selectively ignoring the "social credit" system that punishes people who don't approve. You use large party employment to justify some kind of perfect overlap between the proletariat and the government. Where do you think the real decision making is done? Do you think it isn't a tiny fraction of party elite? How would you view these things through the lens of manufactured consent?
I don't think it's any better in a western capitalist system, but I'm not going to deceive myself into thinking that china is running fundamentally differently than any western oligarchy.
The "social credit system" was made to hold financial and privately-run institutions to account, and prevent companies and organizations from committing fraud and polluting the environment. Even US capitalist mouthpieces like foreign policy agree with this.
These are basic things the US used to do in the 1950s, but now stopped any pretense of doing. Any regulation against business is considered "authoritarian" now.
Meanwhile in the US, having a bad credit score can prevent you from buying a car, house, or even renting an apartment.
China uses these scores to hold financial institutions to account, while the US uses scores to prevent ordinary citizens from getting housing. One country is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the other a dictatorship of capital.
You’re choosing to continue deceiving yourself that China is not fundamentally different from any western oligarchy, got it.
It's more that liberals like yourself directly ignoring facts and statistics while blindly repeating vague and unsourced claims of "China Bad," because it lets you remain comfortable in your pre-existing worldview. Communists do not have such luxury, which is why they seemingly always have endless sources on hand. In your comment here, as an example, you discredit the CPC's approval with no source. However, if we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say "We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment." This directly goes against your claims of "social credit" preventing this, moreover the "Orwellian Social Credit System" you hint at doesn't even exist, at least not in the manner you imply it does.
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.
And then the second pillar of why any ml argument falls apart: the insistence that any concerns about how china operates implies that the speaker of those concerns is defending Western status quo.
I can envision a more perfect system than China, and guess what, it isn't anything close to western capitalism. I'll even go so far as to say that in terms of absolute delta, China may already be closer. Creating a false dichotomy, however, in which it is argued any criticism or concern about China is actually a veiled attempt to maintain the status quo of western capitalism is ridiculous.
I mean, look at the overwhelming response to the murder of that CEO. Can we not accept that this is at the very least a significant criticism of the USAs runaway capitalist system? Does that imply an overwhelming desire for a Chinese-styled government? No? Somehow it appears to be empirically the case that people can express criticism against a system without existing in some binary state which implies full throated support of exactly 1 alternative that's been constructed as part of this false dichotomy that ml users live and die by.
No, I am implying that among western "leftists" there is a desire to more openly accept vague anti-China claims in a manner that goes against real solidarity with Socialists globally, and they do so because they don't want to imagine anywhere else could be on a better track.
Western leftists literally never shut up about the Nordic countries so I must flatly reject the premise that the justification is the preservation some vestigial notion of Manifest Destiny
Seems to me that you're just trying to dig deeper out of a sense of contrarianism even if you largely agree with what I'm saying.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, then.... But I agree that we're just bouncing off supporting arguments rather than directly defending or refuting a central thesis.
My understanding of your point was that western critisms of China are either at best misinformed, but in general the result of trying to preserve the idea that "the west is in front, so everyone else must be behind".
I fundamentally reject this specific formulation because the result of that formulation is that there exists no valid criticism of China.
So, let's just settle this: what would you say is the most uncomfortablely valid criticism of China?
What do you mean "uncomfortably valid?" Some valid critiques I have include the following, but are not limited to:
The Market Sector has given rise to a large group of Chinese Liberals, who have some level of influence they should not have.
While improving gradually, LGBT protections are not as good as they could be, such as in Cuba.
The PRC could be doing more to dedollarize the world and throw off US Hegemony. Part of this is due to the influence of Chinese Liberals.
I'll take you at your word that these are the 3 things that you're most uncomfortable with.
I sincerely hope that these are the three most problematic things, because if true, China really would be nearly a utopia, and I sincerely want such a place to exist.
Considering the 2nd point came with the precondition that you think it's a problem that is solving itself, and the third is that China isn't projecting its power enough globally, there is only one outstanding issue for the proletariat being that the economy isn't centrally planned enough.
With full sincerity I guess if this is your biggest gripe, I don't know how I reconcile that personally with China's current and historical trend of net negative migration.
It's probably clear to you by now, but I am not an expert on China, but I am absorbing and am curious of your perspective.
To me, it appears like with such a rosy view but negative net migration, there must be a reason that statistically speaking, more people would rather leave the system than join it. In the same way that we can hypothesize the existence of a celestial body we haven't directly observed by it's gravitational effects on what we know, I wonder why we see net negative migration if there are essentially by your view no material unaddressed issues for the working class?
And I genuinely am asking this question in good faith. I'll accept with respect any answer you give. In your view is it a global smear campaign that holds people back from migrating or something? Are the people who leave being seduced by false promises? Do you live in China, and if not, what's holding you back?
Because I'll say, you and I could comisserate extensively on the failings of western capitalism. I could easily lay out 50 significant issues with the societal organization of most western capitalist democracies. I'm sure you could too. That you only really see one significant unaddressed issue, regardless of if I agree with it, is compelling.
The PRC has fairly strict requirements for immigrating, and not as strict for emmigrating. Pretty clear cut. I will say, the PRC is no utopia. It is, however, continuously improving, and I believe that's by nature of it being a country led by Communists, rather than Capitalists.
A fantastic explanation? It literally isn't an explanation, it's a comparison of two statements. Which is fine, and so is the critique of those statements to examine their perceived contradictions.
From the perspective of the CPC and Marxist-Leninist theory, their ruling party represents the working class, just like our ruling parties represent the owner class of CEOs. [wikipedia page: DotP] Obviously that's a contested claim which not even all Marxists will agree with, but it's far from splitting hairs. It's the basic foundation of the comparison, the implicit claim that one is a working class act and the other is not.
This is the most concise rebuttal and I think you've highlighted well where the root of the perceived discord lies.
If one accepts that the CPC represents the working class, then the critique of the unfair comparison via the meme would be viewed as legitimate.
If one contests the original assertion, then it does not. To them, Xi memeing a CEO would look to them more like Musk offing Altman.
There is never a case of a working class party conquering political power, that hasn't been demonized by western anti-communist society.
When the US and its media tells you that the leaders China or Cuba or Vietnam are just "dictators", why do you believe them?
Absolutely. Power is the difference. Vertical power structures all look the same. Call it communism, but those at the bottom are still ruled by those at the top. Instead give me some of that horizontal, bottom up power. No gods, no masters.