On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He didn't always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!
Some significant works:
Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)
And, of course, Capital Vol I-III
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
Not really "trickle down." If I go to a MAGA conference, I am going to be immediately attacked. If I go to a place with progressives, I'll face less hostility. If I go to a place with Leftists, then I'll generally be recieved favorably. If this Leftist base solidifies, it can expand and fold in the more radical of the progressives, and then expand outward.
In other words, if it takes immense effort to "wololo" a MAGA into a Leftist, but much less effort to "wololo" a progressive into one, then it's better to focus on the progressive so that the new Leftist can also aid in the "wololo-ing." As the proportion of Leftists grows, and more proletarians go from MAGA to liberal, and liberal to progressive, this Leftist movement becomes better able to fold more people into it.
o7
o7
TIL Wololoing
Well that’s a very meme description of shifting the overton window to the left.
As Marx's favorite maxim goes, "Nihil humani a me alienum puto [Nothing human is alien to me]"
I love memes and gaming, same with Marxist-Leninist theory, same with space, science, and technology. Connecting to others with shared culture is part of what makes us human.
@Cowbee @Cypher Marxist-Leninist theory is fine. Theoretically the concepts of communal ownership and resources sharing is a laudable one. Too bad the only example of this concept actually working is Star Trek. The instances when it's been tried in the real world, ended in authortarainism and/or collapse.
All countries are "authoritarian," what matters most is which class is in control and thus exerting its authority. In Capitalist society, that class is the Bourgeoisie, a tiny minority of society. In Socialism, that class is the Proletariat, the majority of society. Countries like the PRC are labeled "authoritarian" not due to how the people themselves feel, but because Capital is limited by the government. Even if over 90% of Chinese citizens support the CPC, western media slanders the system as "authoritarian" because their corporate masters can't move as they please in Chinese markets.
Countries like the PRC are labeled authoritarian because they do not provide basic human rights such as freedom of speech.
I will quote exclusively from your own source you have linked
You were accurate about the satisfaction rate towards Beijing.
Why do they suggest this rate is so high?
What about local government approval rates?
That was a very interesting read, thank you for linking it but I don't think it says what you think it says.
The reason I include it as a source is because it's conducted by a group hostile to the CPC and interested in undermining it. The opinions of those gathering the data are already hostile to the system, yet the data absolutely points in favor of popular support. Further, the 11.3% for "very satisfied" doesn't translate to all satisfied, only those very satisfied. The PRC is a rapidly improving country.
China does have freedom of speech. They exert more control over what corporations and billionaires can say, but they are more or less similar in speech levels to other countries. Again, the reason China is labeled "authoritarian" by the Western Media is because their corporate owners cannot do as they please. They want to foster hostility towards China among the public by exclusively showing a one-sided point of view that aligns perfectly with the views of their owners.
In conclusion, my source says exactly what I said it does. It's reliable in that we can trust the positives admitted from someone overall hostile.
No they absolutely do not. Free speech isnt simply the claim that "we have free speech" but it is ensuring that the principles of free speech, especially the freedom to criticize, are available for all citizens.
I searched for actual Chinese law to cite for this part, let me know if i made any mistakes but this is what I found:
https://www.cecc.gov/international-agreements-and-domestic-legislation-affecting-freedom-of-expression#criminallaw
I don't want to be close minded to new info, but when you throw out "western media" the way you are it makes me feel like you're trying to gaslight me.
China is a state. No state power is a flawless perfect angel.
The West has a lot of flaws, but one idea it had that is a good one is the idea of limiting the power of the state, and having a strong bill of rights/Constitution which guarantees rights.
This doesn't prevent it from being authoritarian, we can point to clear violations of civil liberties like the students being kidnapped off the streets and disappeared to an El Salvadoran death camp.
If I was unable to recognize that as authoritarian I think you'd rightfully decide this conversation is a non starter and I'm just too far gone.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/asia/china-students-peking-university-intl
So am I propagandized to? Was this story (and many more like it I could find and bring up) completely made up?
Or can we both agree stuff like this isn't great and work towards a future where we prevent the abduction of students in both spheres of the world.
Forget the Western Media. I am telling you they are authoritarian. I don't do business with them, I am instead using objective standards of what actions an individual should be able to freely choose without fear of reprisal from their government.
The average citizen is in danger of being arrested over posting speech to social media (yes the UK and Australia are authoritarian for doing the same thing, that's how objective standards should work).
They're in danger of being arrested for protesting their government, or for organizing their labor. The only correct channel of protest is going through the local government with the abysmally poor approval rate you cited.
What? How does that make anything any more or less reliable?
You can't just cherry pick positives out of a negative bias and assume it cancels out.
A study done by someone not hostile would be more reliable. That's what I would have tried to link, but I guess the source you linked explains China's strict censorship makes it difficult to do an objective opinion poll.
Those are all basic laws that apply to businesses, not random citizens. A Socialist State controlling the media influence of private individuals is straight from Karl Marx. Even the specific law on individuals overwhelmingly applies to public figures and celebrities, not random citizens.
I never said China is "perfect." I said it is demonized as "authoritarian" by Western Media because the owners in Western Media can't do as they please in Chinese markets. I'm not "gaslighting" you by disagreeing with your conclusions.
Secondly, Western States aren't limited. They are extremely strong, the US has hundreds of millitary bases all over the world (China has less than 10 foreign millitary bases). The Bill of Rights and Constitution also don't serve the people. What they do serve is providing freedom for Capital owners to plunder and profit as they please, and the State is under their control.
My point is that "authoritarianism" is a meaningless buzzword. All states exert authority, what matters most is which clads is in control and thus exerting its authority. In the West, that is the capitalist class, in China, it's the working class. Both are "authoritarian," in that sense, as all states are, but are fundamentally different in character, backed by why China has such high approval rates and the US has such low approval rates.
As for that one particular CNN article, I question it highly. Either the quality or quantity of the event is highly distorted, or important facts are obscured. This is the standard play, CNN is a propaganda outlet and the US has approved 1.6 billion dollars exclusively for anti-PRC propaganda.
You can absolutely organize, but not in a manner that goes against the public good. Private interests use such mechanisms to oppose the system that is overwhelmingly popular. The CPC frequently supports worker strikes and protests against corrupt businesses.
Further, you again pretend "very satisfied" is the same as overall approval. You're lying. The actual approval rate at the Township level is 70.2%, which you either think is "abysmally low," or are intentionally trying to twist very satisfied into satisfied in general, which is coincidentally a propaganda tactic used by Western Media, focusing on one aspect and omitting the more important data. Here's the actual table:
Yes, a study by a theoretical "neutral" party would be most accurate. It's likely the approval rate is actually higher than the hostile poll shows. By showing that even someone hostile must admit the high approval rates, other, less hostile polls showing the same or better figures are vindicated.
Sorry missed this one part.
Yeah in a vacuum I definitely disagree with this, but to some extent it feels somewhat similar to the usage of chemical weapons in WWI.
If one side is gonna use it, it's just the world we live in that everyone is going to try to use it.
We act more or less peaceful face to face, only choosing to fight each other through proxy wars, but Israel, the US, China, Russia... everyone appears to be actively fighting an information war online, hacking and spying on everyone else with no remorse.
It seems at this point the only way to stop it would be to come to international agreement it's off the limit for everyone and jointly sanction whoever is caught doing it, but I think we all know that's never going to happen.
The information war is simply bad for democracies with freedom of speech and just not bad at all for authoritarian governments who censor vast swathes of the information their citizens have access to.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-naval-academy-speech-china-democracy-warning-1710966
Considering international systems are currently dominated by the US Empire, any agreement, no matter how good it sounds, is going to be passed for the benefit of maintainin that Empire. Considering the people of China love their system despite feeling it has a lot of work to be done, and the people of the US hate its own system, there is a clear difference in effectiveness.
As for Joe Biden's deliberate misquoting of Xi Jinping, you need to realize what Xi actually said. It's no surprise that a genocidal Imperialist like Joe Biden would lie, but to take his lie at face value, rather than Xi's own words on the subject and the people of China who view their system as democratic at higher rates than US citizens, is silly.
Xi was criticizing the Western, liberal conception of democracy, not democracy in general. Biden took that critique of western "democracy" and left it as a critique of democracy itself, despite Xi routinely expressing motive to improve democracy. Read the speech Democracy is not an Ornament by Xi Jinping to see what he means. He is specifically advocating for the Chinese democratic model, which has much higher rates of civilian satisfaction than Western models.
That's not the case, except insofar as private citizens are forced to become businesses and register with the government in order to publish anything at all.
Of course. And Western governments are likewise demonized by chinese media. That's not a particularly meaningful claim.
Every perspective has its own bias. You are "gaslighting" me by pretending "authoritarianism" can't be objectively defined.
The bias of western media comes out in the types of stories they choose to cover and not to cover, the opinion pieces they put out, and the framing of narratives, but usually the factual information is more or less correct and there are obviously sources which are more trustworthy than others.
This is the gaslighting stuff. There are term limits on the president.
There is a separation of branches; executive, legislative and judicial.
There is the presumption of innocence and the right to due process.
If you weren't ignoring these attempts, we could be agreeing at how ineffective they are as limits, and how due process isn't applied to "enemy combatants" but instead I'm having to point out that term limits exist on the president or that the Supreme Court exists and can overturn laws when they violate the constitution.
There are flaws in these systems that led to the NSA continuing to spy and guantanamo to stay open.
But we can't talk about that if you won't acknowledge a Supreme Court exists.
Yeah the US is imperialist. But don't change the subject. We're talking about the limitations on said imperialist state like I listed above. Term limits, separation of power, right to a trial with a jury of your peers, etc which are obstacles (no matter how futile) the imperialist state must overcome when they want to act in an authoritarian manner.
The behavior of the military overseas is a completely different sphere of issues related to manufactured consent and the military-industrial complex and neo-colonialism.
There's the bill of rights and the constitution, and then there's the way a state applies the bill of rights and the constitution after 200 years of capitalist manipulation.
Whatever state of government preexists the capitalists (or at least preexists their total consolidation of power) will be manipulated to rule their interests, we can't discard the baby with the bathwater just because they've twisted our rights around to serve them
Certain rights in these bills like property rights are inherently serving capitalism, but others like the right to bear arms are the exact opposite.
I could not disagree further. To throw this out this far into the discussion feels really disingenuous.
If it's meaningless then I don't know who is and who isn't authoritarian, and that seems really convenient for would be authoritarians.
Are there any means to you that would not justify the ends which we can agree on as ideal natural limitations for any state?
I agree with how you're thinking about this, but it seems backwards.
What matters most is how authority is wielded.
The ideal form of government if you only loon at material conditions right now could be argued to be a benevolent dictator who makes all the right calls. But both of us (presumably?) are against that because we understand the incentives that power structure provides and the implications for long term stability.
The reason the working class should be in control isn't just because that's an axiom one insists on, but because they are the least incentivized (ideally) to wield their power tyrannically.
But in a worst case scenario they still could theoretically be tyrannical (for example imprison people without giving them a fair trial) and that would be bad.
This gives us a lens where it is possible for a worker led government to be authoritarian and one not to be, and says that the latter is preferred.
If we don't have the language to criticize the former and move towards the latter then what are we doing?
Hmm okay.
Since you said you never claimed China to be perfect, can you help me out and provide a source for something China has done wrong recently just for a sanity check?
Every negative example I brought up has been dismissed so in what ways are China not perfect in terms of civil rights/freedom of speech?
Where are you getting this number?
I'm not lying, this is the narrative your source is arguing
I read the whole article, there's no further data on the subject beyond this paragraph
I think you might be misreading the 70% as the US approval rate for local government?
Oh sorry lol. I'm going through the replies one by one on my phone cause theres a lot and i typed the above first
Honestly I'm having a hard time understanding this. Do you know what the averages mean, why are they so low? Like the 2.8 avg?
It's the bolded purple part so it seems like the authors believe it to be the most important number on the chart.
I would think at first to interpret that as a 2.8% average approval rate but obviously the 70.2% approval is right there next to it so that doesn't make sense.
Would I be correct in interpreting this as a minority of people (26%) really dislike the government and (76%) just kind of like it so they average each other out to 2.8%?
Agreed. It's frustrating China does not allow that.
True "neutral" parties dont really exist of course, this is a fundamental tenant of western science which is why data must be transparent and the methodology critiqued through peer review, so that this bias can be revealed and accounted for.
Remember the Western Media trick of demonizing the other side to manipulate a narrative you mentioned? These demonizing tricks can work both ways, we should he careful about sensationalizing things (as you've been critiquing me for doing)
"even someone hostile" who says they're hostile?
Either it's a reliable study and should be taken at face value or its a biased study and should not have been cited.
Why should I care about whether a polling organization is labelled as "hostile" by you or the media? That's a distraction, in the context of authoritarianism you find these labels meaningless.
The thing we should be looking at and questioning is their methodology.
If a study has bad methodology then it didn't get accurate data. The data is wrong. You don't get to add extra points to your side because you deem them as hostile, you throw the study in the trash and find a better one.
It's entirely the case that the purpose and real function of Chinese laws on publication are to control private businesses and celebrities, public figures, etc. Individuals critical of the CPC exist and post and comment, but those that are backed by private corporations attempting to swap the system to Capitalist are shut down.
Western governments are demonized by Chinese media, but you are not a consumer of Chinese News, nor is the average person outside of China. My point is specifically about Western portrayal of the countries that limit Western plundering.
I am not "gaslighting" you about "authoritarianism." The fact that "authoritarianism" is such a common talking point abused by western media against geopolitical adversaries is common even among liberals like Noam Chomsky.
The factual information is often not correct as well. Often times numbers and figures are heavily distorted, relying on anonymity of sources to cover for them. This is also well-documented.
Further, I am not "gaslighting" you about Western states not being limited, either. You are moving the goalpost. All states have limitations, things the state can't do, in the US, China, etc. However, the US state in particular has unlimited support for Capitalists. What it doesn't need to do, it frames as a "limitation," but will quickly go against those if needed by Capital.
As for class dynamics, no. The "how" of authority is fundamentally determined by the class in control and the conditions the system finds itself in. Fascism is Capitalism in decay, not a unique economic system. The Working Class should be in power becayse they are the majority of people, and the ones creating value, not because they are intrinsically kinder.
As for something China has done wrong, I'm not a fan of maintaining trade with Israel, rather than sanctioning it. Maintaining a pro-Palestinian stance without supporting Palestinian liberation materially is soft.
As for the 2.8 number, it isn't a percentage, but an average on responses 1-4, 4 being highly satisfied, 3 being moderately satisfied, 2 being moderately not satisfied, and 1 being not at all satisfied. The number of really not liking the Township is 2.3%, the number of overall not satisfied is 26%, the number moderately satisfied is 57%, and the number of really satisfied is 11%. These numbers appear to be growing, alongside continuous improvements in living conditions over time. This is for the weakest level of government, the higher you go the more satisfied with overall governance, as the CPC is highly competent and development has been rapid, but uneven, in the rural areas still lagging behind. Trends are shifting because in the last decade, there has been focus on the rural areas, which is why the number of satisfied at the Township level is dramatically increasing.
China does allow neutral parties to conduct polls, they even allowed the hostile party to conduct the polls. This is silly.
Western polling is notoriously slanted against its geopolitical adversaries. If I gave you an internal Chinese poll showing the same or better results, you'd be crying foul for it being biased.
Western supremacists tend to use "Authoritarian" only to demonize the countries that stood up and fought back against colonialism / imperialism.
And it usually is never directed against the actually non-democratic / oligarchical countries like the US, who've bombed and meddled with nearly every government on the planet.
You should question your preconceived notions about China, Vietnam, Cuba, and the USSR, because you likely grew up in a country that has spent the entire historical period of the cold war, trying to strangle those countries and many others out of existence.
I swear dessalines has some kind of custom alert setup for whenever someone mentions “authoritarian”
Fucking love it
“Authoritarianism” is when the imperial core’s freedom to exploit the periphery is thwarted.