Others replied with the evidence you were asking of me, and you blew them off. Were you gonna suddenly read it if it had been me instead of them? I find it unlikely.
Grapho
joined 2 months ago
"I won't bother to provide evidence because you don't believe me without evidence"
How do you twist yourself up in knots to not even get in the general vicinity of an evidence-based position and not wonder "damn, do I really not know shit about the stuff I'm so loud about "?
Who gives a shit about purity tests? Y'all are literally all over the thread going "oh but is it perfect? Thought so, tankies".
Also I swear the amount of small business owners I know in Singapore who agree they live there for a better life is wild if you know anything about the authoritarian lean of Singapore.
Maybe because what business owners consider "less authoritarian" is being better able to exploit your workers? I don't know how many different ways one can explain this to you
This is the Tim Robinson skit about the hotdog man except it's a guy riding in on the most liberal comments
So you admit it is capitalist?
Are you twelve? Jfc.
It's obvious you're skimming a comment for gotchas, so I find it just as likely you've skimmed excerpts of Marx rather than take on the rather arduous task of reading and understanding him, let alone fucking applying any of it
Infantile disorder moment.
I swear to god ultras are more interested in the sort of masturbatory philosophising of categories than it actually producing any useful insights. It's the most anti Marxist thing to insist that a thing has to be only a singular thing with a concrete and rigid definition, it's like Marx didn't bludgeon you with dialectical materialism hard enough on practically every work of his. He spends decades insisting on the dialectical process and the necessary work to resolve contradiction through material means, which is an integral part of development, only for y'all to go "but this is vaguely like thing, how can it be other thing?"
Man said communism and the abolishment of the commodity form, of private property, the development of the productive forces, couldn't be achieved overnight, and every ultra went "but it's already been overnight, so now it can be, right?"
China has all the elements of a capitalist mode of production
It does when you ignore all the material differences. A state where the biggest capital holders are regularly punished if they break the law or step out of line politically is not a state where capital has final say.
There's been no counter revolution in China, the organs of proletarian power remain in place even as reforms have been undertaken in every facet of life in China. It is the utmost chauvinism to pretend to know better than the biggest communist party in the world where even local officials are required to study Marxism diligently. Being really confident and having misunderstood Das Kapital to be a prescriptivist economical taxonomy doesn't make you an authority on Marxism. Applying that shit is what does.
Leftcoms favorite pastime, reductionism so severe you can split the atom with it
Surely we are not expected to blindly trust this claim
Why not? They did when the CIA told it [to the journalists that repeated it] to them.
Putting the agitation in agitprop
I'm arguing against people saying that china isn't perfect ant isn't communist because it has billionaires, by pointing out the class character of the state and the political apparatus that regularly clamps down on the capitalists (unlike any capitalist state).
I'm also arguing against libs saying big gubmint bad bc it's too communist. China is a socialist country, I never claimed it's a perfect utopia, you just don't have any angle of attack with facts so you have to put up a fictional one you can throw your "nuanced" platitudes at.