229
submitted 1 day ago by Rindogang@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml

The people before us weren't perfect. Their mistakes are blueprints to learn from and build a better world

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PlanchetteGhost@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I do think China has done some good, but it also doesn't cancel out the sketchiness. I do agree that we could learn from China, but there's also a damn good reason why their phones are banned in multiple countries. There's also a good reason why people are urging people to stop buying from fast fashion websites, which are mostly Chinese.

Please do explain to me how selling carcinogenic products worldwide (from sketchy AF factories) isn't capitalist. Explain it like I'm 5 years old, I do insist. With the way the world is going, I'm even going to use GrapheneOS for extra privacy.

Considering that China is known for its heavy censorship and is in good cahoots with Russia, it isn't racist to be suspicious. I'd be just as suspicious of a person from the USA defending Israel, so it's not like I'm not like I'm going after race. Not to mention, at least 250 people died during the Tianamen square incident. Some even estimate that thousands died, but it was at least 250 people.

I quite literally do not celebrate Canada day because it's built on top of the blood of colonialism. I am also largely not a fan of Christians and have very little patience for a lot of them.

Plus, China has billionaires. Any truly non-capitalistic country wouldn't have billionaires. Nor would they have factory workers working for 75 hours per week.

I'm not referring to any books when talking about the Gulag survivors, for the record.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 12 points 23 hours ago

I do agree that we could learn from China, but there's also a damn good reason why their phones are banned in multiple countries.

Yes, because the US started a trade war with them because they can't compete (in EVs also), and a few of their vassal states followed suit.

Considering that China is known for its heavy censorship and is in good cahoots with Russia

Sources on this? The PRC only blocks western surveillance platforms because they're incredibly dangerous to let them loose in your country. They're one of the few countries not naive enough to let facebook and google take over their social media landscape.

https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/socialism_faq.md#what-about-the-tiananmen-square-massacre

[-] Edie@lemmy.ml 1 points 23 hours ago

Come on, you can't (I presume) ban someone and then ask them for sources.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 11 points 23 hours ago

I banned after this, reading further down and seeing them get more and more virulently racist.

[-] folaht@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Plus, China has billionaires. Any truly non-capitalistic country wouldn’t have ~~ billionaires~~ oligarchs. Nor would they have factory workers working for 75 hours per week.

I would define a transition from capitalism to socialism as
Merchants & lawyers out of power
and engineers (laborers) & academics into power,
which is what China has.
The US isn't failing true capitalism while still secretly being feudalistic,
just because land lords and TV evangelists exist,
while George Bush Jr, eldest son of George Bush Senior, became leader of the land in 2000.
China just had a capitalistic phase due to Deng's reforms,
just like the US had a socialist phase due to Roosevelt's reforms.
Both of those did not last, because ultimately those in power are
socialist for China (engineers & academics)
and capitalist for the US (merchants & lawyers).
The capitalist phase is already waning under Xi,
just like the socialist phase did under Nixon did for the US.

Considering that China is known for its heavy censorship and is in good cahoots with Russia, it isn’t racist to be suspicious.

Lol. Do you really use such language with your own nation?
If not, you are selective and that begs the question as to why
and what pattern would emerge out of what you are selective to.
I highly doubt you ever said something along the lines of
"The EU/UK is in good cahoots with the US",
despite the fact that EU NATO chief Rutte openly called Trump "daddy".
I don't see Putin doing that with Xi. Putin is not even running
a socialist country.
And Putin talks about a multipolar world in which Russia is one of those poles.

[-] PlanchetteGhost@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

To be honest, I am growing quite tired of the USA. I do not like the USA or what it stands for; Donald Trump is merely proof of what I've been saying about the country all along. I do think that countries that are buddy-buddy with the USA are frustrating as hell. As a Canadian, I've been done with their BS for so long that it's not even funny.

I actually criticise the country so much that I can genuinely say I'm a certified hater. Plus, I also believe that patriotism for being Canadian or American is celebration of colonialism; we should deconstruct these countries instead of maintaining status quo. People got genocided just so cranky old white people can cry about immigrants from India and eat hotdogs and burgers on Canada day.

[-] calmblue75@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Criticizing USA doesn't grant you a license to be racist. Also, feeling patriotic towards your own country isn't wrong.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

the easiest first step in ensuring that the usa and it's ilk change their tune is to stop repeating the propaganda the usa already admitted to manufacturing thanks to the freedom of information act.

i'm referring to stuff like this:

I do think China has done some good, but it also doesn’t cancel out the sketchiness. I do agree that we could learn from China, but there’s also a damn good reason why their phones are banned in multiple countries.

Not to mention, at least 250 people died during the Tianamen square incident. Some even estimate that thousands died, but it was at least 250 people.

Plus, China has billionaires. Any truly non-capitalistic country wouldn’t have billionaires. Nor would they have factory workers working for 75 hours per week.

if you're to repeat their propaganda, you should atleast be getting paid for it.

[-] PlanchetteGhost@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

My honest stance is that Russia and the US are just as bad as one another. Anyone who defends either of these two countries is suspect to me. I do think the fact that other Eastern European countries flinch at Russia is highly indicative that something clearly went wrong in the Soviet Union. However, I dislike that the CIA got involved in the dissolution of the USSR.

Being constantly spied on is one of my biggest fears, so I'm obviously making moves to slowly degoogle my life. My next step is buying a Google Pixel, which sounds insane until you realise that you can install GrapheneOS on it (the most private operating system for phones). Thankfully, Motorola is soon teaming up with GrapheneOS and GOS is maintaining its position as a non-profit organisation. This pairing is simply meant to ensure that the OS is available on more than just Google phones.

I even plan to get rid of Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit. I already got rid of Twitter and TikTok and am switching over to Bluesky, Mastodon, Lemmy, Matrix.org, Pixelfed, and Loops (by Pixelfed). I also prefer Linux over anything mainstream like Windows or MacOS. Because I won't be able to afford a Pixel for a few months, I'm slowly getting prepared by downloading APK downloaders. Stock Android is getting locked down and I'm preparing for it.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

*i'm going to be doing graphene too and i'm waiting for motorola.

My honest stance is that Russia and the US are just as bad as one another. Anyone who defends either of these two countries is suspect to me. I do think the fact that other Eastern European countries flinch at Russia is highly indicative that something clearly went wrong in the Soviet Union. However, I dislike that the CIA got involved in the dissolution of the USSR.

this "both sides" argument is indicative of the extent to which western propaganda has impacted your thought process.

the FOIA litmus test will easily tell you whether or not your source is biased. since the late 1970's the FOIA has effectively been forcing the us gov't to publicly admit that it manufactured propaganda about many things including north korea as an "authoritarian" state.

if your source still characterizes north korea as an authoritarian state; then know that they're giving you propaganda that the us gov't has already effectively said is fake -- in writing -- since 1979.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

Given that you think the US and Canada are only as bad as Russia, you're certainly no hater of them; if anything, you have a rosey picture of them. Further supported by the fact you think 250 people dying in clashes 40 years ago even registered in comparison to the millions killed by the West since.

[-] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago

I wrote a more direct reply to this, but I have come to realise that in this situation it would most likely be unproductive. You appear to be a very new leftist of some description: you seem to like the idea of socialism or communism, but you do not yet seem to have a firm grasp of what they actually entail. So instead of arguing point by point, I am going to explain what socialism is, why China has been socialist since 1949, and then add some book and article recommendations so you can begin studying the question more seriously on your own.

To start, we have to define a term that is commonly used but rarely properly understood: the state. Many people use “the state” and “the government” interchangeably, but this is not accurate. The state is specifically the organised force by which class antagonisms are mediated through the rule of one class over others. The government, on the other hand, broadly refers to the administration, coordination, planning, record-keeping, infrastructure management, public decision-making, and the organisation of social production required by advanced societies. This distinction will be important later.

Next, it is important to define socialism. Socialism is the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. It still contains many contradictions inherited from capitalism: classes, class struggle, uneven development, commodity production, wages, bureaucracy, ideological struggle, and often limited market mechanisms. Socialism is not “when everything is already communist.” It is the period in which the proletariat holds political power and uses that power to transform society, develop the productive forces, suppress reaction, and gradually overcome the material basis of class society.

This stands in contrast to communism, where class society has been abolished as a meaningful social reality. Communism is classless because there are no longer opposed classes standing in antagonistic relation to one another (as only a single class, the proletariat, remain after the other classes have been proletarianised during the socialist period). It is stateless because, once class antagonisms have disappeared, the state as an instrument of class rule no longer has a function and withers away. This of course does not mean that organisation, administration, planning, or collective decision-making (the government) disappear. It means that the coercive state as an instrument of class domination disappears.

At this point you might ask: if contradictions remain under socialism, how is it different from capitalism? That is a reasonable question. The answer rests on one primary and one secondary characteristic.

The primary question is: which class commands the state? Under socialism, the proletariat commands the state through the people’s democratic dictatorship, also called the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie commands the state, which communists refer to as the dictatorship of capital (even if they have a liberal democratic cascade).

The secondary question is: which mode of ownership holds primacy, public ownership or private ownership? This is secondary because public ownership under the dictatorship of capital functions as state capitalism, while public ownership under the dictatorship of the proletariat is part of socialist construction. Ownership forms matter, but they cannot be separated from the class character of political power.

Now, with this groundwork laid, we can finally look properly at the Chinese situation.

China has been socialist since October 1, 1949, because the old landlord-bureaucrat-comprador state was destroyed and replaced by a people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class through the Communist Party. The Communist Party of China has more than 100 million members as of the end of 2024 (slightly over 1/14 people). The commanding heights of the economy were brought under public ownership and workers state direction. The new state was built to suppress reaction, defend sovereignty, develop the productive forces, and transform society.

In China, the bourgeoisie still exists, but it does not rule as a class. Capitalists can own firms in non-commanding sectors, make profits, and accumulate wealth within limits, because developing the productive forces still serves necessary social goals at China’s current stage of development. But they do not command the state, the army, the land system, the central banking system, or the strategic direction of the economy. They do not stand above the people or above the people's organised political instrument, the Communist Party, as a sovereign power.

When capital conflicts with the long-term interests of socialist construction, it is disciplined, subordinated, investigated, broken up, fined, or otherwise brought to heel. Jack Ma and Ant Group is a useful example: its $37 billion IPO was suspended in 2020 and Jack Ma was made step away from public life as he attempted to put his profit before the benefits of the people by pushing for loosening banking regulations so he could provide micro loans. Foreign capitalists spent years crying about this as it showed the truth capital holds no power in China.

To put it briefly: China is socialist because the proletarian-led state holds political power, commands the strategic economy, subordinates capital to national and social development, suppresses reactionary threats, and continues the long transition out of capitalism under conditions of imperialist encirclement, uneven development, and a still-existing world capitalist system.

It would also be remiss not to mention that much of what you “know” about China has been manufactured through a mix of exaggeration, selective framing, omission, and outright lies. For example, you have likely heard about “996” as if it represents Chinese labour law or the normal working life of the whole country. In reality, 996 was an issue in ~40 of the large tech firms around the 2019 tech boom and was quickly ruled illegal which it now has been for half a decade.

For a proper explanation on how this kind of ideological manufacture happens, I would recommend reading Michael Parenti’s Inventing Reality.

Further reading recommendations:

I have to a plug @Cowbee@lemmy.ml and their beginner reading list

But for my recommendations more directly related to the topic at hand I would recommend:

  • Engels: The Principles of Communism
  • Marx and Engels: The Communist Manifesto
  • Engels: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
  • Marx: Wage Labour and Capital
  • Marx: Value, Price and Profit
  • Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme
  • Lenin: The State and Revolution
  • Lenin: The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
  • Lenin: Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder
  • Lenin: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
  • Stalin: Foundations of Leninism
  • Stalin: Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR
  • Mao Zedong: On Practice
  • Mao Zedong: On Contradiction
  • Mao Zedong: On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People
  • Mao Zedong: On New Democracy
  • Mao Zedong: Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan
  • Mao Zedong: On Protracted War
  • Deng Xiaoping: Build Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
  • Deng Xiaoping: We Must Follow Our Own Road in Economic Development
  • Xi Jinping: Uphold and Develop Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
  • Xi Jinping: The Governance of China
  • Roland Boer: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
  • Rong Zhaozi: Productivity, Public Capital, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
  • Carlos Martinez: The East Is Still Red: Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century
  • Roderic Day: China Has Billionaires
  • Michael Parenti: Blackshirts and Reds
  • Michael Parenti: Inventing Reality
  • Walter Rodney: How Europe Underdeveloped Africa
  • Kwame Nkrumah: Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism
  • Vijay Prashad: Washington Bullets
  • J. Sakai: Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat

I understand having such a long list dumped on you is likely off-putting however that's the unfortunate truth of being a real socialist/communist, constant reading, education and investigation is a must. If you have any specific questions on any of them I can try help you if need be.

[-] mathemachristian@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago

Excellent write-up I'd like to point to one thing though

China has been socialist since October 1, 1949, because the old landlord-bureaucrat-comprador state was destroyed and replaced by a people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class through the Communist Party.

This doesn't mean anything to a westerner. What westerners hear is "The communist party officials presume/claim to speak in the interest of the working class with no direct input from them". Since this is what almost every party in the west has done since parliaments became a thing. The ones that didn't aren't included in textbooks. And since you're speaking positively of such a party you must be "shilling" for them. I know adding the "how" of how workers shape and influence the state would make your comment even longer, but as it is to most it's just an unbelievable, meaningless phrase.

[-] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago

Yeah I 100% agree but also felt that it was long enough that it was 50/50 they'd actually read past the first few lines anyway so I could clarify in any follow-ups if they did and if they didn't then it was fine as is anyway.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

In china, the state controls capital. In America, capital controls the state

[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 8 points 1 day ago

It really is that simple. A market does not make capitalism ffs

this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
229 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

55835 readers
476 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS