1504
Listen here, kulak...
(i.ibb.co)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
1504 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45581 readers
1438 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
Big difference between communism and socialism.
That's correct, but I'm not sure what you understand those terms to mean, because neither really supports taking all ownership away from people. I'm just gonna leave this blorb here, because I feel like this is where it fits best.
Communism in the style of Marx and Engels means that the workers own the means of production. They would have been completely in favor of a person owning their own farm (or jointly owning it if multiple people worked it). They didn't really envision much of a state to interfere, much less own property.
That the Soviet Union (and later the PRC, fuck them btw) claimed to be building the worker's paradise under communism was mostly propaganda after Lenin died. There hasn't been any state that has implemented actual communism as established by theory.
Socialism (as I understand it, but I'm not well-read on it) means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules, with bans of exploitative practices. There are some countries trying to implement a light version of this across Europe, to varying success (mostly failing where capitalism is left unchecked).
The issue is that the US started propagandizing like mad during the cold war, and "communism" was just catchier to say than "supportive of a country that is really just a state-owned monopoly". Soon everything that was critical of capitalism also became "communism", which eventually turned into a label for everything McCarthy labelled "un-american". This is also the time they started equating the terms communism and socialism. A significant portion of the US population hasn't moved past that yet, because it fits well into the propaganda of the US being the best country in the world, the American Dream, all that bs. The boogeyman of "the state will take away the stuff you own" turned out pretty effective in a very materialistic society. Although I'm very glad to see more and more USAians get properly educated on the matter and standing up for their rights rather than letting themselves be exploited.
Your definition of socialism is more akin to a definition of social democracy, which is... maybe a form of socialism, depending on who you ask -- it is historically contentious and generally accepted that social democrats aren't socialists.
Socialism can have all of the things that you described, but it is decidedly anti-capitalist. It reorients how workers relate to the means of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are owned by the bourgeois class, while under socialism, they are collectively owned by the workers.
It's not really a very impressive feat to know literally the most basic fact about communism.
Fuck the PRC because... They have state-owned enterprise instead of actual communism? Interesting take.
That's meaningless if they aren't democratic
Ah yes, because American democracy is going so well.
Who's interests are the Republicans representing? Who's interests have the Democrats protected after being in power for 3 years?
Democracy is meaningless if it doesn't actually act to benefit the people. After all, the goal of government is to improve the lives of the people over which it governs. All of these experiments into different methods of governance should be evaluated based on how much the quality of lives of the population have improved and how happy the population is with their government.
Yes yes we know America is bad too, now do you have an actual point to make?
So... no, you don't have an actual point to make.
It's not about brains, it's about the flow of conversation. Everytime someone calls out China on anything there's always a bunch of people that immediately say "Ah yes because the US--" No one is talking about the US. No one is saying it's any better. It being a shithole too doesn't magically make China not one. If that is the only thing you have to say then you don't actually have an argument, just the vibe that it's le based epic AES wholesome chungus country and if they do anything wrong it must be propaganda or not actually done by them.
Neither me not the person you were responding to said this. They criticised China on something - you made up the "hence the US is good/only thing that works" line. You just assumed if anyone thinks anything slightly remotely bad about China it's because they're an evil idiot liberul!!!. It really is just a reflex for you people no?
No it's not. Much like you aren't a CPC shill/russian bot/whatever, no one commenting on a lemmy post is a psyop agent with a secret agenda to manipulate everyone. Those guys have the entire media, they don't need to hire people to pretend to be redditors. Just because you believe it really really hardly doesn't make it true.
You can find a bad example for any form of government. By any reasonable metric of success, the US government is performing poorly compared to non-democratic countries... Even in terms of freedom of speech, given the prevalence of government and intelligence-funded "independent think tanks" that influence policy in Washington.
At least most people in Russia and China can distinguish between the truth and the party line.
This not an argument. You can't respond to "X is doing something wrong" with "OH AS IF Y IS ANY BETTER" when literally no one was talking about Y. You're just trying to derail the conversation. If you're going to defend China stick to your guts and defend China, don't attack completely unrelated countries implying I must think they're any better, they're not.
I am sure that most people in the country with the largest censorship firewall in existence know the truth any better. And before you say B-B-B-BUT AMERICA--- Yeah they censor shit too. I hate both of them.
The post I was replying to said:
I get what you mean, but the other guy brought up democracy as if it was the be-all end-all solution. Countries that disprove OP's point about democracy being the solution are fair game.
Chinese people know they're being censored, though. That's the key difference. They know that the perspectives being presented are, by and large, coherent with national policy and most urban people either know how to flip the firewall or know someone who can - it's really not that hard. Sure, there is this nationalist block that doesn't want to do so, but when have right-wing people actually looked at content that doesn't agree with them, anyway?
Ask any random American what they think, and they'll go on and on about freedom of speech and blah blah blah... As if the large media organizations in the US don't all cite reports from "independent think tanks" that are conspicuously all funded by the same billionaires and manned by "ex"-US intelligence. See: the Atlantic Council. The US has been the world leader in manufacturing consent in a way that China and Russia can't really match. It's been impressive to see tbh.
Yes. No democracy, no support from me. "But the US isn't democratic!" Which is why I don't support it either. Not sure if the other guy is the same.
No country disproves that democracy is needed. "Benevolent dictators" (all dictators think they're benevolent) die. If you think a dictatorship is doing well just give it a few years.
"Yes they censor everything, but it's easy to circumvent!" is not an excuse. How accurate is this really though? Do you have any sources to prove this is the case? Genuinely interested.
Chinese news cite chinese think tanks, both entities funded by the chinese government. How is it any different? Doesn't China have more billionaires than the US too?
China doesn't pretend that their media is unbiased, though. There's no aura of unbiased media in China. Meanwhile, Facebook's head of global threat intelligence, is literally a US intelligence plant (and most of the authors on his Meta adversarial threat reports are ex- or current US intelligence). Meta is just the most memorable example, which is why I'm picking on them. Given the algorithmic nature of news delivery nowadays, how much influence would you guess US intelligence has on what news people see?
Xiao Qiang at UC Berkeley did a study before the VPN crackdown and estimated that there are about 10 million DAUs (daily active users) of firewall-flipping VPNs in the country. DAU/MAU is usually between 20%-50%, so that gives 20-50 million people with VPN access monthly (2-5% of internet users). Last October, China clamped down on some VPNs, but then the user counts for those VPNs that were still working skyrocketed.
Anyway, these numbers are actually really quite high:
Bing has 100 million DAUs worldwide. Reddit has about 55 million DAUs worldwide. LinkedIn has about 22 million DAUs in the US. Twitter has about 54 million MAUs in the US. Threads has about 8 million DAUs worldwide (though probably less now, lol). 1-5% penetration of total users in terms of usage is indicative of very high awareness. Other options include using a HK SIM (widely available) and a VPS (harder to setup). I have no idea what kind of market penetration these methods have.
What they "pretend" to be doesn't matter, what matters is the thoughts they want to put on the people who read it, why they want to, and how many of them do read it. Any and all state media or state collaborative media tries to paint the state it comes from in a good light. This is not somehow more benevolent or less manipulative when it's done by China, even if "it's easy to circumvent" or "people know it's biased".
I wonder if WeChat and TikTok are any different, too.
So basically, it's easy to do, but illegal, but it's rarely persecuted? That's a really weird policy.
It's not even illegal to cirumvent the Firewall... It's literally a glorified recommendation feed. It's technically illegal to use a VPN to circumvent the Firewall, but in practice this law is only ever used against the VPN vendor (and even then, it almost never is). Accessing and producing illegal content (e.g. CP) is, obviously, still illegal. Using a HK SIM in China is, obviously, still legal.
My claim is that the Chinese propaganda dissemination system is less developed and less competent than the American one, in large part BECAUSE of China's blatant censorship rather than in spite of it. Whereas the American system operates in this illusion of freedom of speech, China makes no such indication. People know that media in China will, by and large, follow government policy. As a result, manufacturing consent is very challenging because people are inherently more skeptical of "news" they read. As a result, there's a strong understanding around the fluidity of "fact" in modern Chinese culture.
Non-Chinese perspectives are easily accessible across the firewall as well as through travel to Hong Kong/Taiwan (which is both very cheap and very accessible for those in tier 1/2 cities).
Unlike Putin with Ukraine, Bush with Iraq, Bush with Afghanistan, or Clinton with Yugoslavia, Xi Jinping has struggled to get any sort of significant traction for an invasion of Taiwan. Public support for it is estimated at around 25% after adjusting for polling bias, with support for an invasion without first pursuing economic normalization or other solutions dropping to as low as 1%. This is despite Xi Jinping posturing on the issue for years. It's a startlingly failure of what many claim to be one of the most restrictive Internet systems in the world. In contrast, the Iraq War was started when public perception was polling at 60% happy for an invasion in the next week or so (54% if the UN didn't allow it).
I believe that this failure is in large part because Chinese propaganda is too blatant. Whereas the US has teams like the 4th PsyOps Airborne and "NGOs" like Atlantic Council, Chinese propaganda comes from the government or from people who are knowingly parroting government policy. While that's pretty good at getting broad public perception to align, it fails at driving any decisive action because it provides neither the illusion of choice nor the radicalization necessary for decisive policy to pass.
They literally have above 90 percent approval according to international studies from people as conservative as fucking Harvard University.
You're wrong about their institutions but regardless of what you think of their institutions they have a popular mandate, which is how democracies define themselves as legitimate.
What you're describing is "social democracy" — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. "Socialism" explicitly implies worker control of production. "Nordic socialism" could more accurately be called "Nordic social democracy."
"Communism" refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need, no one is exploited or coerced, and there are no wars. It's an aspirational vision for the future, not something you can do right after a revolution when capitalism still rules the world.