So you support the shelling of the Donbas and repression of minorities? Certainly a take. The people of the Donbas don’t want the Donbas to be part of Ukraine since the banderite government began their repression campaign around 2014. They asked Russia for help as the majority of the Donbas is ethnic Russians.

They can move if they want, but the ground belongs to the majority

You’re also pro ethnic cleansing wow.

Edit:

All of this is irrelevant to my original point anyway. Which is that no matter how you personally feel about Russia, the war, etc. etc. etc. the people of the Donbas likely see the war as liberatory for them.

Russia is only asking for the Donbas you know that right? They aren’t trying to take all of Ukraine. The people of the Donbas clearly would prefer to be part of Russia or independent given they fought for a decade about it. Why should banderites in Kyiv and the West of Ukraine get to decide for the Donbas?

The people of the Donbas who have been getting shelled by the banderites since 2014 would probably disagree with you.

Yes, people discuss government policy in public and offline all the time. It’s a very normal topic of conversation. In practice, serious political discussion tends to happen face-to-face because that’s simply a better format for nuanced debate, but there is also plenty of discussion online. What generally gets censored online are calls for overthrowing the state, organizing mass unrest, or similar things. Many countries draw similar lines around incitement or destabilization.

Protests and strikes do occur, but they are usually local and issue-specific rather than ideological movements aimed at regime change. Labor disputes, land disputes, corruption complaints, etc. happen all the time and are often resolved through administrative or legal channels. The political culture tends to focus more on petitioning, negotiation, and internal pressure than on permanent protest movements.

On “independent” media: Independent from whom? In Western countries most major media outlets are owned by a very small number of large corporations or billionaires. Those owners influence what gets covered, what narratives dominate, and what perspectives are marginalized. Calling that system “independent” while ignoring ownership power is a very selective definition of independence.

The firewall was originally created to foster and protect China’s fledgling digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. That was a legitimate policy choice. Many countries regulate foreign platforms and data flows. China built its own ecosystem instead of depending on foreign companies. We have seen what happens when foreign platforms operate without local oversight: Facebook facilitating genocide in Myanmar, coordinated anti-vax disinformation campaigns in Southeast Asia, algorithm-driven radicalization. The firewall makes those kinds of external influence operations harder to run at scale.

I like many others here support the firewall even though it can be inconvenient (so long as vpns remain accessible and legal). I have seen the alternatives. The trade off makes sense to us.

I think you don’t have a solid grasp of what the abuses really were and what actually happened in Xinjiang.

forced assimilation

Uyghur is used in schools, all signage is in both Uyghur and and Mandarin, Uyghur is still widely spoken and cultural practices continue.

reeducation camps

If it happened in a white country you’d call it reformative justice. When you get sent to prison being taught vocational skills so that you can reintegrate into society once you finish your sentence is how it’s supposed to work.

forced labor

Do you have a source for this. Xinjiang cotton farming for instance is some of the most automated on earth.

forced sterilization

This comes from Adrian Zenz (German evangelical on a self proclaimed mission from god to punish China (some of my favourite quotes from him

Through notions of gender equality…the enemy is undermining God’s unique but different role assignments for men and women”

… anti-discrimination laws put in place throughout the European Union … forbid employers to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. That way, it becomes illegal for churches or Christian organizations to refuse to hire homosexuals into important positions

) (whole other rabbit hole)) misinterpreting a table that said Xinjiang made up 8.7% of new IUD insertions as 80%. As well as the fact that the population growth rate fell by 84% but that’s normal as developing areas develop throughout history. Also why bother exclude Uyghurs like the rest of us minorities from the one child policy if they were going to do this? It just doesn’t make sense.

What happened in Xinjiang is categorically not a genocide. Both the UN and OIC agree on that. The actual abuses were much closer to what the US does to its people of colour, racial profiling, dragnet policing etc. still terrible and inexcusable but calling it genocide simply diluted the word and throws mud on the real grievances.

Being accurate on reality shouldn’t get you labelled a tankie if it actually fits the meaning you prescribed it. Like I’ve been saying tankie is a pejorative used to apply a moral label to those who don’t tow the anti-communist line properly.

the majority of people who use the word know that it’s a pejorative for exclusively authoritarian communists

Yes in theory, but unless you are a diviner or mind reader identifying who is and isn’t especially is short online debate is far from a science.

For example if you point out there is no Uyghur genocide even if you perform the 1000 prostrations, and explain the reality of the abuses how it was still terrible and inexcusable it doesn’t matter what your wider beliefs are you will be called a tankie.

Which is exactly my point it is at its core a pejorative specifically to put down those who do not tow the anti-communist line just right by equating them with the straw man of some hyper evil pro genocide caricature.

Ok so everything else I said stands just put pejorative in place for slur.

slur /slûr/

transitive verb

Synonym of Pejorative

To talk about disparagingly or insultingly. adjective

Disparaging; belittling.

Implying or imputing evil; depreciatory; disparaging; unfavorable.

It’s a slur, or a pejorative, whichever you prefer to use. You should learn what words mean. English isn’t even my first or second language yet I managed to do it before speaking on it.

Wow why do you feel the need to be so aggressive. I’m simply pointing out that no matter what Google tells you in reality it’s simply used as a slur leftists who don’t tow the anti-communist line right. If you don’t tow the anti-communist line just right it doesn’t matter what you are you will be called a tankie.

I’ve seen anarchists like Diva get called tankies for not towing the anti-communist line hard enough though, so it seems you’ve been misinformed.

You shouldn’t use slurs.

Also it’s not even handed when you say “China is good but…” and then a bunch of lies. Their are things wrong in China but you managed to mention none of them.

They seem like the kind of person who thinks the cultural revolution was completely lead by Chairman Mao and not mostly the chaos of warring factions when all power was given to the people with no oversight or discipline.

In short China is what it has always been a land empire in east Asia who forces homogenity in their culture and doesn’t like dissent, but promotes education for at least the ruling class and usually becomes too top heavy and collapses in on itself into civil war that kills millions.

Holy Orientalism.

You are a racist.

I hope you get a chance to look in the mirror and better yourself.

Much like the old soviet joke:

A Soviet and an American get on a plane and get to talking. The Soviet says he works for the KGB and he’s on his way to go learn American propaganda techniques.

“What American propaganda techniques?” asks the American.

“Exactly,” the Soviet replies.

Thank you. I might at some point but for now I’m happy simply posting comments on anything interesting I come across.

Had a quick look at your profile. With very few exceptions, (all of which I saw were pretty much about calling America bad (which is fair, fuck America)) every single one of your ~340 comments averaging about 10 comments a day every day for the past month, have been about defending China.

Not true I discuss communist theory among other topics.

Also

Your account is almost strictly dedicated to Chinese propaganda. Whether that propaganda is true or not is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, you’re spending hours every day to push an agenda. You’re a government boot locker honestly.

Again not true. I use this account to practice my English while discussing something I had enough interest in to get a masters degree in (Marxist theory). China makes up a large portion as being the largest and most successful socialist state to date it is a major topic of discussion. Did you think this reply through at all? Bootlicking is when you have a nuanced take on a government. You are a brain poisoned by your dogshit government that sees you as less than dogshit.

I never said a Chinese (or otherwise) person can’t defend their government without being paid or brainwashed. So far I’ve not actually said a negative thing about China, nor do I plan to.

So when you said “Which reeks of people paid to post biased propaganda” you weren’t implying the people replying to you with analysis and nuance were paid?

What I have said is the amount of people who with such vehemence, eloquence and verbosity who come out to defend China every single time about every single thing, is in fact suspicious.

Communists posting essays is literally a meme even in the west. To be a communist requires study of dense theory is it really that surprising communists are elequent and can get verbose when it comes to debating a topic they have studied far more than you clearly have?

Sticking around on a thread for hours refreshing it so you can argue about China is a bit stakeout-ish. But you do you.

my entire home feed is is set to comments then sorted by new.

You should stop getting pissy and try actually engage with the content of what the communists and Chinese people who are correcting you when you “criticise” China are saying. No one says China is perfect but all the criticisms need to be taken in the context of the material conditions and the both the good and the bad for them to be worth anything more than a toddlers tantrum.

Sort feed by new comments. See comment. Reply. That is how forums work. An hour is not a stakeout.

Your real argument at its core is that no Chinese(or otherwise) person could genuinely support the Chinese government unless they are paid or brainwashed. That is chauvinism. You dismiss my lived experience, my family’s gains, and the material progress hundreds of millions have seen because it does not fit your Western notions of “how it should be”.

It is the same logic as the person earlier today in this very thread who told me mainlanders only support the government because we “do not know any better.” Different person, same paternalism. Any Chinese(or otherwise) person who offers a nuanced, factual critique that weighs both gains and flaws must be compromised. Any mass consensus in China must be manufactured. The only valid analysis, in your view, is the one that confirms Western superiority.

I am not paid. I am not brainwashed. I am someone who applies materialist analysis and sees what China has actually delivered for its people. If that threatens your worldview, that is your problem. Not mine.

Everyone and their dog just seem to be waiting for the chance to write their dissertation on the benevolence of China, and yet rarely do I see the same in defence of western countries.

Have you considered that what looks like “dissertations” might just be people applying materialist analysis, seeking truth from facts against the propaganda wave?

That China, flaws and contradictions included, has still secured historical wins for the proletariat of the periphery (especially in China), while the Western imperial bloc runs and has been running the world’s largest and most advanced exploitation and immiseration machine in human history on throughout the periphery?

So of course dissecting China takes nuance to weigh the real gains against the flaws and discern the truth from the wave of lies?

When you do a material analysis of the West and what’s left to weigh? Just capitalist plunder, imperialist immiseration, and fascism.

Have you considered a lot of your criticism are not accepted or have paragraphs of denials analysis because a lot of your criticism stem from a faulty base understanding and/or analysis (such as overstating the scale/scope of the issue if it exists or hammering on criticisms that aren’t real like the “genocide”)?

Just an example of what I’m talking about: The hukou system in the modern day is deeply flawed and there are many criticisms to be made of it such as it leading to wage disparity etc. However if I were to then say that the hukou system never made any sense, was senseless cruelty or some other such nonsense jumped off from it that would necessitate a few paragraphs of explanation and rebuttal to reach the truth of the matter. Which is that the system in the modern day is outdated and harmful but was a necessary policy to avoid massive slums forming and despite it’s harms does have some positive aspects such as the guaranteed land and homesteading rights should one end up homeless.

It’s important that criticism be principled and precise for it to have any meaning. I’d be very interested to hear some of your criticisms that were faced with paragraphs of “denials”.

This new article is again garbage. It repeats the same fundamental errors as the last one: it abandons dialectical and historical materialism for mechanical economism and abstract moralism. To break with the method of scientific socialism is to break with socialism itself. Pröbsting reduces the question of China’s class character to a tally of billionaires and Fortune 500 rankings, which is bourgeois sociology dressed in Marxist phraseology. As I established in the previous reply, imperialism is defined by the qualitative enforcement of unequal exchange and the extraction of super profits from the periphery to the core, not by counting rich people. Pröbsting ignores this entirely, substituting a schematic checklist for the concrete analysis of concrete conditions that is again the living soul of Marxism.

The claim that China restored capitalism in the 1990s rests on a vulgar understanding of the socialist transitionary period. Yes, China retains contradictions. Yes, market mechanisms operate. Yes, inequality has grown. But none of this proves capitalist restoration when analyzed dialectically. The commanding heights remain under public ownership, the Communist Party retains the leading role, and development is subordinated to long-term social stability rather than short-term monopoly profit maximization (mass poverty alleviation, massive public infrastructure investment etc. all non monetarily profitable) . This is not “socialism in textbooks only” as Pröbsting sneers. It is actually existing socialism navigating the contradictions of hostile imperialist encirclement. To declare that any use of market tools equals capitalist restoration is to abandon historical materialism for a purist idealism that has never existed nor will ever exist in any successful revolution.

Pröbsting’s characterization of China as imperialist repeats the same false equivalence I dismantled in the previous reply. He points to Chinese FDI in the Global South and declares this proof of imperialist extraction, ignoring the qualitative difference between infrastructure investment that builds productive capacity and the predatory loan conditions, structural adjustment programs, and military coercion that define Euro-Amerikan imperialism. As noted before, China’s engagements operate within a framework of non-interference and sovereign partnership that, however imperfect, creates space for development outside Western conditionality. To conflate these distinct modalities is to abandon the dialectical method.

The article’s reliance on tables of billionaire counts as “proof” of imperialism is the same economistic error I identified in the RCIT piece. Modern imperialism is defined through the fusion of bank and industrial capital, the export of capital superseding commodity export, and the territorial division of the world among monopoly alliances. Applying this today requires examining how value actually flows through the global circuit of capital. Pröbsting’s tables prove that China has wealthy individuals and large corporations. They do not prove that China extracts super profits from the Global South through unequal exchange. In fact, numerous studies show that terms of trade between China and African nations have improved relative to the pre-2000 period, and that Chinese investment has contributed to industrialization in ways Western capital systematically avoided. This is not apology. It is insistence that historical materialism analyzes concrete social formations, not abstract labels.

The political conclusion Pröbsting draws, that socialists must “oppose all equally,” is the same abstract internationalism I criticized before. Detached from dialectical analysis, this slogan collapses into centrism that objectively upholds the hegemony it claims to reject. As I argued in the previous reply, to declare neutrality between an empire with eight hundred overseas bases and states that merely seek to weaken that empire’s stranglehold is not principled internationalism. It is a refusal to analyze the concrete balance of forces, and in practice it aids the stronger power. Lenin criticized this centrism as the highest form of opportunism because it cloaks passivity in revolutionary phraseology.

Underlying all these errors is the Trotskyist method I identified in the previous reply: a sectarian refusal to engage with actually existing struggles in favor of a pure, abstract schema. Pröbsting demands that anti-imperialist movements be led by perfectly conscious proletarian forces before they deserve support, which isolates revolutionaries from the masses they seek to lead. This is the “infantile disorder” Lenin warned against. Scientific socialism requires us to start from material conditions, not doctrinal purity. Multipolarity is not an end-state to be celebrated or condemned in the abstract. It is a contradictory terrain within which class struggle must be advanced. The task is not and has never been to stand outside denouncing all equally, but to engage it, to build proletarian independence within anti-hegemonic movements, and to push multipolarity beyond bourgeois limits toward genuine internationalism. To do that, you must return to the method that makes socialism scientific: the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Anything else just dogma dressed in revolutionary phraseology.