The (PR) Chinese politics thread

[Dragon-God Empire]

So do you think the Republic of China could achieve good results 80 years ago?

[Leninist Haven]

Exactly. The US just has to say our current path will miraculously create “communism” and we are socialist.
So according to him all you have to do is thrown in some BS lip service to utopian delusions to be socialist.

It's interesting how the far right is able to use so much material from leftists out of context. Using similar logic, the Democrats are socialist.

I hate to tell you this, but most politicians lie. What they say doesn't matter. What they do is what makes them of a certain ideology. Their slogans mean nothing. Their lip service means nothing. All they have to do is attempt to achieve communism through their actions.

That means they have to create class consciousness and spread it. It means they have to spread socialism, or at the very least attempt to do so. Even the USSR failed at doing so. The USA will never argue for class consciousness in my lifetime, and it will never attempt to spread socialism in my lifetime. So no.

You just argued that socialism is when you claim to believe in communism, yet you then dispute this by saying actions, not words determine the state of socialism.

I was clarifying that beliefs don't matter if they don't attempt to satisfy condition A and B. To perform an action, you need to have a belief to achieve it--But the belief doesn't matter at the end of the day. Lenin having socialist beliefs wouldn't spread socialism, so it fails to be socialist (New Soviet Man states this, but other ideologies have their own varients). Beliefs don't matter until they bring action, and by that point, the beliefs still don't matter because now one has a Socialist State. I'm having trouble clarifying because, if you're an average citizen that has no hope of starting a revolution, then your beliefs are all you can have--So that is an exception, but impossibilities always breed exceptions--And that's the rule, not the exception.

[Neko-koku]

So do you think the Republic of China could achieve good results 80 years ago?

Yes.

[Dragon-God Empire]

Gentlemen control land resources, population, moral discourse, etc.

[Novus America]

And how is the PRC, by crushing labor unions and encouraging hyper high wealth inequality actually achieving communism (which cannot be achieved anyways)?

But your argument is that if the US did try to “increase class consciousness” whatever that is supposed to be we would be socialist even if we kept the exact same system.
Basically you are saying socialism has nothing to do with economics.

I really don't want to define class consciousness for you as everyone will disagree with me (and with each other), but simply put, class consciousness is the conscious state that you, a worker, are being exploited by bosses of some sort who take your wealth, treat you terrible, and keep you where you are economically whilst their capitalist class rests on the top. That generalized definition alone should tell you how socialism clearly has economic aspects. The question is just, when you become conscious that you're happy with 1,000th of what you could have, what do you do about it? Democratic socialism says you take a mostly western democracy system, get elected, and then nationalize most if not all businesses so that the bosses and capitalist class slowly get eliminated. Reform socialists say that you need some aspects of capitalism
to first more clearly show the workers their issues, or out of what they determine as "economic necessity." Their goal is still to eliminate it entirely, eventually. Lenin did this with the N.E.P., a reform socialist policy. Lenin was not a reform socialist, but the context of history led him to believe he needed it temporarily to do away with it forever. Trotskyism says you need a leading party that allows the people to vote within only said party, but you can vote for different views within said party (reform soc, syndicalist, hardliner, etc) and that by providing a new political system for the population, you can give them a better understanding of their issues. Stalinism takes a different spin on this with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Every system of socialism just gives a different answer to "how do we give class consciousness in forever undoing capitalism, and what do we do afterwards." That is why we all disagree on every definition, it's why we all hate each other, and it's why China can ban Unions. The Stalinist Sankara also did, though I've never figured out why. These things just happen because different leaders/leading parties have different theories.

So anyone who claims to be socialist is automatically socialist regardless of economic policies or actions then.

[Dragon-God Empire]

When you promulgate a decree from the central government, what will a gentleman be able to pass on to the people, do you know?

[Neko-koku]

Gentlemen control land resources, population, moral discourse, etc.

Does Taiwan work? Does Hong Kong work? Does Macau work? Does Singapore work? Aren't overseas Chinese relatively wealthy model citizens almost everywhere? Did they go through communist extermination of elites?

Why do you think China itself magically can not work without Mao?

[Neko-koku]

When you promulgate a decree from the central government, what will a gentleman be able to pass on to the people, do you know?

Does the world need absolute centralism to be functional?

[Leninist Haven]

I really don't want to define class consciousness for you as everyone will disagree with me (and with each other), but simply put, class consciousness is the conscious state that you, a worker, are being exploited by bosses of some sort who take your wealth, treat you terrible, and keep you where you are economically whilst their capitalist class rests on the top. That generalized definition alone should tell you how socialism clearly has economic aspects. The question is just, when you become conscious that you're happy with 1,000th of what you could have, what do you do about it? Democratic socialism says you take a mostly western democracy system, get elected, and then nationalize most if not all businesses so that the bosses and capitalist class slowly get eliminated. Reform socialists say that you need some aspects of capitalism
to first more clearly show the workers their issues, or out of what they determine as "economic necessity." Their goal is still to eliminate it entirely, eventually. Lenin did this with the N.E.P., a reform socialist policy. Lenin was not a reform socialist, but the context of history led him to believe he needed it temporarily to do away with it forever. Trotskyism says you need a leading party that allows the people to vote within only said party, but you can vote for different views within said party (reform soc, syndicalist, hardliner, etc) and that by providing a new political system for the population, you can give them a better understanding of their issues. Stalinism takes a different spin on this with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Every system of socialism just gives a different answer to "how do we give class consciousness in forever undoing capitalism, and what do we do afterwards." That is why we all disagree on every definition, it's why we all hate each other, and it's why China can ban Unions. The Stalinist Sankara also did, though I've never figured out why. These things just happen because different leaders/leading parties have different theories.

So anyone who claims to be socialist is automatically socialist regardless of economic policies or actions then.

I'm going to just bold a sentence this time because I'm getting sick of repeating myself. *Socialism requires that you do away with capitalism, but it doesn't have to be now. The goal of Socialism it to forever undo capitalism. The capitalist economy cannot exist. The only economy that can exist is the Socialist one. From there, the Socialist economy turns into the Communist Economy.*

The argument you keep making boils down to "so if they don't all believe in almost exactly the same thing, then the belief system means absolutely nothing." NO! They believe in the same thing, but that doesn't even matter. What matters is that they attempt to undo capitalism forever, and replace it with some theory that will undo capitalism. You might as well say that since Rinos and Dinos exist, that democrats and republicans don't exist.

Edit: Democrats and Republicans are both capitalists, and so can a monarchy be capitalist (though it used to be fuedalistic, the few modern monarchies are almost entirely capitalist). Fascism can be capitalist (they caused the word privatization to exist). All of these different political ideologies can share extremely similar economic models, but that doesn't mean that capitalism means nothing.

[Dragon-God Empire]

And when did Taiwan begin to democratize?You know what?

[Dragon-God Empire]

Do you know that China at that time was suitable for democracy?People don't know a word.

[Dragon-God Empire]

People are illiterate，Little knowledge

[Dragon-God Empire]

You don't need to look at the regime, you need to look at achievements.

[Leninist Haven]

Since it went to the next page: In addition to what was said on the last page:
"Edit: Democrats and Republicans are both capitalists, and so can a monarchy be capitalist (though it used to be fuedalistic, the few modern monarchies are almost entirely capitalist). Fascism can be capitalist (they caused the word privatization to exist). All of these different political ideologies can share extremely similar economic models, but that doesn't mean that capitalism means nothing. They can all believe in extremely similar ends, but they have different models for getting there. Social policies can be completely different. Political ideologies can be completely different. Capitalism is, again, not rendered meaningless by this fact.

[Dragon-God Empire]

And the places you cite are not Chinese traditional native places, there is no Chinese traditional class at all.

[Washington Resistance Army]

China was a Republic until 2018. Right now I'm not sure.

Unless Xi has been crowned Emperor of the Chinese they are still a republic. There have been several republics where the leaders ruled till their deaths

Xi creating a new empire would be pretty woke tbh

[Neko-koku]

Do you know that China at that time was suitable for democracy?People don't know a word.

Wut? Do we need literacy to have democracy? In ancient Athens was literacy a requirement for participating in ostracism?

What do you think democracy is even for?

[Dragon-God Empire]

Isn't that dictatorship? At that time, China's literacy rate was less than 2%.

[Novus America]

Unless Xi has been crowned Emperor of the Chinese they are still a republic. There have been several republics where the leaders ruled till their deaths

Xi creating a new empire would be pretty woke tbh

I mean the Aesthetics would be better at least. The current combination of 90s post modernism with Maoist stuff is straight eye rape.

Xi is not the guy to do it though. He has no imagination.

[Castelia]

Xi creating a new empire would be pretty woke tbh

It's happening right now lmao

The Chinese Debt Trap is making it happen. Just you wait.

[Neko-koku]

Xi creating a new empire would be pretty woke tbh

It's happening right now lmao

The Chinese Debt Trap is making it happen. Just you wait.

The "Debt Trap" happens because many countries never had any intention to service their debt. It is a standard 19th century British tactic.

PRC is evil, so are these countries that default on their national debt.

[Novus America]

It's happening right now lmao

The Chinese Debt Trap is making it happen. Just you wait.

The "Debt Trap" happens because many countries never had any intention to service their debt. It is a standard 19th century British tactic.

PRC is evil, so are these countries that default on their national debt.

Defaulting on PRC debt is a good thing, everyone should do it.
Then the problem would be solved.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Unless Xi has been crowned Emperor of the Chinese they are still a republic. There have been several republics where the leaders ruled till their deaths

Xi creating a new empire would be pretty woke tbh

He already has. The PRC is a great imperialist power exploiting the weak and determining the rich. Such is how Deng Xiaoping predicted, and such will proceed. China has stayed true to the cynical word of Deng's capitalism, disguised by the same thin facade of decorum above many cruel acts. Deng knew that it was very much possible and likely that the PRC would become an imperial superpower, ironically by the very same methods he used to correct Mao. Deng was very clever, which I will not deny, and told great truths with great promises wrapped with great lies. For most everything he said shall come true, but not one word his propaganda is honest.

His predictions and caution are very important to acknowledge in China's history. Albeit, the latter didn't see continuation into this age. Now, as he too told, the workers of the world must be roused and prepared to overthrow the Chinese capitalist empire. It appears unlikely, but all that he said was deemed impossible at one moment- then it became reality.

I admire and hate Deng. He was undeniably correct, yet undeniably wrong. He knew and executed, with certainty unheard of, yet wise and due fear of power remained with him. He created an evil China, and, despite this, I must admit that he was right in many respects.

What can I call Deng? A double edged sword perhaps? Not fitting. He was a snake for stealth and capabilities, or a coyote, smart and wily. He bided his time well and hid what could become the dominant country from much publicity whenever possible.

[Neko-koku]

The Communist Party of China is a terrorist organization and Winnie Xi is a terrorist.

In the 20th century Hitler, Stalin and Mao were among the worst villians.

Kids in 22nd century will learn in school that PRC was the single worst entity in 21st century assuming that there will be humans then.

[Neko-koku]

https://zh.bitterwinter.org/ccp-demands ... roperties/

Communists demand that cameras be installed in rental properties.