The (PR) Chinese politics thread

[Nakena]

"USA is the best country to exist" sounds like chauvinistic nationalism to me, just because you're 'the best' doesn't give the US the right to enter other countries and overthrow them in the name of making a profit. And you're right, to the imperialist, intervention is a legitimate move, to us communists, however, we view the imperialism of the US through their actions like this, which are more than prevalent in the way they intervene and set up pro-US governments in the region to allow their own companies better access. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and many more before them all fell victim to the USA's 'lawful intervention', turning the countries into even poorer and worse places than they were before. If the USA really wanted to support human rights against those governments, then Saudi Arabia would be gone too, but they aren't, because Saudi Arabia are good little allies of the United States.

You seriously don't understand politics, let alone the inherent nature of Foreign Policy that even the soviet begrudgingly adhered to...

You can't be reasoned with in rationality so I'm not going to waste my time.

Want to join the Anti-Bolshevik Brigade?

[Soviet Tankistan]

The premise is almost entirely false. The PRC is legal, just not good. Neither China ever was fair.

[EastKekistan]

The premise is almost entirely false. The PRC is legal, just not good. Neither China ever was fair.

The PRC is illegal.

[Kremlinian Russia]

The premise is almost entirely false. The PRC is legal, just not good. Neither China ever was fair.

The PRC is illegal.

Nice alt, Neko-Koku.

[Novus America]

The PRC won.

Not completely. And only for now. Plus there should be more to ruling than just having a gun an being willing to use it.

[Novus America]

You seriously don't understand politics, let alone the inherent nature of Foreign Policy that even the soviet begrudgingly adhered to...

You can't be reasoned with in rationality so I'm not going to waste my time.

Perhaps instead of going 'u dun't undrstan politiek' please elaborate on your point of how the USA's actions are not an attempt to push forwards the USA's own agenda above the agenda of others.

It sounds like the only one trying to avoid conversation here is you. I am well aware the Soviet Union had its own foreign policy, but the Soviet foreign policy, in the era of Lenin and Stalin, was used for the furthering of the working class movement, American foreign policy is used to benefit American imperialism. The only irrationality here is your inability to directly counter arguments without turning to ad hominem insults like "you seriously don't understand politics."

Screaming “but Iraq” while a common whataboutism is not the topic

And if you really think that Soviet foreign policy was “furthering the working class” I have some ocean front property in Colorado to sell you.

[Merni]

The PRC won.

Not completely. And only for now. Plus there should be more to ruling than just having a gun an being willing to use it.

There should be -- unfortunately there isn't...

[Leninist Haven]

I think that, solely based on the fact that it was made via popular uprising and not coup, it is legal. To succeed in a mass uprising, it does require a significant amount of support from the people. Its lack of this, in the beginning, is what made it the Long March. I don't think its policies on government-authorized force have anything to do with its legality, as if a nation votes in a totalitarian party in a democracy that you call a true democracy, it'd still have won fairly and be legal, no? So the government-authorized force doesn't factor into it, in my opinion.

Also, considering many "anti-western imperialism" philosophies see western democracies as pseudo-democracies (and see their own as legitimate democracies), I think it's based on personal values regarding how an election must take place to be legal and real.

That being said, my bias is that I support the PRC > RC BUT I'm still incredibly angry about the PRC, from Mao and past Deng, and viciously critical.

[Neko-koku]

The PRC is illegal.

Nice alt, Neko-Koku.

I don't deny that.

[Neko-koku]

Not completely. And only for now. Plus there should be more to ruling than just having a gun an being willing to use it.

There should be -- unfortunately there isn't...

PRC is about as legal as numerous bandit-established states in China such as Later Liang and Ming. From a non-Chinese POV it is as ridiculous as Elliot Rodgers becoming the POTUS.

Mao was basically similar to a poor reporter if not blogger who wrote shit for a local newspaper in Iowa before joining the Communist party not because he actually believed in Communism but because Commintern paid a lot and he needed bucks.

[Genivaria]

The PRC is more Fascist than Communist tbh, despite the propaganda.

Not really. Western leftist-wing media just want people to think this because they cannot admit that communism is a failure and a horrible ideology.

Communism is a failure and a horrible ideology, but that doesn't make the PRC Communist.

[Genivaria]

Also isn't the PRC currently involved in ethnic cleansing?

[Novus America]

Also isn't the PRC currently involved in ethnic cleansing?

Yes. It is doing its best to destroy several minority religions and cultures.

Originally the Republic of China was supposed to be multi ethnic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ra ... _One_Union

[Leninist Haven]

Not really. Western leftist-wing media just want people to think this because they cannot admit that communism is a failure and a horrible ideology.

Communism is a failure and a horrible ideology, but that doesn't make the PRC Communist.

The PRC is socialist-communist, and socialism-communism is not a failure or a horrible ideology.

The PRC is a form of market socialism, a type of Kadarism, known as "bird-cage socialism." It was a form of "reform socialism" or "socialism with a human face," as said in Czechoslovakia.

[Cerinda]

Communism is a failure and a horrible ideology, but that doesn't make the PRC Communist.

The PRC is socialist-communist, and socialism-communism is not a failure or a horrible ideology.

The PRC is a form of market socialism, a type of Kadarism, known as "bird-cage socialism." It was a form of "reform socialism" or "socialism with a human face," as said in Czechoslovakia.

I forgot when Socialism is when you have private property, huge mega corporations, sweatshops and suicide prevention nets.

China stopped having a socialist economy in the 1980s and has reverted back to capitalism, some would argue it had a private economy before then or was never socialist at all but that's neither here or there.

[Leninist Haven]

The PRC is socialist-communist, and socialism-communism is not a failure or a horrible ideology.

The PRC is a form of market socialism, a type of Kadarism, known as "bird-cage socialism." It was a form of "reform socialism" or "socialism with a human face," as said in Czechoslovakia.

I forgot when Socialism is when you have private property, huge mega corporations, sweatshops and suicide prevention nets.

China stopped having a socialist economy in the 1980s and has reverted back to capitalism, some would argue it had a private economy before then or was never socialist at all but that's neither here or there.

Just because it isn't hardliner Marxist-Leninist-Maoist doesn't mean it wasn't socialist-communist. Yugoslavia had socialist syndicalism. Hungary had Kadarism. Czechoslovakia had socialism with a human face. China had Marxism with Chinese Characteristics and then Birdcage Socialism.

Reform socialism isn't supposed to be pure socialism, but the situation in China now was so no different than Hungary during the Cold War (their music was even, in a large part, English, emphasizing where their reform socialist loyalties did lie). The amount of capitalism has increased with time, as REFORM SOCIALISM was demonstrably a failure (it didn't last nearly as long as the hardliner varieties). It's still a FORM, however.

[Novus America]

Communism is a failure and a horrible ideology, but that doesn't make the PRC Communist.

The PRC is socialist-communist, and socialism-communism is not a failure or a horrible ideology.

The PRC is a form of market socialism, a type of Kadarism, known as "bird-cage socialism." It was a form of "reform socialism" or "socialism with a human face," as said in Czechoslovakia.

The PRC is not socialist. It is mixed market mercantilist.
And yes Marxism is a failed Victorian anachronism. The PRC knows this.

[Neko-koku]

PRC is fascist, not Communist lol. It is at the verge of evolving into Nazism.

[Leninist Haven]

The PRC is socialist-communist, and socialism-communism is not a failure or a horrible ideology.

The PRC is a form of market socialism, a type of Kadarism, known as "bird-cage socialism." It was a form of "reform socialism" or "socialism with a human face," as said in Czechoslovakia.

The PRC is not socialist. It is mixed market mercantilist.
And yes Marxism is a failed Victorian anachronism. The PRC knows this.

I really tire of this "there is only one type of socialism" nonsense. I have already given you an example of a country who was nearly identical to them during the cold war, and they were referred to as "reform socialist" throughout their entirety. I don't have the energy of the on-topicness to argue why that point is blatantly ignoring countless different factors, but I will note that it's an extreme simplification.

Not to mention the overtly "mixed-market mercentalists" Gorbachev and Andropov, who introduced mass privatizations in public, private, social, and economic sectors. They also heavily strengthened ties with the USA, though failed to achieve anything serious by doing so. They also, however, were reform socialists.

[Cerinda]

I forgot when Socialism is when you have private property, huge mega corporations, sweatshops and suicide prevention nets.

China stopped having a socialist economy in the 1980s and has reverted back to capitalism, some would argue it had a private economy before then or was never socialist at all but that's neither here or there.

Just because it isn't hardliner Marxist-Leninist-Maoist doesn't mean it wasn't socialist-communist. Yugoslavia had socialist syndicalism. Hungary had Kadarism. Czechoslovakia had socialism with a human face. China had Marxism with Chinese Characteristics and then Birdcage Socialism.

Reform socialism isn't supposed to be pure socialism, but the situation in China now was so no different than Hungary during the Cold War (their music was even, in a large part, English, emphasizing where their reform socialist loyalties did lie). The amount of capitalism has increased with time, as REFORM SOCIALISM was demonstrably a failure (it didn't last nearly as long as the hardliner varieties). It's still a FORM, however.

Just because it calls its self socialist doesn't it is, by this logic National Socialism is socialist, and it clearly wasn't was it? Lol "reform socialism" is the biggest joke I've heard; private corporations owning a huge sector of the economy is not socialism. Also "Marxism with Chinese Characteristics" and "Birdcage Socialism" (whatever the fuck that means) is just an excuse to return to capitalism which China has done and continues to do.

Also using Yugoslavia, a brutal dictatorship that had private markets as an example of "socialism" is really telling. But whatever, arguing with Dengists is liking arguing with a brick wall.

[Leninist Haven]

Just because it isn't hardliner Marxist-Leninist-Maoist doesn't mean it wasn't socialist-communist. Yugoslavia had socialist syndicalism. Hungary had Kadarism. Czechoslovakia had socialism with a human face. China had Marxism with Chinese Characteristics and then Birdcage Socialism.

Reform socialism isn't supposed to be pure socialism, but the situation in China now was so no different than Hungary during the Cold War (their music was even, in a large part, English, emphasizing where their reform socialist loyalties did lie). The amount of capitalism has increased with time, as REFORM SOCIALISM was demonstrably a failure (it didn't last nearly as long as the hardliner varieties). It's still a FORM, however.

Just because it calls its self socialist doesn't it is, by this logic National Socialism is socialist, and it clearly wasn't was it? Lol "reform socialism" is the biggest joke I've heard; private corporations owning a huge sector of the economy is not socialism. Also "Marxism with Chinese Characteristics" and "Birdcage Socialism" (whatever the fuck that means) is just an excuse to return to capitalism which China has done and continues to do.

Also using Yugoslavia, a brutal dictatorship that had private markets as an example of "socialism" is really telling. But whatever, arguing with Dengists is liking arguing with a brick wall.

I'm a Trotskyist who believes in planned economies with absolutely 0% privatizations, but continue your anti-revisionist struggle against me. Sectarianism is what killed us, and it clearly won't let us come back now.

[Novus America]

The PRC is not socialist. It is mixed market mercantilist.
And yes Marxism is a failed Victorian anachronism. The PRC knows this.

I really tire of this "there is only one type of socialism" nonsense. I have already given you an example of a country who was nearly identical to them during the cold war, and they were referred to as "reform socialist" throughout their entirety. I don't have the energy of the on-topicness to argue why that point is blatantly ignoring countless different factors, but I will note that it's an extreme simplification.

Not to mention the overtly "mixed-market mercentalists" Gorbachev and Andropov, who introduced mass privatizations in public, private, social, and economic sectors. They also heavily strengthened ties with the USA, though failed to achieve anything serious by doing so. They also, however, were reform socialists.

Gorbachev’s reforms were completely different than the PRC’s.

How is the PRC socialist if the workers have no ownership, control or say?

Also the Soviets brutally crushed Czechoslovakia for that.

If you make the definition of socialism do wide as to cover the PRC, the US is can be called socialist.

[Neko-koku]

I really tire of this "there is only one type of socialism" nonsense. I have already given you an example of a country who was nearly identical to them during the cold war, and they were referred to as "reform socialist" throughout their entirety. I don't have the energy of the on-topicness to argue why that point is blatantly ignoring countless different factors, but I will note that it's an extreme simplification.

Not to mention the overtly "mixed-market mercentalists" Gorbachev and Andropov, who introduced mass privatizations in public, private, social, and economic sectors. They also heavily strengthened ties with the USA, though failed to achieve anything serious by doing so. They also, however, were reform socialists.

Gorbachev’s reforms were completely different than the PRC’s.

How is the PRC socialist if the workers have no ownership, control or say?

Also the Soviets brutally crushed Czechoslovakia for that.

If you make the definition of socialism do wide as to cover the PRC, the US is can be called socialist.

If PRC is socialist then pretty much the entire world is. There aren't even real unions in PRC.

[Soviet Tankistan]

I forgot when Socialism is when you have private property, huge mega corporations, sweatshops and suicide prevention nets.

China stopped having a socialist economy in the 1980s and has reverted back to capitalism, some would argue it had a private economy before then or was never socialist at all but that's neither here or there.

Just because it isn't hardliner Marxist-Leninist-Maoist doesn't mean it wasn't socialist-communist. Yugoslavia had socialist syndicalism. Hungary had Kadarism. Czechoslovakia had socialism with a human face. China had Marxism with Chinese Characteristics and then Birdcage Socialism.

Reform socialism isn't supposed to be pure socialism, but the situation in China now was so no different than Hungary during the Cold War (their music was even, in a large part, English, emphasizing where their reform socialist loyalties did lie). The amount of capitalism has increased with time, as REFORM SOCIALISM was demonstrably a failure (it didn't last nearly as long as the hardliner varieties). It's still a FORM, however.

The state ideology of China is making money while putting red and yellow stickers everywhere. They make only the slightest of attempts to disguise this.

I really tire of this "there is only one type of socialism" nonsense. I have already given you an example of a country who was nearly identical to them during the cold war, and they were referred to as "reform socialist" throughout their entirety. I don't have the energy of the on-topicness to argue why that point is blatantly ignoring countless different factors, but I will note that it's an extreme simplification.

Not to mention the overtly "mixed-market mercentalists" Gorbachev and Andropov, who introduced mass privatizations in public, private, social, and economic sectors. They also heavily strengthened ties with the USA, though failed to achieve anything serious by doing so. They also, however, were reform socialists.

Gorbachev’s reforms were completely different than the PRC’s.

How is the PRC socialist if the workers have no ownership, control or say?

Also the Soviets brutally crushed Czechoslovakia for that.

If you make the definition of socialism do wide as to cover the PRC, the US is can be called socialist.

*socialist with American aspects

[Leninist Haven]

I really tire of this "there is only one type of socialism" nonsense. I have already given you an example of a country who was nearly identical to them during the cold war, and they were referred to as "reform socialist" throughout their entirety. I don't have the energy of the on-topicness to argue why that point is blatantly ignoring countless different factors, but I will note that it's an extreme simplification.

Not to mention the overtly "mixed-market mercentalists" Gorbachev and Andropov, who introduced mass privatizations in public, private, social, and economic sectors. They also heavily strengthened ties with the USA, though failed to achieve anything serious by doing so. They also, however, were reform socialists.

Gorbachev’s reforms were completely different than the PRC’s.

How is the PRC socialist if the workers have no ownership, control or say?

Also the Soviets brutally crushed Czechoslovakia for that.

If you make the definition of socialism do wide as to cover the PRC, the US is can be called socialist.

I was referring to Hungary, and noted gorbachev and androporov as another example. Just because czechoslovakia was crushed doesn't mean it wasn't socialist. Stalinists killed Trotskyists and Anarcho-Communists in Spain, but they were still certainly socialists regardless of being killed by other socialists.

"How is the PRC socialist if the workers have no ownership, control or say?" That is communism. Socialism-Communism is the belief that through Socialism (the workers "own everything through the state"), we can eventually achieve Communism (the workers own everything directly in a Stateless, Classless society). Therefore, the point of Socialism is to achieve that--Socialism is not the state of having achieved that.