82
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 13 Aug 2025
82 points (67.5% liked)
Asklemmy
50034 readers
908 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
The PRC is the better system. It has a socialist market economy, one that works for the people, and doesn't depend on imperialism. China isn't an oppressor. Moreover, it is usually non-westerners that are pro-China, as they are the ones directly experiencing western imperialism and watching China focus on mutual development and cooperation.
You have no reason to reduce the logic of why one would support the PRC down to simply being "anti-west," if you ask anyone pro-China about why they are, we can give you nuanced and complete reasoning for doing so. By caricaturing the argument of those you disagree with, you quite literally strawman them.
May I ask where your from?
The comment I replied to litterally reduced their support of China to being anti-western opression and implies those are the same thing.
Not a strawman at all
I've stated elsewhere that I'm a USian, I live in the US Empire. That doesn't take away from my points, though, polls on approval of the PRC are much higher in the global south than they are in the global north. I'm in the minority as a supporter of the PRC in the US, and it's largely because I'm a Marxist-Leninist that I am.
Further, no, being anti-imperialist does not mean that is the only reason to support the PRC. You strawmanned their point (correct the pronouns you used).
Yeah have at it.
That's exactly my point. People see their own system is bad, they check that china/real existing socialism is regarded as the opposite to the system they consider bad - they have valid points but also pink-red glasses which makes them overlook problems.
My point is, that we have 3 world powers, China, us and Russia, and ALL of them act in hegemonial fashion.
Yes, us is currently the worst, but NONE of them fight for the working class, ALL of them fight to keep the ones rich, who are rich and the ones powerful, which are powerful in their respective system.
If you consider yourself Marxist Leninist, may read a little more Marx and a little less Lenin. What China does is NOT what Marx sees as communist, it doesn't even hold up to his imagination of socialism.
No, this is deeply unserious. What actually happens is people like me notice the problems surrounding us, read Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other Marxist writers, see what the PRC is managing to achieve thanks to its socialist system, and then learn to check media critically, looking at the sources, motivations, etc in order to actually see what's going on. Then we keep reading theory and try to start organizing. Your characterization of leftists as simply supporting the opposite of what is going on is a mischaracterization, one you have not once provided proof for, yet is your entire argument.
Secondly, only the US is the world hegemon. It is the world's largest empire, and has full control of institutions like NATO and the IMF, which it wields in its favor to secure imperialism. Russia is not a hegemon, it has fallen far from its heights as the Soviet Union. The PRC isn't a hegemon either, it is overtaking the US but it doesn't depend on imperialism, millitary or financial domination.
Russia is capitalist, correct, and the US is too, but they stand at odds due to the US being the world Empire and Russia being encircled by it. In the PRC, the working class is the one in charge!
This is absolutely peak western chauvanism, undue superiority and self-confidence while knowing nothing about how much of Marx, Engels, and Lenin I've read. From Marx alone, not at all counting the dozens of other Marxists I have read:
Capital: Volume 1
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Value, Price, and Profit
Wage Labor and Capital
Manifesto of the Communist Party
Third Manuscript (1844)
Critique of Hegel's Dialectic and General Philosophy
Marx to Ruge
And I am about a third of the way through Capital: Volume 2. You have no idea what I have studied, and think you can just mouth off as though you know what I know better than I do. It's peak western chauvanism. I've elaborated many times elsewhere on China's system, but at its core, the proletariat is in power, and public property is the principle aspect of the economy. The large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and as the medium firms grow the state exerts more control and gradually sublimates them into the public sector. This gradual approach to sublimating property once the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established is right out of the communist manifesto. China is in the early developing stage of socialism, and is continuing to develop and socialize the economy.
For further reading:
Qiao Collective's Introductory Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Study Guide
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics ProleWiki page
Socialist Market Economy ProleWiki Page
People's Republic of China ProleWiki Page
My "Read Theory, Darn It!" Introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading Guide
Has China Turned to Capitalism? Reflections on the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism by Domenico Losurdo
China Has Billionaires by Roderic Day
The Long Game and its Contradictions
Do some reading if you want to use how much we've read as a cudgel.
~I'm not who you were replying to before.~
I agree that the chinese mixed market model is better, and that the US sucks ass, but I have one question about your claims.
can you explain to me how that can be true while the government is unelected and visibly does authoritarian stuff such as censorship, violent repression of various undesireables and supression of independent worker's unions?
First of all, the state is an extension of the class in power, it isn't a class in and of itself. The class in power is the one in control of the large firms and key industries, in the PRC these are publicly owned. This can help make sense of the Chinese model of socialism.
With that in mind, the government is elected. It doesn't have the same kind of competing party model of liberal democracy, but socialist democracy is focused on cohesion and cooperation. The government does censor speech, but that isn't incompatible with working class power, the speech that is censored is largely capitalists trying to undermine the system (like Jack Ma). Further, independent worker unions in the context of socialism is dangerous, the government is already one run by the working class, so having a divided working class is more of a way for capitalists to drive a wedge between them and undermine the system.
I think if you read up more on SWCC things will make more sense.
Well, if the class in power is the one who controls the large firms, key industries and media, then the class in power are the high-ranking CCP officials, no? And ccp officials choose who the new ccp officials will be. I don't see how the working class is involved here. I don't really understand how the government is elected.
I don't really want to go read a bunch of theory, because I think you should be able to leverage your clearly extensive knowledge of the subject to convince me.
The CPC is not a class, it's the most politically advanced of the proletariat, largely. CPC officials are elected as well. It isn't fashioned like a liberal democracy, but a socialist one.
I get not wanting to read theory, and I understand needing to meet people where they are at. What's your understanding of the Chinese system of democracy? What distinguishes socialist democracy from liberal democracy? What is a class, in your eyes? If I don't know where you personally stand in your understanding, then I don't really know where to start beyond what I've already shared.
Okay, my understanding is that there are classically two classes: the working class, and the bourgeoisie. Only thing I'd add is that there's the "I own means" bourgeoisie and the "I am powerful politically" bourgeoisie. Pretty much always the same, but not necessarily.
"western" democracy improves upon this by making every person have at least some power politically, thanks to everyone being able to promote and run on ideas, this also allows local and foreign powers to amplify certain ideas, which isn't great. Various factors make this system more or less effective at representing the people's will.
As I understand it, the Chinese system of democracy is basically a mirage, because while you can argue it does a better job than any other dictatorship, it still is one, since the people have virtually no say on who the leaders are. I see it as something akin to a meritocracy, where an elite choose other people they deem fit to lead. In this context the CPC are no functionally no different to the bourgeoisie, they just replaced them.
The top-down governance can be good, but it also causes a lot of problems, such as the one child policy that created and still creates tons of problems and suffering.
As for Imperialism, which was mentioned earler in the thread, while the US and europe are undisputed world champions of imperialism, china also does imperialism in it's own borders, with the western provinces.
I am certainly open to being wrong, this is just how I currently see the subject.
edit: clarification
You're pretty off on classes. Classes are relations to the means of production. The bourgeoisie are the capitalists, owners of capital. Politically powerful people are not "bourgeoisie." In capitalism, the state is under the control of the bourgeoise, in socialism the state is under the control of the proletariat.
Western "democracy" is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Since capitalists own the media, large firms, and key industries, they own the state and control the flow of information. The proletariat is only allowed a say as far as the bourgeoisie allows them.
In China, the proletariat is in control of the state. The people elect representatives, and often these representatives elect further representatives. The people have the ultimate say, and as I showed, their will is expressed at higher rates than bourgeois democracy.
The CPC is not "basically the bourgeoisie." The CPC is not made up of capital owners, nor is the CPC a business, it's the ruling party as an extension of the proletariat.
China is not imperialist. You cannot be imperialist within your own borders, nor does the central government mistreat local or regional governments.
Basically, I think there's a lot you would gain from reading a bit more about this. I know you said you wanted to avoid reading theory, but there's far too much to adequately cover in lemmy comments here.
all of these claims are provably false.
The source for those is either you, quora, or the ccp.
Not very reliable sources, and the results of the polls which I do know are legitimate may be explained by the lack of free press.
Some of the stuff is true, like the better healthcare system, or high speed rail, but that's more the US being absymally bad than china being great
It does hold up to Marx’s imagination of a “lower phase” of socialism, heading in the direction of higher phases and then ultimately communism. This has been a continuous understand of the necessarily long process among Marxists, because we aren’t utopians imagining a fantastical overnight transformation: https://files.catbox.moe/6n2qll.avif
They.
Thanks :) Sometimes gendering in foreign languages is still hard for me