Cops exist to protect the ruling class of a given society. In the west, that class is the capitalist class. In socialism, that class is the working classes. Until we get to classless society, police in socialism serve a necessary role that must be accountable to the people.

Why do we say ACAB? It's because police exist to protect the ruling class of society, and in every western country that class is the capitalist class. In the PRC, it's the working classes. Your thought process is metaphysical, rather than dialectical. By erasing context and insisting on dogmatically applying the conditions of one state to the conditions of an entirely different state, you run into all host of errors.

For example, if I say in the US Empire it is in the people's best interests to overthrow their government and establish socialism, and you were to say the same for the PRC, you would be advocating for the dissolution of the socialist system in the PRC and the likely restoration of capitalism, as it is already socialist. Another example is freedom of speech. I don't support freedom of speech for fascists and capitalists, but I do for the working classes.

When you contextualize and look at phenomena as existing within their necessary interrelations, you move from metaphysics to dialectics, from agnosticism to concrete reality.

The west calls them peaceful, but I gave several examples of how that wasn't the case. If you feel I am being too biased in my charactrtization to a manipulative degree, I ask that you apply the same scrutiny to, say, BBC's portrayal of events, including their intentional use of language.

Being 100% transparent, I am trying to get you to reconsider your position, and part of that is by deliberately using the word "rioter." This causes you to re-contextualize what you thought you knew more than if I had just said "protestor." We all have bias, and my bias is pro-communist, and pro-PRC. Just as you try to see how and why I use language, sources, and whatnot to portray how I see the events, I ask that you hold western media to the same degree of scrutiny.

Finally, bias does not mean the absence of fact. I did my best in recommending largely western sources, if I had just used CGTN it might have been easier but then I would have been taking the easy way out, and just as easily dismissed as only accepting official state media. Bias paints how we percieve the same events, how we speak about them, and connects it to a broader class character.

I'm not asking for pre-action, the riots were happening and the violent clashes were happening, so the riots that often errupted into violent clashes were met with arrests.

If this were America, and we were communists protesting capitalist rule, and the police were mistreating us and we rose up in violence, would you condemn that?

That's an entirely different situation. In Hong Kong, the rioters were anti-communists fighting against communists for passing a law allowing authorities to arrest a murderer that fled from the mainland to Hong Kong to dodge arrest. These rioters recieved western support, and the riots ended when the HK gov cracked down on foreign funding.

I don't support protest for the sake of protest. I support progressive action and condemn reactionary action. Protesting is not holy, nor is it some abstract ideal, it exists within a definite context.

There is no genocide of Uyghurs. Uyghur genocide atrocity propaganda akin to claiming that there's "white genocide" in South Africa, Christian genocide in Nigeria, or that Hamas sexually assaulted babies in Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.

In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of "genocide." Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens.

The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective's Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.

I also recommend reading the UN report as well as (especially) China's response to it, which eclipses it in size and detail.These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, Christian nationalist and professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does. Zenz' work has been thoroughly discredited, yet is supported by western media for its utility in fearmongering. An example is lying about 8.7% of new IUDs as 80%, to back up claims of "forced sterilization," from this chart:

Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time as well. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn't going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this. Has there been mistreatment? Almost certainly to some degree, in a campaign as large as this. Is it genocide, be it cultural or outright? No, Uyghur culture is preserved and there are no mass killings.

To clarify your point, are you saying you would have rather the government treat the symptoms after they appeared, and never address the root cause? It sounds like you're arguing China just let the violence happen and just step in at an individual level. The riots were put down with extraordinary restraint for their scale, which is why they went on for so long, until the HK gov banned foreign funding of political parties.

Counter-protestors. There was violent conflict between the rioters and the pro-government counter-protestors, which meant putting an end to the riots to begin with was the correct move to limit the damages and injuries.

The "bad things" you pointed to were putting down violent protests from the Chinese equivalent of 4chan posters. The "freedoms" the CPC suppresses are not blanket but instead directed against capitalists, fascists, and those that undermine the socialist system and work against the majority of society. There is nothing inconsistent about opposing the right-wing DNC and GOP and supporting socialism.

You can condemn every government if you want. You're not actually getting anything accomplished by doing so, though, in condemning everything you're left alone. By your response, you would have let the riots persist, I imagine? Even if people were hurt by the rioters?

Propaganda doesn't work that way, and brainwashing does not exist. I recommend reading Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing" when you've got a spare hour.

Either way, I support states controlled by the working classes, which sounds to be authoritarian by your view. In that sense, all Marxists are authoritarian, so I again assert that "tankie" is just a pejorative for communist. The problem I see is that too many people fall for Red Scare propagandizing, and are allergic to contextualization, preferring to analyze everything metaphysically, ie in the abstract, rather than dialectically, ie within its real, existing context. That's why dialectical materialism is so useful.

Lmao. You know very well that the idea of stateless communism exists, so no

Communism is stateless, but it can only come about post-socialism, which has a state. You cannot skip from capitalism to communism.

The overwhelming majority of self-described communists support socialist states? According to who? Polling from CPUSA?

The CPC alone has over 100 million members, and communist orgs around the globe are most commonly Marxist-Leninist. This includes the Black Panther Party, which supported the DPRK and sent people to learn from the WPK and CPC:

There are plenty of leftists on lemmy who would call themselves anarchosocialist or anarchocommunist.

We aren't talking about anarchism.

Tankie is a pejorative mostly used by leftists to punch right, not by liberals to punch left.

I've only ever seen it used by liberals or anarchists, and never to punch right but to punch left.

Don’t joke with me. You know the material difference between a state imposing law on sometimes unwilling citizens and people that live harmoniously in good will with one another.

Is your point that any state with laws is authoritarian? I'd agree, which is why it's better for the working classes to control the state as they do in socialist countries so that we can collectivize all production and distribution to erase the material basis of the state for good.

Public ownership is the principal aspect of China's economy, and capitalists are held on a tight leash to focus on developing the productive forces. The large firms and key industries in China are publicly owned, it's only the small and medium firms that are private.

The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:

The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people's democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Moreover, the economy in the PRC is socialist, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China's success.

I highly recommend Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we've learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.