https://www.dw.com/en/china-courts-germanys-far-right-populist-afd/a-66504263
The far-right populist Alternative for Germany party rejects a values-based foreign policy, just as much as it rejects NATO and the US. That approach has attracted the attention of Beijing.
That's all fair, but framing the sequence of events as entirely unilateral action by the AfD is just as slanted as the article, and we're better than that.
I mean... It's not like there's not a standing invitation for Germany's current government. Is building diplomatic ties not permissible if the party isn't currently in power?
Better fucking tell the Republicans to get out of Canadian politics, then.
Oh great, even more lies from German state media. This AfD group had no official invitation from the Chinese government, nor did they meet with Chinese government officials. DW is really trying their best to push horseshoe theory on us, and it would be laughable if people didn't take it seriously.
Much more of these cursed alliances will happen in future unless the left and/or socially progressive forces in the west develop a coherent anti imperialist stance. As in anti NATO, anti IMF, anti World Bank. Traditional left wing positions based on global historical materialism.
Until that happens, the right wing and/or social conservatives, like the AfD here, will steal their lunch from them and form these kind of alliances. The primary contradiction globally is the disparity of living standards and wealth between the west/imperial core/triad, and the third world/global south, orchestrated by modern day imperialism and neocolonialism. Countries in the global south are prepared to work with anyone willing to end that, or at least show some support for ending it.
In short, the left in the west needs to get it's stuff together, actually practice internationalism, and actually practice anti imperialism instead of selling out to the biggest institutions of modern day imperialism on the planet, such as NATO. If the left does not do this, alliances like this will continue to happen as the right occupies, or pretends to occupy, a space the left should be occupying.
Not really surprising that german state media would fall in line when it comes to China reporting. The chinese have a history of playing ball with pretty much anyone from Israel to the EU and beyond. If there's even any basis to the article's thesis, it is the rabidly pro-US faction that rules Germany today which is making the main choice in this matter.
Is everything world news on lemmy about China? Like I've seen everything from crap articles saying China has a declining population like its a bad thing, or how the west looks like shit compared.
Like, it's nothing racist or offensive. Not to me at least. Just lots and lots of it being the primary topic in ways that I'm ain't too familiar with.
Remember that a huge part of the lemmy (and derivatives) userbase just came from Reddit, and Redditors are obsessed with China.
I wonder where they got that obsession from? Could it be their entire view of Geopolitics was shaped by the moderation and administrators of Reddit? Strange how Reddit seems to want people to say the same things that the US state department like to say.
They're a target of the US Empire and folks that can't do media criticism gladly take the bait.
The first rule of propaganda is emphasis, which is what you're astutely picking up on. Why are stories about X and not A, B, C? When they're about X, what context is emphasized, what is fact and what is allusion, who is interviewed and given the opportunity to comment and who is not? "World news" stories are very frequently just stenography of various think tanks, often ones that are more or less in agreement with one another.
The entirety of China's actions reported in this story are that China (exactly who isn't stated, not even a group) invited an AfD delegation to meet with them. No source is cited, but maybe it's Weidel. From this they create an entire narrative by retelling past articles about AfD's foreign policy statements and ask one person to comment: "political scientist Wolfgang Schroeder from the University of Kassel". They don't mention that he's also an SPD politician and associated with a government-funded research institute with a dodgy past. Maybe his takes are good, but why they asked him and not others isn't stated, of course.
This is just folks getting easily hoodwinked by a propaganda push. Same as folks were suddenly very concerned about WMDs in Iraq or the political powers in Afghanistan and so on. They weren't, not organically - a network of think tanks, government stooges, etc all rally to provide jobs for these kinds of nerds to write these kinds of articles and have these kinds of takes. Several think tanks in Washington have converted from focusing on Syria or Iraq to focusing on Russia or China, as they know who butters their bread.
Anyways that's a long ramble in response to a simple question.
China is very active player and driving up events, especially as they may be working with nazi wannabes in the German government
Tankies: China is a world power!! It drives so many world events!!
Tankies: Nooo how dare China get in the press (good, bad, and neutral).
They feel like any China coverage is inherently imperialist, even when its "China breaks fusion record", that is meddling in China's internal affairs to them.
Tankies are so fucking weird to me, and I would consider myself a progressive socialist as well.
How can they so unapologetically support Russia and China, when both nations are objectively not socialist in any sense of the word.
China does state capitalism, just because they have a one party state installed by the communist party doesn’t automatically mean they still are. All that is left is intense authoritarianism, with dystopian ambitions on global hegemony.
Russia is a failed state in the grasp of a kleptocratic oligarchy, with an extreme degree of corruption and disturbing moral decay in all levels of society. The only thing communist about it today is the old soviet ordnance they make their conscripts die in at the ukranian front.
Modern China and Russia are antithetical to actual leftist ideals, and any tankie supporting them just screams misinformed idiot or foreign propaganda shill and should be dismissed by default.
Because they had grievances about the west, which we all have if we're being honest, but were successfully coerced from people into this completely bizarre state of mind into thinking that China and Russia are some sort of garden paradise utopian societies of peace, love and sunshine, not the reality of both countries being insanely unhinged places.
In both China and Russia, there is no rule of law, no respect for basic human rights or respect for anyone's culture or ethnic background, complete control of the press, anti-LGBTQ+ hate that is literally put out from the government, anti.......
Well lets just put it this way, Chinese Nationalists and Russian Nationalists make the KuKluxKlan look like Bernie Sanders voters in comparison, that's how insane these people are and the respective governments do everything they can to keep that silent and breaking out into the international community.
I know people from China who barely escaped that country and there's just endless horror stories that you can find all over youtube
This is just ignorance. You can easily answer the questions you have by reading, watching videos, or listening to podcasts. You could even learn by just talking to people. It's not like they hide it. It's not like they don't literally study history, draw from a wide range of analyses, cite relevant texts, formulate arguments, and constantly communicate about them. That fact that it's weird to you that they hold positions that you don't understand says way more about your ignorance than it does about their positions.
So you replied to the first sentence and ignored the paragraphs in which I describe why supporting either is misguided to malicious.
I understand the arguments that are constantly being spewed about the evil western imperialists, and they are of course true for the most part. Only that this doesn’t in turn validate or justify the human rights violations, atrocities or even genocides committed by either Russia or China; they cannot be guides or aides on the path to the desired egalitarian utopia.
If either of them had their way, would that do us in the west any good? The answer is no.
China desires a global hegemony under their sino-centric ideology, and to extend its control structures outside its own national borders. They employ the same imperialist strategies and methods to acquire influence and resource access in emerging countries as the west has or is doing. Russia currently displays its own imperial ambitions by its war of aggression on Ukraine. At least they don’t even bother with any greater good pretense, and are straight up about it.
The only real option is to consolidate the west in ethical and ideological opposition to these totalitarian parodies of their former goals, to create a new economic system that works for the people and not the reverse, without sacrificing our freedoms and individuality in the process.
One that truly represents what socialism is about.
Holy shit talk about proving me right. China's "sino-centric ideology"... Is that the same ideology that has led the world's most advanced multi-cultural state organizing systems with autonomous regions for large ethnic groups and over 57 different ethinicities formally recognized and developed? Is it the same one where Tibetans learn their native language from grade school through university? That sino-centric ideology? If that ideology came to the West would it do us good? Abso-fucking-lutely. Because in the West, there's an ACTUAL (as opposed to imagined) desire for an ethnostate that is enforced through genocide in all of its worst forms. There are native American tribes that have fewer than 10 fluent speakers of their language and they are all over 70. Your claim of a sino-centric ideology is projection.
China does not desire global hegemony. That would be stupid. Why would it be stupid? We are watching what happens to global hegemons in real-time. They are unsustainable, completely unstable, and involve contradictions that will tear them apart. China's entire founding principles are based on socio-political theory that details this at length. China is not trying to become the next US because it knows that way lies ruin.
The idea that the only solution is to do literally exactly what you've been doing for 600 years, consolidating the West to dominate the globe, which it already does, destroy and carve up all opposition, like it already did, and ultimately subjugate, again, the majority of the world's population to protect the minority, is just full on mask-off fascism....again.
For real. The tankie problem here is crazy. I can say something like China is trying to deny freedom of navigation of international waters on the South China Sea and somehow it becomes "BuT aMeRiCa". I don't get it.
I’ve been seeing this a lot from instances like hexbear and lemmygrad and my take is either cult members, paid trolls, brainwashed persons prone to pavlovian responses, or all of the above.
I just wish that as a user I could block instances.
It's definitely all of the above.
Hexbear is particularly vexing to me. According to the fediverse observer they're less than a month old and yet have already become one of the most active instances.
hexbear has existed and been building their userbase for 3 years, but during that time their codebase diverged greatly from mainline lemmy to include in-house tweaks and features which made it not possible to federate, and it's only within the past month that they got everything compatible
This isn't unique to the far-left, though. It's a problem throughout the entire political spectrum.
It's rather dangerous to be creating echo chambers in a democracy, though. Democracy lives off of discourse between opposing views.
Democracy lives off of discourse between opposing views.
The inference here is that both views are of equivalent merit which is very much not true. This idea is called The Paradox of Tolerance. If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant.
Except... That's not what democracy relies on. Democracy relies on discourse of views, even if they are unpopular. Tolerating only the prevailing opinion isn't a democracy, it's an autocracy.
I would not call them far left tbh. There’s something else about them that irks me. It honestly feels more North Korean to me and that ain’t left by any stretch of the imagination. It seems to be more authoritarian minded.
Agreed. Tankies are right-wing authoritarians in that communism is supposed to be stateless. They bitch about US imperialism but are always very quiet about China's actions in Africa. It's frustrating because like I get it. America has some pretty deep problems but to think that somehow it is worse than China is mindlessly reactionary.
LOL, I just don't even know what to say here. You do realize that when the Europeans subjugated China it was, in part, through naval superiority? Specifically, China did not have a blue ocean navy. China didn't emerge from that subjugation until 1949, and then didn't actually manage to do much more than stabilize it's society in the subsequent years. FFS, Hong Kong was only returned to China from British domination and occupation in the late 1990s.
China's navy was developed under these conditions, after WW2, after the US nuked 2 civilian cities in the Pacific, after the US became the world super power, after the end of the USSR. China is the one who has been denied freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. When China pushes against the psychotic imperialist West and it's proxies, that is not China denying freedom of navigation anymore than slaves revolting against their owners is the slaves denying their owners peace and prosperity.
The entire concept of freedom of navigation is a relational one. Raising points about China while ignoring the relationship with the world super power who, under Obama, decided to move 60% of its military assets to the Pacific Theater, is just anemic thinking.
Hey look. A tankie that has no idea what the fuck they are talking about. I am shocked. Territorial waters are defined as 12 nautical miles typically from the shore. These are defined by the United Nations that China is a part of and agreed to. There is a reason why China is literally building fake islands to increase it's territorial water claim there.
Territorial waters are defined as 12 nautical miles typically from the shore
BY WHOM IS IT DEFINED? You don't need to answer the question here. We all know the answer. It's the "rules-based international order", you know, the one invented by white genociders that dominated and subjugated 80% of the world population. But do go on about how the definition of territorial waters is perfectly compatible with the US encircling China with nuclear capabilities, occupying much of the region, colonizing and subjugating various indigenous peoples on various islands so they can test weapons and prepare for war. It's CHINA that's being a problem.
There is a reason why China is literally building fake islands to increase it’s territorial water claim there.
Awww, what's the matter? Are you upset when the fake rules that whitey made to dominate the globe are sometimes used by non-whites to game the system in small ways that show everyone just how vacuous and bankrupt the West really is?
How about you focus on things like why China is even the UN at all, how the US refused to let the PRC into the UN and instead decided that the KMT should be at the UN despite the KMT prosecuting the White Terror and mass murdering people by the thousands for so much as suggesting that maybe they should end the civil war officially and integrate with China now that the PLA had demonstrated they had the overwhelming majority of popular support.
I like that in all of your rambling, despite directly quoting me, you carefully evaded explaining why China would want to build fake islands and expand it's territorial waters.
Nazi wannabes with 13% of the vote...
I mean, it's not like China is only working with AfB. They recently invited School to Beijing.
AfD holds multiple municipal seats and Hitler never won an election (he got about 36.7% in 1932). The Nazis took over because liberals (specifically Hindenburg and co) appointed Hitler and then Hitler was able to take over when Hindenburg died in part thanks to paramilitary support. Just worth noting for gauging AfD's distance from potential takeover.
I highly doubt that the PRC wants them in charge or wants to help them get there, though.
Nazis, not Nazi wannabees, with current polls having them at 20% nationwide and up to 33% in some states. You know, the ”we should found an SA [the paramilitary Nazi organisation] and clean up"-party. The party whose youth organization is officialy declared right-wing extremist.
They'll work with whoever the fuck krauts pick to lead them, simple as.
From where China is standing, they have no reason to see the AfD as any worse than, say, the "we want to nuke europe into the stone age" Greens
...?
Like 9 articles on my front page are US. 1 is Ukraine. 1 is China, and the rest are neutral.
Are you maybe just taking particular notice to the China articles?
edit: since I realize this was specific to m/worldnews...
2 China post
2 Ecudor post
3 US post (1 pertaining to Italy as well)
1 iranian post
1 French post
1 Japan post
I stopped there as this is actually getting redundant at this point, there's very little trend among the posts as of this time.
it's the active sort. it prioritizes topics people feel heated about by weighting posts with more comments higher. it also doesn't decay the weight quickly enough with time so those posts stay on the top as long as people are arguing in the comments.
.ml stands for Marxist-Leninist so for some reason there is generally a lot of praise for China which is closer to fascism than either of those idealogies.
I am once again asking liberals to learn that fascism doesn't mean "a thing I don't like"
It's authoritarian with large amounts of state capitalism combined with high amounts of nationalism. That sure as shit is not communist.
Fascist states famously sold off large amounts of state assets to capitalists. Nazi Germany even inspired a new word for this, called "privatization" because they did it so much
It's okay to not have opinions on things you don't know. Learn so that you can create informed opinions
Quite the opposite for Nazi Germany for the most part. The corporations became a central part of the state. The alternative name that Mussolini coined for fascism was corporatism for that very reason.
Just showing off your ignorance like your proud of it
The nazis were all about privatization, read a damn book
this is historically illiterate. the term privatization was coined specifically to describe what the Nazis were doing in Germany.
In other words, the Nazis specifically took certain businesses that were formerly nationalized and then privatized them.
For further reading:
Corporatism where the employers play a central role in the running of the state was a foundation of fascism.
Sweety, Albert Speer literally said that NAZI Germany was "an daughter company of IG Farben".
I am once again asking liberals to learn that words in general have meaning beyond synonyms for "good" and "bad".
Good lord you butchered each and every single term you used in this comment.
Did you ever have a period in your life where you just shut up and listened until you felt you understood what was going on? It doesn't appear to be the case from the outside.
Now that you're in a community that's liberated from the US-centric echo chamber you just came from no more than a month ago, it's a very good opportunity to start now!
China which is closer to fascism
China is a marxist-leninist state. You are politically illiterate.
Fascism is when The Internationale is the closing song of your 100 year celebrations.
LOL
Sure, friend. Marxist-Leninist states generally do not have the horrible wealth disparity that China has.
Currently I would probably say Cuba. China is a mix of market and state capitalism. Very little of it is communist in anything more than name.
no it doesn't lol
.ml is the country code for Mali where the developers are from lmfao
just lies on lies
Edit: lmao this may not have been true hol up
It is whild how if you don't care what words mean you can out them in any order you like.
Seriously. Apparently people do not care what Marxist-Leninist means and are stupidly ascribing it to China.
That is false, .ml is the country code for Mali where the developers are from lmfao
just lies on lies
edit: hol' up I may have been told a fib and repeated it, unverified
.ml is the code for us military operations. Just send them your classified files, it's cool.
They have plenty of hard power, but when it comes to soft power they'll take a handout from anyone that could give it.
Most of the world is friendly with China cope harder
UN Voting Patterns Compared to China's
Even more impressive when you consider the economy of China (18 trillion GDP) vs USA + European Union (who are always against China with 41 trillion GDP) and military (China has 2 overseas bases, USA has 800+ all surrounding and missiles pointed at China and Russia)
Yes, that is how you win a revolution. It is not a beautiful thing but if it works, it will have been worth it.
China's not so big on overthrowing governments these day, though. They're all about stability and continuity.
Yep, they are.
There's two major factions in today's right wing, one pro, and one anti NATO. In the USA, they are represented by the Bush-Cheney, and Trump conservatives respectively.
I'm not particularly for the Green Party in Germany, but Mrs. Baerbock seemed to do something right to anger some Chinese officials that much that she needed to take public transportation for a meeting.
She's "green", so if she didn't do it out of conviction, they were shaming her hypocrisy, I'm ok with that lol
China's foreign policy was shit since the sino-soviet split and blaming on Deng for shit foreign policy is kind of silly consider that a lot of it started in Mao's time
Lol this article is a nothing burger. It is mostly an article on AdF than the whatever ''official invitation''(which is probably some private firm in China but apparently every firms in China are controlled by the government) that China sent
I'm loving this, AfD has been collaborating with the far-right party in our country, which accuses everyone else of being filthy commies, it would be a beautiful irony (in the unlikely event this were to be true) if they started talking up the CPC because russia can't fund them anymore hahahaha
That's because they've been brainwashed by a consistently rising standard of living, they don't have free press like us to tell them how they should really feel about things
"Sir, their government has brainwashed them by... running the country well enough to consistently raise the standard of living!"
"Those dastardly Chinese!"
White people in Apartheid-South Africa believed Apartheid-South Africa was a democracy, too.
For their peer, they vote for the most competent to run the govt, not some snake oil sales man or senile old man that rely on pr popularity to run the damn country. Look at Nigeria, a drug lord successfully make peoples vote for him and now they're in the brink of war even though peoples don't like it,
For their peer,
Riiiight... I'm pretty sure Xi Jinping hangs with the over-worked factory people every night and does his share of the sewing.
Tell me another fairy tale, tankie.
I have never looked it up but for them it probably was. That isn't the reason people were upset about the situation.
Turning a dial labeled racism because it makes weak leftists angry for some reason.
(Cowards)
No one in China is ever asked what they want or what they believe in because the CCP doesn't care. China is ruled by a military dictatorship, and under that form of government the people have 0 rights and 0 say in any government policy
No one in China is ever asked what they want or what they believe in
Thousands in China were asked every single year from 2003 to 2016 by Harvard in an intensive study that they've described themselves as "nothing comparable done on this scale, over such a long period of time, and over a large geographic area"
The conclusion they found is that 95%+ of Chinese citizens are satisfied with the government
If you tell me Harvard is a Chinese propaganda institution I'll take your word for it though
Still mad that you got banned from a comm for being Sinophobic? You do not give two shits about Chinese people, so quit fronting.
Do you care about the Uyghur people China is currently trying to genocide?
Also The ban was for calling out Chinese racism against black people in Africa, so no, I don't care quite frankly
It's amazing how you people put on this fake act about caring about racism and bigotry, it's really astonishing
It's amazing how you people put on this fake act about caring about racism and bigotry, it's really astonishing
This is very ironic coming from someone parroting Adrian Zenz's cynical atrocity propaganda.
currently trying to genocide
This piqued my interest, since a lot of the Uyghur genocide narrative collapsed years ago to the point that even the journalists that were reporting it began walking it back.
Taking a look at who is currently reporting on "Uyghur genocide" in 2023, and it's all organisations like Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, United States Institute of Peace - basically (literal) US government propaganda agencies reporting on the US congress proceedings.
Eternally mad the UN report sided with the tankies (the entire UN is tankies as well you see)
China is ruled by a military dictatorship, and under that form of government the people have 0 rights and 0 say in any government policy
Not even the most devoted ideologue for the US state department would claim something this ludicrous. How do "leftists" arrive at this conclusion?
No one in China is ever asked what they want or what they believe in
I thought this was a joke at first
Oh I think he's talking about FDR, the most popular president in U.S. history and one consistently ranked amongst the best
And in hindsight, not such a great person. Or at least had a lot of negatives to go along with his positives. Probably best to hard code not only a term limit, but an age limit on elected officials. I'm tired of the world being run by geriatrics. Culture seems to be consistently 20 year ahead of government.
Term-limits are blatantly anti-democratic and age limits are clumsy, but a cognitive evaluation and probably an MRI would be good for rooting out cases of cognitive decline.
There is an informal age limit in China and Xi is still below it, though just barely. I'm curious if he'll go for another term after crossing it. I think he understands that he needs to retire sometime -- no one wants to become a late '60s Mao.
Unlike in China, the people here actually have the right to vote. That right does not exist in China
What are you talking about? Of course the people in China have a right to vote.
Honestly, how did you come to be so confidently incorrect about this? You would have to have done no research at all to think the people of China don't vote, but a normal person who has done no research about a subject will have the humility not to assume they know what they're talking about.
It's okay to admit you don't know something. Like the other person said, Chinese people can vote
Learn yourself so that you can make informed opinions
It's better to have no knowledge than negative knowledge (knowing "facts" that are completely wrong because of a gut feeling assumption rather than any evidence or research)
Imagine for a split second that the strongest government in the world is constantly attempting to cause the overthrow of your legitimately popular government, despite it being popular and significantly beloved by almost all people there. This external, most powerful government in the world tried to cause unrest in every possible way, including funding all opposition groups and organizations regardless of their violent/genocidal intent (e.g. Falun Gong, Islamic terror groups) and cause unrest on your borders (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Korea).
What do you do? When good faith polling shows that you're popular and fulfilling the needs and desires of your country's working class but a foreign press tries to speak about the terribleness and need for overthrow, do you just let that happen with more money and propoganda than you can possibly provide to support yourself? Or do you censor the BS and report to your population that these images/ideas/orgs are actually subversive and attempting to change the government they legitimately love.
In this hypothetical situation, what do you propose? Allowing the propaganda but claiming it's wrong has failed in many projects, and resulted in massacres once fascism won (Chile, Indonesia). Just trying to set up a wall of no information works for a bit, but info can cross anyways (USSR). Allowing limited access if you search for it but not allowing it's widespread propagation is the method of china. A VPN allows you to see it all, but it can't be spread too widely before it is stopped from being viral.
Do you have a better solution? Because this is how China presents itself and how the Chinese population sees it
Do you not know what the structure of China is?
Serious question, do you? When I criticise the US I do so from a position of knowing how power works between its three branches of government, how the senate works, how local governance works, how elections work, how the courts work. Do you know how China conducts any of these? Do you know how they govern 1.6billion people?
It's a one-party state with all candidates chosen by the party.
It may wear the skin of a democracy, but it is not a democracy.
Democracy is when you vote between red man and blue man, both of whom have the same policies.
Let's topple all fake democracies. China's red-blue man owns US's red and blue men anyway.
It's a one-party state with all candidates chosen by the party.
It may wear the skin of a democracy, but it is not a democracy.
This is the vaguest description ever and it's not even correct with the vague points. There are multiple parties, and given that there are multiple parties the candidates certainly aren't chosen by one party.
How are candidates chosen? Who elects them? When are elections held? What is the structure of the elections?
Do you know any of these things? Serious question. Have you ever investigated and learned this topic thoroughly? You know how the US system works I assume, I bet you vaguely understand some other systems too, like parliamentary ones such as the UK (or not, could be wrong). Have you ever actually investigated the topic or have you just passively repeated vague statements made by other people who are also passively repeating vague statements about it?
If you want me to I can in fact give you a fairly good summary of how the Chinese system actually works. But do you even want to know? Are you actually open to learning?
I've investigated Chinese Democracy thoroughly and vastly prefer Use Your Illusion II or Appetite for Destruction
It's a one-party state with all candidates chosen by the party.
I much prefer all those two or three party states where the candidates are chosen by their respective parties on the marching orders of the capitalist class
lmao dog you shoulda just said "i don't know anything about that, why don't you tell me?"
it still would have taken you zero effort and you'd have avoided embarrassing yourself
According to their respective peoples, China has an infinitely more vibrant and responsive democracy than the United States.
I'd hate to think you'd be so blind to the irony of saying such a thing as 'wearing the skin of democracy' if you were living in the west.
Either way I'd be ashamed to act like you have and speak despite having such ignorance about the Chinese system of democracy.
the representatives are chosen by their parties in most countries, including the US. the difference is that in western "democracies" there's two or more parties all representing the same interests - those of the capitalist class - posing the electorate with a false choice. how is this improvement?
Democracy is when the people hate their government and the more they hate it the more democratic it is
Democracy ™️ brought to you by Yum brands Inc. Is infact everyone's enemy. The Chinese process is infact more democratic. When you look at the way funds are apportioned and how often the legislation passed reflects the will of the people it is undeniable they actually have more democratic input in their system than we do.
"Democracy" Oligarchies most succesfull Psy Ops , Defend it , Think about all the Ressources longing for Freedom of Travel !
Meh, our democracy isn't even that threatening to China (Taiwan's is, it showcases a viable alternative to the CPC), they just had to leave us to our "contradictions", they'd keep booming and we'd just keep buying their stuff while we eat each other alive, if China is doing this, they gotta be really desperate to turn Europe fascist again.
(Taiwan's is, it showcases a viable alternative to the CPC)
Throwing chairs at each other in the Legislative Yuan over who gets to be America's most loyal running dog isn't seen by anyone thing China as a viable alternative to governance.
It's ok, Hu Jintao really didn't mind being dragged off the stage like an idiot in a country where face is everything. China does settle fistfights in private, which does set a good example for the populace, ngl.
PS: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9D%A2%E5%AD%90:
面子是人際關係中的一种现象，在東方等级观念较强的社会（如中國等）特別受到重視。具体定义不明，基本上意味给社会中每个人的尊重[1][2]。如果不给人面子，即是拆穿別人的面具，可能会引起报复。如果有面子，一般会被认为是社会地位较高，更受人尊敬，然而面子不够大，可能是因为在社会、经济等方面地位低下。“面子”是“社会脸面”，代表着个人在人生历程中由成就和夸耀所获得的名声以及被社会重视的声誉[3]。「厚顏」俗稱「不要臉」。
Aside from the racism of the "face culture" narrative, the guy is a dinosaur and notably not an official, just there as a matter of respect and legacy as a former President. We don't really know what happened, but those meetings are long and the dude is probably senile, so he was probably getting helped off the stage by aides at around the time they expected from the outset.
Seriously, China caring enough for their elders that they don't want them shitting their pants on live television is apparently genocide now
in a country where face is everything
In America no one cares about being embarrassed, that's only compatible with the Asiatic brainpan!
Toss Orientalism on your reading list:
The term orientalism denotes the exaggeration of difference, the presumption of Western superiority, and the application of clichéd analytical models for perceiving the "Oriental world".
Look, if I find it disrespectful and a scandal to watch that video, I assume that anybody who tends to value and respect the position, wisdom of their elders in an institution (more than us who throw them in nursing homes and ignore them forever) will find this pretty jarring for a well-functioning Chinese democracy.
But you guys are hilarious, finding offense where none was given, you're an amazing instance, I want you to know that, from the bottom of my heart.
I'd say your ignorance and racism are funny but na, nothing funny about you
Just pathetic
treated like an idiot in a country where face is everything.
哇，你真懂中国文化。只有我们中国人不喜欢丢脸，不像那些外国政治者。他们热爱在大家面前受困窘。
Did that sound like a thing that wasn't wildly rascist when you wrote it? You can delete your comment. You simply can choose not to be rascist, it doesn't cost you anything.
It’s already a hexbear fest in here. There is zero point posting anything about China or Russia - every comment is trounced on by hexbears.
Yes yes, if I didn’t want your opinion I should have stayed on Reddit.
Yes, yes, you got here first.
Yes, yes, I’m a brainwashed liberal.
Yes, yes, you’re actually one of the oldest Lemmy communities but you’ve only recently started federating.
Yes, yes, you’re seeing the light and can see through the western media’s bias and the rest of us are just mindless sheep.
Yes, yes, China is great, Russia is fantastic, Ukraine should pursue for peace and roll over.
Yes, yes, you never allowed downvoting so you’re used to just comment and that’s why there’s so many hexbears in here. And you’re definitely not Russian or CCP farmed trolls.
Yes, yes, all those things are true.
I’m sure I’m missing a few, but I’m pretty close to a hexbear “Bingo!” I think.
We used to allow downvoting, we just got rid of it to stop trolls from making multiple accounts to downvote every comment from people they disliked (specifically trans users were getting their comments brigaded like this) and it turned out to be a great choice because it encouraged discussion if you disagreed with someone.
Also we're definitely not "Russian or CCP farmed trolls" why would they have paid people to talk amongst themselves for three years? I mean I could really use the supplemental income so I wish, been putting off car repairs for months due to finances.
I don’t think all of you are farmed trolls. My apologies if that’s how it was heard.
I think many of you are farmed trolls, some of you are “useful idiots” to the troll farms, some of you have degenerated into a brigade of memes and a few of you are real people who genuinely hold idealistic opinions that couldn’t work in the real world. I doubt many of you belong in the last category.
“Only a few of you are even real people that’s why I am wasting my time whining here”
I think many of you are farmed trolls, some of you are “useful idiots” to the troll farms, some of you have removedd into a brigade of memes and a few of you are real people who genuinely hold idealistic opinions that couldn’t work in the real world. I doubt many of you belong in the last category.
Is this copy-pasta or are you always this condescending? What if I told you that's how we feel about libs like you?
I’m hardly ever this condescending. I’ve made a special exception to hexbear users who’ve been brigading almost all posts about China and Russia since you federated again.
You’ve been telling everyone how you feel about libs since you federated, so I’m sure you will continue with or without me.
I know it’s tough to face the light and meet the wider world, but outside the basement you’ve been keeping yourself for three years, you should expect that people giggle at your idiocy, at best.
I know it’s tough to face the light and meet the wider world, but outside the basement you’ve been keeping yourself for three years, you should expect that people giggle at your idiocy, at best.
Im so glad you got through that. I hope your doing well for yourself. 👍
I’ve made a special exception to hexbear users who’ve been brigading almost all post last about China and Russia since you federated again.
You’ve been telling everyone how you feel about libs since you federated, so I’m sure you will continue with or without me.
That was not the point I was making. I was telling you that you can litterally take that paragraph you wrote and paste it into any polarizing subreddit and get a bunch of upvotes in each ingroup... Reread what you wrote from our perspective.. Don't you see how we'd say it fits on you too? (If you're having trouble: imagine you're us and roleplay it, see if it fits then). You created copy pasta..
I know it’s tough to face the light and meet the wider world, but outside the basement you’ve been keeping yourself. You should expect that people giggle at your idiocy, at best.
I am once again asking liberals to either learn how federation works, or go back to reddit.
It's not brigading when I see a dumb post on my front page and decide to comment on it.
Reddit is a Liberal echo chamber that actively censors things that aren't the US state department line, go back to it if federation is such a problem.
Yes, yes, you’re seeing the light and can see through the western media’s bias and the rest of us are just mindless sheep.
I mean people are invited every time to argue we aren't right about this but they never do for some reason, idk why that is.
I mean i am yet to read any convincing arguments that we aren't, even though there are plenty of opportunities to debate us in the free market of ideas.
One has to pick one’s battles; it’s not always worth one’s time to debate the raving drunk on the street corner, even if what he is saying is wrong.
You came into a thread and started slamming out an entire paragraph unrelated to the actual post about those damn hexbeara and NOW its about choosing your battles?
Lmao cmon guy
True, engaging with actual sourced comments is equivalent to arguing with drunkards, as opposed to going on tirades about how all the hexbears are bad bots.
See you could have done it right here, with this post. There was practically an invitation, but you chose to post something that dismissed and sidestepped the issue.
It's closer to a nationalist oligarcy with the trappings a formal, liberal democracy. Ofc, at the end of the day the U$A is no more democratic in any deepy, normative or radical sense. But the state itself is ideologically more nationalist and has been pushing back against liberal social and economic views. You can see this in the conflicts recently between the executive and the central bank, as the latter has been one of the last convinced bastions of neoliberal economic orthodoxy.
This also has to do with the fact that Russia's ruling bourgeois class's interests are more national in nature, as a result of their economic development since 1991, aggressive geopolitics from NATO, and the fact that they were forced by the state into emphasizing national interests once the Putin era began.
Ofc it remains a capitalist shithole.
That is what modern liberal democratic governments become. You analysis is good, I think you are just giving all parties involved too much of the benefit of thr doubt here
Sure. As a matter of historicaly development, we know, as Marxists, that liberal capitalist societies, whether they have the formal institutions of representative democracy or not, tend to develop due to the tendencies of economic development the social consequences of the later and the political conjunctures, into fascistic or fascist political regimes and societies. But these are tendencies, they aren't metaphysical or mathematical necessities. Even if we always saw every liberal democracy transform into outright into fascism, this doesn't make them the same thing. If you were actually under a fascist government you would quickly realise the difference.
Fascism is partly characterized by it's ideological and other superstructural features, but this is only a partial understanding. A fuller understanding notes that such states have only emerged in contexts of capitalist decay and crisis and act as a safety valve through which the capitalist class reestablishes political supremacy over the workings classes. However, I would point out that while capitalists are generally key parts of an any fascist state, the relationship between a powerful fascist state and individual enterprises (such as in Nazi Germany) does tip more and more towards the arbitrary power of the central executive government, to the point where they are more eager than capitalists to jeopardize profits for political objectives.
I'm obviously not saying that liberals have not engaged in extreme racism, colonialism, and genocide. Actually, from a historical point of view, they have been the best at it. It also isn't wrong to say that in many respects fascism is also charaterized by the turning inward, the domestic usage, of the coercive, violent means of political repression which are innovated and developed in colonies. As Aimé Cesaire pointed out, fascism is like imperialism turned inwards. Modern America often treats many people internally in a fascistic way, embodied by the prison-industrial complex, especially if you are a very active, radical activist, or were or are in the past or present a member of a revolutionary group like the Black Panthers, or more generally a poor immigrant, a racial minority interacting with cops, or many other scenarios. The American state, like the British and French states, their political and economic elites, have already partly fascicized, are undergoing the process. But I really don't think we're passed the point of the nature of the political regime changing sufficiently to call them all fully fascist states. After Ukraine, the USA is the closest.
This is also why it is so weird and unnecessary to me when people just say that liberal democracy is the same thing as fascism. The fact that two things are linked or that one has tendencies that lead it to transform into, produce, be replaced by the other does not mean that they're the same. Actually it implies the opposite, otherwise there would be no transformation to begin with. Take the Italian government. It is filled with realy, ideologically convinced fascists. But it does not find itself in a situation where, even as a unified coalition of Mussolini fans, they cannot actually find any means to exert fully fascist politics in defiance of the EU's neoliberal economic agenda, nor NATO's political agenda. Meloni does actually use the classic fascist technique of appealing to leftist sounding points. She recently went on Italian television and shit all over Macron and the French for enganging in neocolonialism against Françafrique, explaining the monetary system on tv and how most gold a child will mine in the period will end up in the French central bank. The difference with the Ukrainian government is that the material conditions of Ukraine allow, actually force, the government to fascicize beyond the confines of it's own ideology and extend this to society more broadly and more radically. There is not even the pretence of liberal democracy in Ukraine amongst actual Ukrainians, let alone the Russophone Ukrainians or Russians of the east.
We have different words for a reason: to refer to different things. In this case, different types of political regimes. A liberal political regime is different to fascist political regime. The transition might be gradual or appear relatively continuous, but so was the emergence of feudalism and capitalism.
This is also why it is so weird and unnecessary to me when people just say that liberal democracy is the same thing as fascism. The fact that two things are linked or that one has tendencies that lead it to transform into, produce, be replaced by the other does not mean that they're the same. Actually it implies the opposite, otherwise there would be no transformation to begin with.
Would you prefer "liberal democracy nearly inevitably leads to fascism"? Stage 1 cancer and stage 4 cancer are both cancer.
I don't think any state qualifies as "great," or "fantastic", however aside from that zero lies detected and Ukraine should have accepted peace terms a year ago instead of listening to :loser:
Now you have some idea of how we feel on Reddit. The difference here is that karma doesn't matter. And hexbearers can't even downvote your comments anyway. You're just complaining that you have to listen to another point of view.
If you didn’t want to be ridiculed for your insane opinions, you shouldn’t haven’t federated with the real world.
Our opinions are correct so we feel no challenge from you. It’s simple as that.
You will perpetually be stuck falling for the next WMDs in Iraq, forever.
It’s sad
LOL. I definitely did not believe Iraq had WMDs. It was insane what the US and its partners did in Iraq. It solved nothing. It probably made things worse in the Middle East, at least for 20 years, and it cost a lot of lives.
But let’s not use that fact to say everything the West is doing is wrong. Just like a few of the good things China doesn’t make everything China does correct.
If you payed closer attention you'd notice that we have a range of opinions on China, and we don't all think everything they do is correct. That's what the term critical support means. It's a recognition that even socialist states are imperfect, as the nation state as an institution is fundamentally imperfect and will always and everywhere undermine freedom to some degree. But a state which is undergoing the transition to socialism, particularly one that's putting themselves in a position to undermine US imperial hegemony like China is, is well worth supporting, even as we acknowledge its flaws and contradictions.
What none of us will ever tolerate are accusations of genocide with one discredited religious fanatic as the source, or racist insults being hurled at their head of state, both things I've seen numerous times from users from other instances.
For real though. It's hardly difficult to find a bunch of leftists arguing about China lmao
I believed it. I was a child at the time, but I believed it. Because the entire US was screaming it was true.
After Libya, my illusions were fully shattered. Now I search out the backstory devoid of Western sources.
You claim you didn’t believe, but you still buy the US line today.
How can you reconcile such a monstrous lie they told in Iraq with the idea that they could ever be trusted again? That cognitive dissonance broke my belief in the West entirely.
Millions died on a lie. Justice would be execution for every official involved. They are doing it again, but once again most won’t realize it until years after.
I can understand that because you feel duped, you find it hard to trust anything the US says today.
I didn’t feel duped, though. It was clearly an insane lie meant to justify a neocon, hawkish invasion of Iraq and Bush Jr was desperate to “finish the job” and get a pat on his back by Bush.
The world is super complex. Not everything the West does is good - there’s plenty of examples in history, less from present day but definitely cases (Iraq is an awful example). Similarly, not everything China does is bad, far from it. I’ve travelled there extensively and work with Chinese citizens every single day. I have no hate for Chinese people - count many as my friend and they’re both hard working and fun to be around after work (once you get to know them). There’s plenty of things to like in China. And once you get to know Chinese people well, they will tell you story after story about the insanity inside their own country - that they are well aware of. They laugh at their own government.
So I’m not confused about the balance of things. On balance, the West is a far better influence on the world and care-taker of its citizens than China is. And let’s not get started on the Russian state, which is an oligarchic kleptocracy driven to violence by its isolated dictator.
I understand that the US is the among the most evil and genocidal forces in human history.
I came to that realization through being duped.
That is a very important distinction. None of this comes from some petty sense of slight.
To consider the US a better influence on the world than China is not only laughable, it is obscene.
The US exterminated an entire continent of innocent people as the opening act to their crimes, and have only added to that list with every passing year. Never have they meaningfully repented or cleaned house from those acts.
It would be as if Nazi Germany survived for three centuries.
The US carried out nuclear murder to make a political point. The US butchered and destroyed the lives of billions in the global south and they aim to do the same to China next.
On balance, the West is a far better influence on the world
NATO has bombed and destroyed not just Iraq, but the majority of the middle east. It runs an occupation force today in Syria. NATO didn't just destroy Iraq, it colonized Iraq's agriculture, which is now dependent on imports from NATO while it feeds pasta to Texan schools. NATO has transformed Libya into an open air slave market, flooded Syria with weapons, backed Israeli Apartheid, blockaded Iran, couped the government of Pakistan, and caused a famine in Afghanistan on their way out by sanctioning yet another people. The little girls whose rights NATO countries cared about so very much then starved to death. Not for any reason, not to achieve any objective. But only out of spite.
NATO has couped and propagandized it's way across Latin America. This is not ancient history. It is current and ongoing. It claims outright that they won't stop blockading Venezuela until it's oil is owned by american shareholders. So not only bombs, deaths by starvation and lack of medicine are perfectly fine for the organization. Just as Syrians and Chinese people have no right to territorial integrity, Cubans have had no right to ally with whoever they want for generations.
NATO runs an actual and currently existing Colonial Empire across Africa. One of it's leading voices, France, owns the infrastructure, finances and natural resources of dozens of countries, assassinating its way into total dominance. Then it gives some scraps back to those colonies, and calls it 'Foreign Aid'. Berating the poors for being so dependent. Once challenged, NATO has yet again chosen to starve people to death with trade wars on basic infrastructure, food, and medicine.
I'm Brazilian. When the Bolsonaro family was literally calling Chinese monkeys on twitter the Chinese were remarkably patient. The USA berates us for being 'anti-american' because we aren't grateful of how Biden chose not to coup us last year. As if it's not humiliating enough that a fascist in this country can draw on the history of America and outright ask the CIA for help staying in power. There are now US troops supporting the coup government of Peru. Right after coup attempts in Bolivia and Venezuela. We now watch as high ranking US government officials float the idea of invading Mexico, under the cover of a war on drugs. After years of waging it in Colombia and Central America. But we all know it's because Mexico nationalized stuff that Americans don't want to see owned by Mexicans.
There are no fucking standards for comparison. There are no regions of this world which do not witness current and ongoing hybrid wars waged by NATO countries at the behest of the USA.
The West is a defensive alliance between warmongerers. The Americans at least have the decency of wearing their thirst for blood on their sleeve. Democrat or Republican, they've all had their share of wars they enjoy supporting. It's the Europeans who will cry on TV while sending volunteers to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I only pray for any people who is targetted by NATO's eye of sauron. Or has to make do with sharing a border such an evil collection of governments.
Hey, since you already understand that the war on terror was a lie, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts after listening to Blowback Season 2 and Season 3. They're about Cuba and Korea. I grew up believing they were no good and completely evil, but there is a verifiable truth that is propagandized against in the west. You don't even have to use non-western sources to get to that truth, it's just that if you don't know you've been lied to, there's no reason to dig in.
It's certainly not a single lie over the War on Terror that has led to our complete distrust of the American state.
the West is a far better influence on the world and care-taker of its citizens than China is
Simple statistics like literacy and life expectancy disagree with this assessment.
And let’s not get started on the Russian state
You won't find much support for Russia on Hexbear. You're mistaking our disdain for NATO as support for Russia. Russia is not the Soviet Union.
I definitely did not believe Iraq had WMDs.
That's interesting. Now i'm genuinely curious what broke your resistance.
I’m not sure I understand your question. Do you mean “what made me realise that Iraq had no WMDs”? Well, for starters that the UN had been all over the bloody country inspecting it for years. Secondly that Colin Powell’s session at the UN presented drawings as evidence. Drawings.
I'm talking about your persecution complex. I don't feel attacked.
you shouldn’t haven’t federated with the real world.
lmao, alwaysthesamemap.jpeg
It’s already a hexbear fest in here. There is zero point posting anything about China or Russia - every comment is trounced on by hexbears
If you didn’t want to be ridiculed for your insane opinions, you shouldn’t haven’t federated with the real world.
You literally believe that people who disagree with you are "farmed bots", you're in no position to say other people have insane opinions
No not all hexbear users are farmed trolls. I think most are doing China and Russia’s bidding out of misunderstandings about the world and what really happens inside those two countries.
I think some hexbear users are farmed trolls and/bots.
What a coincidence, I think you're doing the USAs bidding out of a misunderstanding about the world and what really happens inside that country.
You went on a long screed about how we keep making fun of you and telling you to go back to reddit. Clearly you're the one being ridiculed for your insane opinions.
Simultaneously a bot farm and separated from any wider instances until very recently.
Do you honestly believe that?
Does it really make sense to you that China sets up self contained bot farms interacting with no one?
That's not a reply to what you've been asked, that's you posting a link to a lemmy thread linking to a German state affiliated media article that has already been posted in the OP and that you probably haven't even read beyond the title because it doesn't have anything to do with your rant against the spectre of hexbear, or with the replies to it. It's a pattern i've come to see a lot with you shitlibs, you make 
gestures towards what you believe to be an authoritative and trustworthy source and then it becomes obvious you haven't engaged with the linked material in any way, you just make a feeble attempt to use it as a way to shut dissenters up. That kind of parlor trick probably even works on your brain that has been smoothed out to a marble-like texture by the reddit front page, Vaush streams, and a constantly growing coat of bioaccumulating microplastics, but come the fuck on, people have asked you a question. Is it that hard to answer it in good faith? I've read the article in question, i've actually read the replies from other hexbear users here and the article doesn't work as a refutation of what they've said, in fact some of it actually supports the claims by hexbear users that the pro-imperialist stance of liberal left parties in the west has opened up an opportunity for right wingers to appropriate anti-western and pacifist stances in public to fish for votes of disgruntled apolitical and post-left people while they privately support the same murderous, genocidal expansionism as their more liberal counterparts, as evidenced by the breaking of disarmament treaties from the cold war and the increased funding of Azovite insurgents under Trump, the sudden swiveling towards an uncompromising pro-NATO stance of the fascists now governing Italy and countless other examples for the imperialism of parties politically comparable to Germany's AfD. I wonder if it's seriously beyond you to think that far or if you're just too lazy to do any critical thinking. Is this redditor debatebro shit the only way you can engage in a conversation? I'm genuinely curious how the fuck that idea of us as a simultaneously Chinese and Russian botnet started to live rent-free in your head, or how you got the idea that a bunch of trans communists support modern-day Russia's neoliberal regime that is as bad on queer rights as Florida will be 5 years from now, and what kind of absurd thought process is behind your far-fetched assumptions about us.
Hey man, I’m genuinely sorry that I linked to the wrong thing. That’s a simple mistake, it seems my client (Voyager) acts a bit strange when pressing “Share”. Let me fix it.
Edit: Nope can’t seem to get a durable link.
What I wrote in another comment, which I was trying to link to, was:
_I don’t think all of you are farmed trolls. My apologies if that’s how it was heard.
I think many of you are farmed trolls, some of you are “useful idiots” to the troll farms, some of you have degenerated into a brigade of memes and a few of you are real people who genuinely hold idealistic opinions that couldn’t work in the real world. I doubt many of you belong in the last category._
maybe we are Subreddit that was banned from reddit Because its oppinions are deemed "Dangerous" the Status Quo and the Class of People that profit from the Status Quo. ( The Oligarchy , the Passiv income classes) Maybe the History of Hexbear is actually if you look at it , the answer to all your questions
Maybe Propaganda actually happens and Happend to You ! if you are iritated by hearing Pro China opinions ? How is this not a Testment of your Isolation ... You have actually a great fucking opportunity on your hands , you can Learn ...
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=uxc5cbMqvxU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I'm sorry that our existence shatters your worldview.
Either stop complaining that we exist or find some proof for your troll farming hypothesis(good luck)
Your conspiracy allows you to dismiss any leftist thought as non genuine.
You will spend the rest of your life honestly believing an ideology that almost overthrew capitalism multiple times isn’t sincerely held by many people.
As awful as capitalism is I don’t for a second question your genuine belief in it. That only seems to go one way
Hey, I don’t have anything new to say, just want to join the pile-on. Sorry you can’t have your liberal echo chamber, and sorry that most of the world actually prefers China to the great satan and its western demons. If you didn’t want to be ridiculed for your insane opinions though you really shouldn’t be federated with the real world though
It’s already a hexbear fest in here. There is zero point posting anything about China or Russia - every comment is trounced on by hexbears
Lmaooo go cry about it I guess
You are on a good way ,
accept us as the new Cultural Hegemony ...
Its not like you didnt have a Cultural Hegemony Before, so you know the play
It was China bad , its China good now!
pretty fucking easy ....
Waaaaahhhhh only 99% of everything I interact with is geared toward my Liberal Anti-Communist sensibilities waaaaahhhhh waaaaahhhhh why can't it be 100%
Libs crying that they can't just pile on people who disagree with them will never stop being funny. These trolls can't actually make any coherent arguments to support their positions and simply regurgitate a handful of tropes they memorized. All of a sudden this tactic doesn't work anymore and y'all having a meltdown.
And here's a bingo card for you lot
This is the best summary I could come up with:
AfD co-leader Alice Weidel and her Bundestag federal parliamentary colleagues, Petr Bystron and Peter Felser, spent almost a week in Beijing and Shanghai at the end of June.
Upon their return, Felser told DW that he supposed it was his party's good results in the German polls which had sparked the interest of the Chinese.
She spent six years living there on a German Academic Exchange Service scholarship and completed her doctorate on the Chinese pension system, before moving on to work for Goldman Sachs.
Geopolitically, said Schroeder, the AfD sees the traditional Western ties with the United States, which it regards as hegemonic, as having past their use-by date.
The member of the European Parliament from Saxony, who aligns himself with the right-wing side of his party, has attracted attention in the past for multiple pro-China statements.
For example: The party has opposed the use of components from the Chinese communications equipment supplier Huawei in the expansion of 5G mobile internet services in Germany.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Clickbait headline. It doesn't mention who they mean when they say "China". Is it a high ranking official? Some nobody entrepreneur? It also doesn't say anything about why they might be "court[ing]" the AfD. It's really more about populists doing what populists do and aligning along nationalist lines to the benefit of the national bourgeoisie and the detriment of the American empire. They're right that disintegration with China would be a disaster.
More importantly, the actual article makes the case that it's the AfD who's courting China. The article claims that AfD used to take on a more anti-China rethoric. Now they don't, and say outright they don't wish to do regime change in China. What should be a wakeup call for the right wing coalition to stop being so incompetent, is being sold by Germant State Media as criticism of the far right. Liberal infighting, is what it is.
China cooperates with everyone. It's a pretty major point of contention among tankies; on the one hand it sucks when you're backing fascists, but on the other hand, at least China isn't going around warring and couping foreign governments (except the one mistake in Vietnam).
Yes, sure. It seems hypocritical to me to say, on the one hand, that there is no political difference between the yankies bombing Yemeni children directly, vs giving the Saudis the bombs to drop, and then on the other hand, say that there is a difference between China supporting fascists who murder children (i.e. Israel or the Apartheid goverment), vs actually murdering those people themselves. I'm not saying that you are defending this, but it strikes me as a weird mental gymnastic were some 'tankies' (or whatever term you want to use, no normative judgement intended) will engage in basically some classic liberalism in order to let China off the hook on this front.
We should also mention the Khymer Rouge. Fascist might not be the correct term here, but it was politically equivalent in terms of how destructive, bloody and reactionary it was.
Israel is fascist. There is no excuse, by the nature of fascism, for supporting it. Ever. Yet China is happy to fund both the Israeli army and the West Bank administration.
Again, people can't have their cake and eat it too. You can't both say (i) profoundly reactionary as Russia is, Ukraine is more deeply fascicized and that as an immediate consequence of that, there should be a preference for the war ending on Russia's terms; and (ii) that China may be funding fascists, but this is understandable and justifiable in the context. Okay. So then what are the criteria and conditions here apart from biased vibes to decide when critical support in these extreme cases is justified or not? What's the line? I know I have my own ideas about this, but it's often difficult to see what other peoples' are.
It's should go without saying that China's foreign policy, including during the Maoist period, has been by far one of its most reactionary aspects. Once again, the Sino-Soviet split was a historical tragedy and reflects the challenge for communists of avoiding finding themselves in post-revolutionary situations in which their politics becomes nationalist due to them coming to identify their interests with those of the traditional nation state as a matter of reality and pragmatic necessity.
Yeah as I said, Chinese Cold War foreign policy is a pretty contentious subject even amongst China fans and you won't find many if any here supporting it. Clearly significant mistakes were made.
Modern day Chinese policy is a bit harder to judge. I'm not sure what the nature of China and Israel's relationship is; does it go further than simply trade? Regardless I would say they still remain the best of the 21stC superpowers just because they aren't engaging in open conflict, but no policy is perfect. Secondly I'd say that China's stance of 'respect and work with any state who respects us' is more principled than the US's selective list of designated friends and enemies; China works with Israel because they work with everyone, for better or worse, while the US works with Israel because they ideologically support Israel and its goals. I guess materially the result could be the same regardless of intention so maybe that doesn't matter?
What is the difference between a mistake, and unfortunate necessities? Why are lesser-evil arguments not theoretical mistakes on our part when we make them about China? I'm not disagreeing with what you've said about how China rationalizes their policies, but my point is that, as a massive obligation of all Marxists, we need to critically examine it both analytically and normatively.
The intention is important because it's relevant to understanding how China will act in the future. For instance, if revolutionary situations emerge in the rest of the world, will China actively support them? China has showed little to no interest in the contemporary era in supporting radical movements. I agree that they may be right to do this. There is perhaps a 'socialism in one country' calculation which goes beyond the Stalinist one (as Stalinist Russia did continue to support revolutionary movements, tho massively shit the bed in the case of China). Perhaps it is the correct one. But it does introduce the fear that they may never change this position, including in revolutionary scenarios when it would be in the interest of the world proletariat for them to do so.
We can go back to my previous comment to note that it goes further than trade, and depends what they are trading. China is not a group of students. If they boycot Israel or just don't trade with it, it has a bigger effect, and will not contribue, indirect as it may or may not be, to the active repression of Palestinians in an area that is one of the most important for politicala and ant-colonial struggle in the current world.
I think the issue goes deeper than mistakes. Vulgar marxists often seem to judge things either 'mistakes' or 'determined deterministically by their historical conditions, so stop moralizing about it' based on their vibes towards the choice in question; mostly because they havent actually properly thought through and analyzed as Marxists the relationship between normative thought and judgement, and explanation in the context of historical materialism (which we can understand to mean here, in a relatively minimal and non-metaphysical sense, as simply a theory of social reality or phenemenon which aims to explain them on the basis of class, and how the latter determines the control and distribution of the economic surplus and other social relations in virtue of how the class relations organize and are influenced by transformations between the classes and between them and the forces of production). So you often see some people act or speak as if any use of normative concepts is 'idealism' (whatever they happen to mean here, which often seems to fluctuate incoherently), and cite out of context and reductively the quote where Marx says that communism is not an ideal to be established but a real movement of history. Ofc, even beyond the context, Marxism is not a religious dogma. It is not a cult. It is the proletarian stage of human enlightenment and a continuation of the scientific method in its first real application to the social, hence to itself, which in term influences itself, thus the world, thus itself in term and so on (whereby the mind-bending aspects of dialectics in the social context). Marx himself, and all of us, and any Marxist, when you read about their lives, and first and foremost motivated to political radicalism not based on some metaphysical revelation or scientifc realization of the dialectic of the movements of history (athough perhaps this is the more advanced view which develops later). It is based on the experience of oppression, exploitation, abuse, repression, violence, coercion and alienation, which reflect something not coherent with our own material interests. What matters normatively, in a concrete and experiential sense, are the material consequences that affect the majority of people. Experiences of justice are a part of this. Political thought decisions require necessarily normative (thus ethical or moral) forms of thought, though the latter don't exhaust the former. But we need to be able to respond when people ask 'why should we have communism/socialism/anarchism'? And they are going to what normative arguments in terms of how that kind of society will be more beneficial for them and the people they care about. If fascism was a more likely 'real movement' of history I would still oppose it and hopefully be willing to die fighting it than to simply say 'okay well history has spoken'. The reason why there is a movement of history towards the conditions of socialism and communism is because they are, from the point of view of socio-historical evolution of the species, more advanced, efficient, beneficial ways of organizing society. Societies evolve into new forms based on their tensions, instabilities and internal dynamics, and those which have the historical advantage, as capitalism did when it emerged due to its greater powers of production and control, will often take a historical lead. We'll see if China can do this. But socialism is a normative necessity, not a metaphysical necessity, although the two are linked in virtue of my last comment.
Btw I'm not saying at all that you are doing the above 'vulgar marxism', just highlighting it as a relevant topic of discussion. Just to be clear that I'm not attacking you here.
Chinese foreign policy was definitely, I agree, filled with actual mistakes. But if we put in the context of the Cold War and the increasing revisionism of the USSR, the hostility of the latter towards China, and the fact that the interests of the CPC were now tied to those of a nation-state structure, it forces us to realise the difficulty of determining the historically progressive policies when there is an immense temptation to identity those with the more spatially and temporally localized ones of the nation state one happens to control.
Its not about universal values at all but about what the Chinese People want and what the party determined is the interests of their communist goals. I don't love that China treats Israel as anything other than the fascist government it is, but the biggest difference is locality/direct influence. Russia is directly affected by the fascists at their border, because their fascism is directed eastward. China isn't impacted by the Israeli fascism and therefore has no direct interests.
Maybe you call this classic liberalism, but the analysis here begins in a materialist position. China just takes the very minimal-conflict path within their material position. This means that great evils occurring elsewhere do not trump their need to develop and become strong enough to become communist. Once those evils are aimed towards them, they react and sometimes not perfectly, but in the way which is protectionist. Hopefully, from their example, we can learn to be better at exporting revolutions like the USSR but without destroying ourselves, like the USSR allowed itself to be destroyed (the phrasing here isn't meant to indicate systemic intent, but it wasn't prevented obviously). I hope we can be better at internationalism than China but they're surviving and influencing the world while every other communist led country has been marred by a sort of irrelevance to the rest of the world if they didn't get destroyed.
I don't know how many times this needs to be said but I'll say it again: Marxism is a univeralist (at least applied to human history and societies) scientific theory and set of revolutionary normative principles of thought and action that emerged in modern Europe as the Proletarian stage of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution.
If people want to do historical relativism of value based on nationalist considerations, then they're basically a postmodern fascist whose view is identical to the basis of Dugin's ideology. Dugin himself thinks that's he's synthesized and gone beyond liberal capitalism, communism and fascism here, by identifying the material interests of individual people's with their national identity. Ofc this is just postmodern strasserism.
There are also several distinct questions here: firstly to what extent the Chinese people have actual democratic control over the CPC and the PRC, which I'd say is little, and which is different to whether or not the policies of the CPC are in their interest (to a great degree, I'd say yes), and is also different to the question of whether or not they have objectively high approval ratings (also genuinely very high compared to any other society that comes to mind).
I agree with you that there is a locality/directness factor that is imporant, but the two examples are not fully analogous because in the one case we are talking about whether Russia's invasion is understanding from the pov of Russia's interests, whereas in the other we are not talking about invasion, but about whether China should be supporting fascists. It answers why China might be excused from not intervening in Ukraine more directly but it doesn't answer why they should be economically supporting Israel. Ofc, perhaps they want economic leverage to eventually pull Israel away from the US orbit based on Irsael's perception of its own interests. I don't know. I'm not saying we should unilaterally and unequivocally condemn China on a purely detached 'moralist' basis here. The final judgement has to be in terms of whether or not their actions contribute positively or negatively in the long-term to world communist revolution.
The way you've phrased it would suggest that China's interests are those of the realist modern nation-state. These are inevitably part of them, but China is not the nation state. The latter is the state of the society, which is part of but not identical to the society itself. The Chinese working classes interests are ultimately those of a transition to socialism and world-revolution. Your phrasing also suggests that Israel is not in their direct interests. I think you need to make clearer what you mean by direct interest. Do you mean no interest at all if not direct? Or can they still be of indirect interest if not direct? But Israel is a bulwark of American influence in the middle east and key source of black ops and intelligence operations. No-one is better at killing radicals than Israel. It is also in the interest of China as a society, again, to contribute to a world revolutionary situation. How is the Chinese government doing this? If so, is it intentional? If not, then why is this not a problem, given that intentions are our guide to what China's power structure would do in any future potentially revolutionary situation. If they were not an interest at all, then they wouldn't be trading and helping the IDF to arm itself.
This is important because communism is not, I repeat not, possible without a world revolution.
I'm saying that the mental manouver justifying the position in one that is common in liberalism. I'm not even necessarily saying it's wrong. But I'm asking for clarification why it's justified to make that move when talking and thinking about China, and not about other states. Which states are not reasoning in terms of their materialist position? They all are, more or less, when looked at from a Marxist pov. This is explanation. It's not justification. Justification in the Marxist revolution is always, first and foremost, what most likely contributes in the long-term to a world-proletarian revolution. This is always the end goal (although the end goal of the revolution is the production of conditions for real fulfilling and ethical life and advancement of the species).
Just replying to your splitting it into 3 questions: this is in direct opposition to democratic centralism and is a liberal absurdity to think that these should be considered separately. It doesn't really impact the rest of your comment though, so that's below.
Also Marxism is a universalism based in a scientific approach, not based in a set of principles i think. Unless you mean by principles here: dialectical approach and materialist basis.
By direct and indirect, I mean primarily that its immediate. I should use that word, and that's a good critique of my phrasing for sure. But it's immediacy does not negate the eventual interest, a direct but not immediate interest, in revolution in Israel. I mean I can forgive eventuality for immediacy if this is part of the scientific learning process of world transition. Why I justify it for China is that I believe there is a clear communist party interested in the highest levels of focus and learning for the sake of communism doing this. I think their track record is clear in this sense despite mistakes.
I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by the first sentence.
It seems pretty clear to me that you're confusing the fact that the questions have things in common, whether they are about similar topics, or whether one question is relevant to another because implies consequences that determine or influence our answers to the other questions, with the idea that they are the same single question. The fact that China's government has very high approval by all measures, is not proof that the government is democratically run in a socialist sense. Indeed we know it's not, because Chinese workers do not have direct control over the means of production. So it's not sufficient for it to be democratic. However it's almost definitely a necessary condition, so you would need it, and it is evidence in favor in the weak sense that it does not refute the idea that China is democratic by itself. But there is other evidence not in favor.
But historical materialism is not mystical nonsense where suddenly everything connected or with any property in common in suddenly identical. It's not a metaphysical calculator you can use to answer every question.
Democratic Centralism is a theory about how a party should be organized. It has no bearing on a linguistic or semantic question. End of. What it implies, which you seem to me to be confusing with the idea that these are the same question, is that the questions practically have to be considered together, or that you can't answer one without one or more of the others. I completely agree in the latter case. As evidenced by this very discussion, it will be difficult to enter into a discussion where you discuss one but you don't discuss the others. But they are not the same thing, and saying they are is just a logical error (which dialectical materialism or democratic centralism have nothing to do with) which ends up with us treating China as closer to socialism than it actually is, which is a massive failure on our part as Marxists. For Marxists more than any else, we have a duty to be clear, because the truth is on our side and we are not in power.
Okay but if but now I need to ask the exact same question about the word 'immediate'. This seems to be a synonym for 'direct' here, so it doesn't necessarily make it more clear to me what it means. In a dialectical context it is difficult to make any sense of the concept of directness or immediately (unless it is meant relatively), due to the omnipresence of mediation. I'm assuming therefore that you don't mean it in that more philosophical or meta-theoretical sense as used in the Marxist tradition. I'm guessing you just mean that practically it is more important or pressing for China's interests if it is more direct, in that it should be given priority as an objective.
In that sense I don't completely disagree with you, but there's also a difference between not having an aggressive policy towards Israel and actively funding it's settler-colonial apartheid project. Why is the latter sometimes treated as absolutely and necessarily unjustifiable in some cases but not here?
My claim in the first part is not a philosophical claim about the possibility of separate questions interacting, it's that a judgement of existing socialism based on the dividing of some necessary or sufficient conditions as opposed to how these are intended to maximize the democratic process as a whole while integrated over time (meaning that these processes continually allow for the better development of all aspects of democracy. With the most portant being that the interests of the working class and desired results of the people are achieved. Any further division is unnecessary at this stage. Improvements are another, but the way you philosophically divide it is not something that hasn't already been discussed as infinitum and understood by our Chinese comrades. This is what I intended at the beginning, though I did sloppily present that, including a use of "democratic centralism" without being clear that I meant "it's against the principles and plans which have been determined best by democratic centralism incorporating the interests of about 18% of the world population."
The fact that it's not yet communist and/or fully worker owned is just unfortunately not yet relevant at all. It's not philosophically incorrect, just divisive and not necessary, because the plan to arrive there has been clearly laid out. Is your critique on that plan then, or just the current state? The plan, unfortunately, currently includes being so protectionist that they can't intervene against Israel and must include them in the global trading powerhouse they are developing. I say unfortunately, but know that I mean that I wish it could be otherwise but the scientific approach has led to that conclusion based on the failure of other approaches. I find it a conservative (here meaning not radical) approach, but conflict avoidance does currently entail trade with all States which are not currently threatening China, especially those in hotspots of western imperialism to drag them away from american-centric policies. China will eventually hopefully be able to utilize this dominance to push radically, and I will most definitely critique the approach if this doesn't change once war with america is no longer a giant possibility.
I use immediacy to describe the time-aspect, and I don't think I made that clear based on your response, so here my response may seem tangential but I think we are just not using the terms the same so I'm going off of my intended meaning and ignoring what I think was a response to something I didn't mean. We have geographic and time variables at play (which affect each other in pretty obvious ways i think). Russia was presented with both immediacy and directness of the fascists at their border (and the USSR before them, of course). China with Israel has determined that both are not at play, that Israel is not a "becoming" problem for them as a possible war actor and is geographically not direct. "The omnipresence of mediation" how you use it here seems to be an almost trotsky-like position where all issues must be tackled simultaneously, which I can't see concluding anything except for for the immediate attempt at the overthrow of all capitalist nations by every communist. I'd love it, but Stalin was, i think, proven correct that socialism in one country was necessary in those conditions (pre WW2, though I think we all usually agree he shouldn't have stopped at Berlin lol) and therefore the omnipresent mediation does not supersede the immediacy or directness aspect.
Good Convo though, even though we're talking a bit last one another. You seem more knowledgeable about the philosophical terms, and I appreciate your fairly clear usage. Still haven't read grundrisse lol
I pretty generally agree with you. I do think it should be said though that the (critical) support of Russia in the Russia Ukraine conflict is due to Ukraine, since 2014, being pulled into the western us-backed orbit, and Russia mostly reacting to this encirclement, and of course the civil war against Russian separatists in the east since 2014 (who knew that under the us-backed regime they’d be likely genocided as Russian speakers). So there’s a bit more context than just which one is more fascist explaining why leftists seem to support Russia to varying degrees. Russia acts as a bulwark against U.S. imperialism, and their current action was a reaction to us imperialism.
Yes I agree with everything you've said.
I think it's worth adding that we also need to be aware that in any multipolar world, preferable as it may, or may not, be, it is perfectly possible that other spheres of influence around the main poles develop imperialist positions. I personally think that Russia has already well displayed this capacity. It's interests as a nationalist state capitalist power will naturally drive it to an imperialist position in its region of influence, imo.
China actually warned Allende to be "careful of counter-revolutionary", and specifically called out the army IIRC, they just didn't break off relations with the country post-coup
As far as I can tell, Deng openly admits that in the interview that we all like:
Can you cite a passage? The only relevant thing I can see is talking about maintaining relations with post-coup Chile.
They're after that "peaceful coexistence" the USSR could never achieve because they failed to see that in order to peacefully coexist they first had to absorb most of the west's manufacturing capacity.
they failed to see that in order to peacefully coexist they first had to absorb most of the west's manufacturing capacity.
They never had a chance to even negotiate with the International bourgeoisie in the first place!
The RSFSR was literally being invaded by Entente and Central power exeditionary armies from day one and the Soviet Union from the day it was founded was under a cruel international economic siege as well.
Peace was never an option as the only offer was unconditional surrender.
Yeah, was just joking. It was of course never on the table for the soviets, and would be an absurd thing to plan in the first place. I doubt even deng ever thought China was doing anything more than developing their productive forces and buying a modicum of security by opening up. The idea that the west would be stupid enough to deindustrialize itself (by offshoring to a communist country no less) to the extent it has makes sense in hindsight, but I doubt anyone had the foresight to anticipate things turning out quite like this, let alone actually plan it.
Dengist foreign policy and the Sino Soviet split was such a disaster. China even invaded Vietnam at around the same time period. Went from backing the ANC to backing the PAC and even the apartheid government, as your article states.
Dengist foreign policy and the Sino Soviet split
That's not Deng that's Mao and Zhou Wenlai. Mao was even mad that Zhou was getting all the credit for reopening relationships with the west and stuff. By the time Deng was rehabilitated and given more power (by Mao btw) China's foreign policy was already set.
Read Vogel's biography of Deng it's very good
The AFD might be pro-russia, but they are definitely not pro-china lol. Maybe China thinks they can buy them? Anyways this is just the consequence of the Anarcho-Bidenization of the German Left.
I don't have a problem with Hexbear, I'm a leftist, not a liberal, and marxist-leninists aren't the only leftists out there...
Good question. Anarchism and Autonomous thought is big on the left but that's all extra-parliamentary, the SPD has been New Labouresque for literally ever now (Schröder at the latest) and if it isn't it's doing clientele politics for random strong union factions at the expense of everyone else (see e.g. coal subsidies) and forget them ever caring about Lumpen. Die Linke is in practice SocDem and the likes of MLDP and DKP are irrelevant splinter cults, both claiming to be Trots and accusing the others of being Stalinists you know the type.
The Greens have never been a left party but are plenty socially liberal, the FDP likewise though they like to fish for first voters by pretending to be left-liberal instead of neoliberal pretending to be ordoliberal. Oh the Greens have a way better track record not being in bed with fascists, their first party convention was full of "Not enough is being done for the German forest" types but they all got kicked out. Probably a reason why they emphasise the social liberal part so much, it acts as a repellent. And it's not like they'd oppose left politics it's just that they care about random hamster habitats more than social housing, they themselves are either driving SUVs (hopefully EV) to organic farmer's markets or sell shit on that farmer's market.
Heck parts of the CDU in places sometimes out-left the nominal left when they, occasionally, probably by accident, remember what the C in their name stands for. Mostly individual welfare stuff of course macroeconomically they're capitalist AF.
But also not in there year surprising. Those self proclaimed "patriots" are always happy to sell out their country.
...
The only reason China can buy the AfD is because Russia's checks suddenly started bouncing.
There's no fixing that comment. A bounced check is one that didn't go through. How could China not getting its money from Russia be the cause of them being able to afford to buy something?
