robinn2 [he/him]

I agree, face the wall

They’re the type of socialism (social democracy) that I approve of.

Social democracy is not socialism, it is social-fascism, class collaboration leeching off the wealth of the global south like a settler vampire from the hill of the imperialism. Look at how social democratic settlers treat immigrants, or minorities/natives. You fundamentally do not understand what socialism is.

And no offense, but you have no fucking idea what the the PRC is doing. You know nothing about their government structure, how policy is carried out, or the way the system functions at all. I guarantee you could not name the tiers of government, or even three government officials without looking it up. Your ignorance is shown right away by the fact that you say “CCP” (Chinese Communist Party) when the correct acronym is “CPC” (Communist Party of China). This is such a simple mistake that proves you have not read any media outside of the west regarding China.

Ugh horrible argument. No, you have to contend with the source I provided, not skip it and provide a different source, especially when the prolewiki page is a challenge to the Wikipedia page, and so citing the latter is like citing a work against which a polemic is directed at the polemic as an “alternative.”

Apparently Wikipedia is “not biased”, they just forbid certain sources, include U.S. government aligned sources by and large (this article you’ve cited sources Radio Free Europe, a CIA propaganda outlet; the New York Times summaries of situations in countries the U.S. is opposed to (this is done 10x), despite the source being a rubber stamp for the U.S. government; a Washington Post opinion article which completely obfuscates the nature of the press as a tool of class rule), and so on. Sorry, Wikipedia is biased.

It is their fault. They lost an argument only to whine about me and others in another thread (after willfully ignoring my response to their points) and now they say they “don’t have a lot of time” (they had time to write 400 responses and link multiple resources they didn’t verify) when asked to read, that’s textbook bad faith cowardice. This person you’re responding to, JohnDclay, is the asshole lib from the 500 response thread.

I’m trying to talk in good faith, but I don’t have 10 hours to read about it. I’ve only researched about 1 or 2 hours. But I’m definitely not just taking your website at face value.

Right, so you didn’t read my carrd and then linked a different source instead (super good faith) that I completely refuted (apparently you felt no need to respond to my complete rebuttal]. So you didn’t read the comment or the response to your rebuttal, and yet you’re saying you’re acting in good faith because you don’t have a lot of time/haven’t done a lot of research? Whatever, then don’t act like you’re qualified to have an opinion.

But I’m definitely not just taking your website at face value.

What does this even mean? “Face value”? It’s a collection of sources. Seriously, if you don’t have the knowledge to even respond to my points, much less my complete refutation of your own points, don’t ghost respond to me acting like I’ve said something crazy to get support in another thread. It’s cowardly and pathetic.

I’m just so fed up with folks online regarding, what i would call state capitalist countries as genuine socialism,

Read up on your Trotsky fool

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

I will have you shot

Xi Jinping was re-elected as GenSec in 2022 (third term), so the Central Committee would foreseeably be doing a new election in 2027 (for the SC of the Poliburo as well).

Or rather, politics should be above sports.

Isn’t the CCP given explicit power and privilege in the Chinese government

The CPC (not CCP) is the guiding force of the government, and adapts to the will of the people through the mass line/being comprised of 10% of eligible persons. The highest level of the CPC (after the various levels of party committees/congresses) is the SC of the Politburo of the Central Committee, which is comprised of members elected through all levels and with terms of five years, and the highest individual position is the General Secretary (also terms of five years), elected by the Central Committee. Provided the persons in these positions are fit to serve, there are no definite term limits (one can be elected for a term of five years indefinitely until they are too old to serve (age limit), wish not to in which case a subordinate would the replace them, or are voted out by the CC) although I fail to see how a term limit can be justified when it is merely an undemocratic method of preventing the election of someone regardless of their success/the will of the population.

List the conspiracy theories you think are “crazy”

I suspect they avoid linking directly because GZ articles are usually well sourced and have nuances that don’t support the wiki author’s bs.

This is exactly it, but not directly. Grayzone is forbidden from being used as a source on Wikipedia for this reason.

Blocked 😩

Hey are you not responding to me because you know there’s no way to refute anything I said? I mean you cannot write a snarky rebuttal to my complete debunk of your nonsense. Go on tell me how they banned Winnie the Pooh and that Shanghai Disneyland website is fake, tell me how you can justify that awful Hong Kong point, go on.

China is pretty crazy and jails people for talking about Winnie the Pooh.

Complete BS. Here’s an exhibit on “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” in Shanghai Disneyland. It’s absurd that this is the only nonsense you can muster to justify China’s higher life expectancy (even given semi-colonial subjugation).

Cuba and Vietnam also have lower life expectancy than the US.

Cuba is a tiny country that has been massively sanctioned by the largest imperialist nation on earth (the US) for 60 years (after they defeated the U.S.-backed dictator Batista and stopped being a sugar colony of America). It seems that according to the World Bank (super unbiased lmao, and yes this is the same organization sourced in your Wiki article), Cuba’s life expectancy is ~73 while the U.S. is ~76. Personally, given the huge gap in development compared to the two countries, and that Cuba has not engaged in imperialism once whilst the U.S. is known for such things, this small difference is relatively impressive for Cuba and makes you look like a brainworm-infested child for implying a level playing field.

I didn’t think I’d have to explain Vietnam’s history of colonial subjugation by the French and imperialist plunder by the French, U.S., and U.K., of which millions of Vietnamese were killed through bombing/being burned alive. History does not matter of course, so let us analyze their life expectancy: ~74 years, whereas the U.S. life expectancy is ~76. With all this in mind, a two year gap somehow justifies the inherent “superiority” of the U.S. system!

Look at Hong Kong

I’ve looked, and @Awoo@hexbear.net already gave an excellent response to this (which of course you ignore in your reply). Don’t act snarky unless you’ve earned it, and you haven’t earned it.

“Socialism Always Fails”

Don’t call them traitors or I’m gonna critically support

Bad

Edit: for all of the people praising “Taiwanese independence”, read this. Also, status quo is not “static” quo; we exist in the status quo where people are under the illusion of capitalism, of the propaganda of the capitalists and in this case of the US, which is continually provoking separatism, and which originally backed the KMT (for the continuation of semi-colonialism/feudalism) from which separatism stems (with the KMT performing numerous massacres against opposition); the visage of Chiang Kai-shek sits on physical Taiwan currency. Still, “臺灣民眾統獨立場趨勢分佈”, conducted by Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, an explicitly anti-CPC source, in 2022, showed the following results with regards to the perspective of Taiwanese citizens on independence and reunification: (Status Quo as Autonomous Part of China and Complete Unification Compiled [part of PRC] : 63.4%) (General Support for Independence Including Status Quo Moving Towards Independence [not part of PRC]: 30.3%) (Non-Response: 6.3%). Here we can see that in public opinion, remaining a part of the PRC has over double the support to becoming independent or pursuing independence at a later date, although support for total reunification is low, hence the policy of two systems being maintained to an even greater extent than with regards to Hong Kong, although accusations of military provocations by the mainland of China are alleged despite there being no examples of this.

You sound like a jackass when you write this way. imo.

Thx.

• On ‘whataboutism’ as nonsense

You didn’t address the connection between the racism in the anarchist critique of Bolshevism and fascism, which I linked a full explanation of. I already discredited Goldman by showing that the “martyr” she was praising was involved in an organization that was actively bombing communist institutions (she didn’t mention this, and pointing this out is not whataboutism but again, a basic call for consistency). You didn’t address this. And “authoritarianism” will never be a real concept; it’s just the ignorance of authority to which the accused movement is responding. No movement or world-historical system maintains itself without authority. I already mentioned the circumstances the Bolsheviks were under, why can’t you dispense with this idea? You know that if they let up authority for a second the white guards and imperialists would decapitate every revolutionary in sight, because revolutions are not a peaceful affair. A bombing is not slight, assassinations of revolutionaries (by SRs) could break apart the worker’s power. Anr I never said anarchist critiques of “Soviet authoritarianism” were discredited by their own use of authority (this is not authoritarian for some reason). I specifically critiqued anarchism in general as well as pointing out terrorism, which proves I never thought the latter refuted anarchist theory. Everyone recognizes that governments must use authority to maintain power, but this is exactly why the blanket opposition to authority is counterrevolutionary (it condemns the DOTB and DOTP on the same grounds and is neither revolutionary nor nuanced).

We can stop honeslty. if you believe that anarchism is eurofacism we have very little to talk about.

Great rebuttal. “Cherry pick about the racist stuff” yeah no, you clearly didn’t read what I linked about this or you would understand where this “cherrpicking” fits in.

Alls I hear is a lot of what aboutism.

God I hate that term. Demanding the mention of anarchist terrorism (including terrorism by the organization admitting several of the “victims” mentioned) rather than one-sided references to Bolshevik terrorism? A basic call for consistency? Whataboutism! By merely mentioning an informal fallacy I have torn your argument asunder! You are the one who has proven nothing.