I’m not a history or politics buff even on the topic of China, but due decades of misinformation on China, especially in the English-speaking world, I find it necessary to speak out with official Chinese sources.

  • 0 Posts
  • 5 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 16th, 2021

help-circle

  • Thanks for the ping @GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml .

    Chinese in China here, I think a better question than “Do you support your government” would be: “If the US government were to replace the CPC and current government tomorrow, would you approve?” Sorry to folks in Nordic countries (another stereotype propelled by liberals) because the US is the “beacon” that liberals use mainly.

    If people from any country have no experience with living in other countries, they might be more inclined to topple their own government if their living conditions aren’t great and someone were to advocate for the toppling. Even if people read about how bad some foreign governments are in the news, some people would just brush it off as “propaganda”, they would have to see it for themselves to believe. This goes both ways for both the people of the US and China.

    Comparison is a powerful tool, but some people whip out the “whataboutism” card when you try to do that, they tell you to address the problem instead of finding worse examples from other places. Indeed it’s always better to address the problem at hand, but people who scream “whataboutism” in relation to China’s issues are really saying “don’t look at worse places to make yourself feel good, overthrow the SEE-SEE-PEE regime now!”

    Do I support the CPC and Chinese government? Yes and yes.

    Does China have problems. Yes.

    Do I need to hear from egotistical maniacs in other countries on how to handle issues in my country? No.


  • Two people in this thread say that with the internet, we can move away from “big public figures”/“big thinkers”. While I appreciate this optimism, it just sounds very anti-authoritarian, and I quote from Engels On Authority:

    Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

    There are anti-government and anti-“big corp/business” tendencies in the US/West, which I will call “anti-authority” for now. The essense of “anti-authority” in capitalist countries is anti-capitalism, or anti-“dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”, but there is a gap in this logic that stops people from turning into marxists right away, as they might instead become anarchists. This gap in logic will not be closed just by having everyone have access to free information through the internet, as there is too much information to digest, and imperialists will also interfere with the propagation of marxist ideology.

    “Anti-authoritarian” sentiments do have positive outcomes, like decentralized technologies (think internet, bittorrent, p2p, fediverse etc.), the open source software movement, but these only serve as tools, they are the means and not the end.


  • Reform and opening up has always been controversial up to this day, but it doesn’t stop there, market economy, One Country Two Systems, supporting private enterprises, not meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, largest trading partner of the US, all used as evidence by different people to call the CPC “revisionist”/“class traitor”.

    History has no ifs or buts, the Cultural Revolution has shown that those who claim to be Maoists could not defend their ideals, even from within a socialist country, this is a disgrace to Mao whose banner they hold high. High respect for Mao is one thing, but using said respect to lure people into a cult of Mao is what some people are doing now in China to erode the legitimacy of the CPC.

    Maybe there was another path, maybe not, doesn’t matter now to China, and other countries should definitely learn from the lessons and mistakes of the CPC. Turns out that running a country isn’t as easy as what people imagine, and the dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t easy when you have to worry about underdevelopment, poverty, corruption, global imperialists, the list goes on.

    Theory is nice and all, but it only matters when you put it into practice, that’s why Marxism is scientific socialism, and that’s what kept the CPC going for 102 years. If you don’t hold the reins, nothing else will matter, and any ideals you’d want to protect won’t be worth a damn.


  • Here are some common “criticisms” of Xi from different angles (not meant to be serious):

    • West (imperialists, neoliberals, anarchists, racists): Xitler
    • Ultras: revisionist, nationalist
    • Maoists: Dengist, revisionist, pacifist
    • Dengists: Maoist

    Jokes aside, I think Socialism with Chinese characteristics focuses more on how to maintain and build upon a socialist country, rather than how to become a socialist country (Mao’s great achievement). That doesn’t mean other countries can’t learn from China’s experience, but it means keeping in mind China’s historical background when researching. This includes its 5000 year-old history as a civilization with some setbacks but still going strong today. If you learn Chinese, you’ll be able to read text from ye olden days. Ancient Chinese philosophies still have influence in modern-day China, like how people still read the works of ancient Greek philosophers.

    How is any of this relevant to Xi’s ideology? Xi Jinping Thought is the latest theory of the CPC put into practice, it includes new theory, but also builds upon tried and tested theory from past leaders. Xi is an important foreman of this period (since 2012), but also part of the collective leadership of the CPC. Collectivism doesn’t exclude individual ideas, but is more resilient to corosion from individualism. The CPC upholds a long list of theory from Marxist-Leninism, Mao, Deng, Jiang, Hu and now Xi, so when we talk about “Xi’s ideology”, do not forget the collective body of knowledge and people surrounding it in the background.