You are so far right that you call anything and everything to your left astroturfing. You've been in a bubble for so long that it's a culture shock when you meet actual leftists.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Oh, yes. Actual leftists that somehow support every action of a particular nation. Actual leftists who don't mind government control of information and gives incentives for supporting them publicly. Actual leftists that are ok with some people being removed from society because of the groups they belong to. Yep, totally sounds like actual leftists to me...

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 76 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Actual leftists who don't mind government control of information

Yes, actual leftists. I'm going to quote to you some Marx. This is from Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto which is basically a 30 page pamphlet, I suggest you read it. I want you to pay particular attention to number 6.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

As you can see, nothing here is at odds with that.

Actual leftists that are ok with some people being removed from society because of the groups they belong to.

What groups? If you're about to use Adrian Zenz as a source you are a joke. If you're instead claiming that working to abolish the existence of the bourgeoisie is a bad thing you are a clown.

[–] Catradora_Stalinism@hexbear.net 50 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You didn't just dunk him, you folded him into a ball and threw him into the sun

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't understand how people don't understand that control of the means of communication in the hands of the proletariat is a MUST to create a DOTP. Who the fuck do they think owns the media? The proles? Fuck no, the bourgeoisie own the media. It's ALL their media.

To empower the proletariat in the transitionary socialist state you MUST remove the advantages of the bourgeoisie. This is one of the biggest of them.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ah but don't you see that removing the knife from your throat before fighting The Caped Throatstabber makes you just as bad as him, because of human nature or something?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Must?

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries

Also note this part:

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production...

Notice, "in the beginning." Is China socialist or not? It is not the begining. The need to control the means of communication, as well as most of the rest of the goals, is to gain power over the bourgeoisie and place the power into the hands of the people. The means of communication must be seized in order to empower the people to communicate without their interference. How is the control that China has over communication providing for that and not the bourgeoisie itself controlling the media to prevent the people from communicating?

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Socialism is the transitionary state between capitalism and communism. It exists in a state of warfare between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

We are very far away from defeating capitalism and such measures will remain in place until we have defeated it globally. What the fuck are you thinking? "Yes I want to give billionaires the ability to own media in my proletarian state so they can spew garbage propaganda until their counter-revolution succeeds". Are you out of your mind? What exactly do you gain from this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. All you are advocating for is empowering the bourgeoisie to crush and re-exploit you.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ah, yes. China is definitely trying to defeat capitalism globally by opening and expanding special economic zones. If anything, China has become more capitalist (because it makes the current bourgeoisie who control the "communist" government more money). Xi Jinping seems to have an estimated value of at least $1 billion USD. He's not of the working class. He's from the political class.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yes. It is. Your lack of understanding about what their tactics are is a personal failure on your part to seek out the information, not a failure on their part to continue to pursue socialism.

Xi Jinping seems to have an estimated value of at least $1 billion USD. He's not of the working class. He's from the political class.

Xi Jinping grew up in a literal fucking cave. This claim is akin to all the estimates of Stalins worth that literally just decided he owned everything that the state owns. Your """source""" for this is capitalist finance blogs after you googled "xi jinping net worth" that don't break down this figure whatsoever. They all just claim it. It's literally the embodiment of:

You have no fucking standards of evidence at all just like you have no fucking standards for yourself.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He lived in a cave for some time because his father lost political favor, not because they were poor. He is of the political class. That's unquestionable. His net worth isn't public, though guesses can be made from the value of stocks his family can own, which isn't insignificant. Him "growing up in a cave" is because of his political class standing, not because he was a poor worker.

(It also wasn't just a cave, but a building constructed of a cave.)

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

can own

This is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your sentence lmao

Him "growing up in a cave" is because of his political class standing, not because he was a poor worker.

Bro they were poor as fuck what are you talking about.

(It also wasn't just a cave, but a building constructed of a cave.)

What the fuck do you think cave houses are? Is this literally the first time you've ever seen one? Are you really admitting to being that uneducated? Cave homes still have doors and windows nitwit. Doesn't change the fact it's still literally a 1 room cave with a bed shared by 4 fucking people.

"They're not poor they just had to share a single bed between 4 people and walk 3 miles for water" is a shitty racist attempt at trying to maintain your position instead of actually taking on board new information you blatantly didn't know until just now.

Did you know he also lived in Iowa for a while? The people he met then love him. He stayed with some farmers to learn various agricultural practices, that he would then take back with him and apply.

[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Did you know he also lived in Iowa for a while?

He's running :xi-vote:

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/fxw7FFvKMJ4

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] emizeko@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“Freedom of the press” is another of the principal slogans of “pure democracy”. And here, too, the workers know — and socialists everywhere have admitted it millions of times — that this freedom is a deception while the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists and while capitalist rule over the press remains, a rule that is manifested throughout the world all the more strikingly, sharply, and cynically, the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example.

The first thing to do to win real equality and genuine democracy for the working people, for the workers and peasants, is to deprive capital of the possibility of hiring writers, buying up publishing houses, and hiring newspapers. And to do that the capitalists and exploiters have to be overthrown and their resistance suppressed.

The capitalists have always used the term ‘freedom’ to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death.

In capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion.

In this respect, too, the defenders of ‘pure democracy’ prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement.

—Lenin, Congress of the First Comintern

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, this is exactly what I said. The control needs to be taken away from the capitalist class who control it in most places. The goal after the bourgeoisie are removed from control is for the people to have control though, not some new bourgeoisie.

[–] iie@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

you're asking communist states to relax their defenses while America is still the dominant power on the planet

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 56 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Actual leftists that are ok with some people being removed from society because of the groups they belong to.

Some people should be removed from society based on the groups they belong to. Nazis, for example. Pedophiles, probably. And definitely people who put pineapple on pizza.

[–] Bnova@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago

I was with you until the pineapple slander. It's good on pizza folks, put it on there.

[–] silent_water@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago

And definitely people who put pineapple on pizza.

angery

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, they should be removed from society based on what they want to do. I don't think the children of nazis should be removed just because they're a part of that group.

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ideological belief is not a trait that is automatically passed on to children. Children of Liberals aren't automatically liberals. Children of conservatives aren't automatically conservatives.

[–] take_five_seconds@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ideological belief is not a trait that is automatically passed on to children.

ck2 brain

edit: i mean 3 whatever

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, which is why they shouldn't be removed for being a part of a group. They are a part of it as children though.

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Do you share 100% of the ideological beliefs of your parents? Have you done so from birth?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

No, but when I was a child I would still consider myself part of their social group. Children don't have the autonomy for anything else.

[–] nohaybanda@hexbear.net 41 points 1 year ago

The topic at hand is Western media drumming up support for the US's next foreign policy disaster. The same way they did for Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Vietnam and so, so many others. I would have called this bullshit before I became a communist. You don't need Marxist theory to see through the bullshit, just object permanence.

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

China is not leftist

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes it is. Your failure to understand China's structure and its goals is a personal failure on your part to seek that information, the information is out there.

I recommend reading this article, from Vijay Prashad's organisation the Tricontinental Institute. It will give you a good run down on China's movement through stages of production and its current goals. If you want to argue Vijay Prashad and his organisation are not leftist you'll have to take that up with Noam Chomsky as well since they work together on practically everything now.

If reading is too much for you (I suspect it is or you wouldn't hold this opinion) then here is a very brief video by Professor Richard Wolff where he cites China as responsible for the globally rising interest in marxism.

If alternatively your position is that marxism is not leftist, you are a right wing clown and politically illiterate.

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am not near left or right, a 1 line axis is not enough to put all the political positions into account.

After reading the first link, socialism is kindof interesting at its core, but in china you have a person that controls eveything, China is a totalitarian state capitalist system. While Socialism would give people freedom, China is doing the opposite. I am not fully invested into this topic but you can't tell me that stealing Money from bank accounts, allowing companies to do stupid investments that will become waste just to rise some numbers. Generally forbiding the fact that you have issues (disabled) or are different (religion or sexuality) is really just showing how similar this is to Hitlers time.

In Germany we have the Bundestag and its neither leftist or rightist as you elect the group you like which can be left-ist or right-ist, a group of multiple groups will be build for the few years that have together 50%. So if there is onr far-right group or far-left one, they won't be able to actually do all the harm except people elect that group 50%.

Besides having every few years either same or slight different groups that regime, there is also the Grundgesetz which protect the Human rights at its core and is not changable except all 2 buildings and 1 person allow for this. With this, everthing should be possible while having freedom.

But for China I really don't know what is the right thing. Its no different than America with capitalism at many levels because both intoxicate the human rights and nature environment. Somethinf like a Bundestag for China doesn't seem like a great idea if it would be the main thing, because China wants to grow and the Bundestag is too slow for direct and instant changes. But without, you can see corruption at many corners in China.

[–] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but in china you have a person that controls eveything

You need to do a lot more reading if you believe this

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I guess you missed the point that one person has the decision to control everything, of course there will be different groups controlling the details, but this is the person who is able to change. Just saying that I should read is pretty much stupid to say, you also just could say nothing, the message would be equal.

But i just gonna be you for a moment: If you do not believe this, you need to do a lot more reading.

Just send me your articles or whatever to justify whatever you mean and don't be a dick.

[–] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess you missed the point that one person has the decision to control everything

Again, not true.

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry mister "trust me bro" I also love to say that you are again, not right.

[–] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

How did you come to the conclusion that one person has the decision to control everything in China, an arrangement that has never existed anywhere in history, even actual non democratic dictatorships (which China isn't)

[–] RedDawn@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

I guess you missed the point that one person has the decision to control everything

No, he’s saying you’re wrong (and you are). In China there isn’t one person who controls everything. They have millions of elected officials, you don’t have any clue what you’re talking about.

[–] Commiejones@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I am not near left or right

So you are ignorant. Its ok we have all been there. To live is to learn. I would have an essay very similar to yours a couple years ago. Then I started doing some reading.

Essentially leftism v rightism boils down to either you think people all all equals and should be treated equally regardless or you believe some people are superior to others and should get to treat others as lesser. Its simple as that.

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If you say something is simple, then you are actually ignorant, literally. Its like saying: "There are only white and black people, simple as that."

Politics is way more complex and diverse, if you are only able to think in one direction then just don reply to me wtf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

You also said "Its ok" and included that "all" have been there but its only you and the bubble community you live in like you are some superior peace of ****

[–] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Politics is way more complex and diverse, if you are only able to think in one direction then just don reply to me wtf.

unironically links political spectrum

Bruh

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It explains that there are multiple positions besides left and right. It explainst that its not just a left or right

[–] Commiejones@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you say something is simple, then you are actually ignorant,

I didn't say all of politics is simple. I said right vs Left is simple. Its an classification system made for the sole purpose of making a complex thing simple.

Its like you are getting hostile at me for saying "using google translate is simple" and saying "Translation is super hard. Learning a new language takes years and even then the subtleties of idioms and the nuance of culture play a significant role in how people speak. bridging the gap between two languages is super complex"

You also said "Its ok" and included that "all" have been there but its only you and the bubble community you live in like you are some superior peace of ****

I'm sorry if my tone came off as condescending but is Understanding not superior to ignorance? Ignorance is a natural state. We naturally transition from ignorance into understanding on many subjects through out our lives. There is no shame in that. clinging to ignorance however is shameful. Realizing you are ignorant is the first step to understanding. The next step is finding more information. I was just trying to encourage you. No need to be so defensive.

[–] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The part that you see me ignorant is the problem. Just because I don't believe in socialism or capitalism or left vs right doesn't mean I am ignorant. You somehow had an exam about leftism and rightism which did not include more standpoints because your exam topic was just left vs right. It feels like you are literally stuck in this one knowledge and can't accept other statements. Its also called Dunning Kruger effect.

[–] Commiejones@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Just because I don't believe in socialism or capitalism or left vs right doesn't mean I am ignorant.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You live in a world where the right left political spectrum exists and you exist on that spectrum whether you know it or not. If there was a classification system for how spicy people like their food and someone called you a "spice chungus" your ignorance to the term and rankling scale would not change the level of spice you like or the fact that that has the name "spice chungus."

You seem hung up on the word ignorant. I'm not trying to say you are stupid. I'm not saying you are ignorant in general. I'm just saying you seem to be ignorant of Politics. Ignorance is the state of not knowing. It does have a negative connotation but that is just because Knowing things is more is generally regarded as better than not knowing things.

Knowing that you don't know is a good place to start but only if you try to learn more. Again I am just trying to encourage you to learn more.

[–] Stahlreck@feddit.ch 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You’ve been in a bubble

Yeah because when all these "lefts" come from seemingly one instance (maybe two) they are totally not "living in a bubble" on their own.