Largely agree, but the China point is wrong. China is not genociding Uyghurs; China has billionaires, yes, but this is only due to China’s unique place in underdevelopment and the “skipping” of the capitalist stage which necessitates a “primary stage” socialist economy, read this article on China’s billionaires and SWCC; what is this stock market point? China’s economy is dominated by public enterprise. 24 of the 25 (12 of 12) top earning companies in China are SOEs, 70% of the top 500 companies in China are SOEs, 75% of the 109 Chinese companies on the global top 500 are SOEs; China has ~150,000 SOEs which in total yield produce more profits than the private sector, with the CPC reaping ~60% of profits from POEs, while POEs shrink in nationalization and state deconstruction while SOEs grow (both in dominance, size, and productivity). This is all of course focusing on an exoskeleton which ignores the internal structure that serves the proletariat through a variety of ways.
- 0 Posts
- 7 Comments
This take, rather than being incredibly privileged, is just stupid. I love the examples used. Pol Pot’s Cambodia (which hasn’t existed for a while) was propped up by the U.S. Maduro’s Venezuela has hardship due to western sanctions (including from the U.S.), which a U.N. report found:
- Shrank government revenue by 99% (the report acknowledges the majority of government funds were spent on universal services including free housing) [p. 5].
- “had a devastating effect on the people, especially the most vulnerable – such as women, children, the elderly, people with disabilities or life-threatening or chronic diseases, and indigenous communities” [p. 5].
- In 2020 alone prevented ~2.6 million people from receiving blood reagents and deprived at least another 123,000 others of blood transfusions [p. 8].
- Drastically increased poverty and infant mortality [p. 8].
- Prohibited the purchase of certain antibiotics and other treatments which resulted in the prevention of ~180,000 surgeries [p. 8].
- Created a reported 50-70% drop in public health workers [p. 10].
- Dropped internet coverage in the country from 50-90% of territory to 10% [p. 12].
The U.S. is an imperialist country that drives up oppression in numerous nations, and it is silly and ignorant to talk of its effects in isolation alone. You seemingly ignored the whole "invading other countries for monetary interests part of OP’s comment (and the millions killed in Iraq and Afghanistan thereof, for instance). This is the only way that domestic rights in the U.S. have been able to surpass other nations. Even still, there are destitute groups in the U.S. which lack rights and the means of subsistence, and to downplay this by pointing to worse conditions in other nations which the U.S. directly caused is laughable and childish.
No they won’t punish your family for your actions.
11·1 year agoLove the “Orwellian” comparison because it’s such a stretch. Just invoking random names without any need for source material so that anything bad becomes “Orwellian” as westerners can only conceptualize wrong through the writing of that anti-Semitic racist crypto-fascist.
Why are we sharing a report from last year (the report itself being nonsense)? This narrative has been going on a while with absolutely no evidence.
How are China or North Korea imperialist? (especially the latter) Please don’t talk about Taiwan since it has been a part of China since before the 17th century. Imperialist Japan forcibly seized this territory in 1895. The UN has recognized the One-China Principle which is why Taiwan does not have a seat at the UN. “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%). There is no argument for Taiwan relations being an imperialist endeavor by the mainland.
And anti-democratic? The CPC and various Chinese government posts have the vast (over 90%) support of the populace due to land reform, poverty alleviation, and mass line influence through centralized unions and engagement with representatives. The DPRK also has democratic elements.
Authoritarian? What does this mean? Authority is not something that exists independently from conditions and purpose. In class society, authority is mainly wielded by the dictatorship of certain classes (and what idiot would condemn the authority wielded by the socialists besieged by the capitalists of the whole world?). Authoritarianism is a “left wing” form of the fascist concept of “totalitarianism” meant to equate various forms of class rule under the banner of “authority”.
Militaristic? It is incredibly ignorant to talk of the DPRK’s militarism given the rapacious imperialistic U.S, occupying the southern half of the country, starving them, and performing expensive mock military drills yearly along the border to provoke conflict—this itself being a remnant of the U.S. invasion and division which claimed the lives of ~3.3 million Koreans (10% of the population of the peninsula) (see Cumings, The Korean War: A Modern History, p. 45-46). Some have the luxury of condemning “militarism” and military mobilization in such dire circumstances because they live in the imperialist center; some do not. Note: China is not overly “militaristic” by any scale.
It takes this long to refute a single sentence of nonsense. Anarchists are so pathetic.
“Both sources”? The Carrd contains tons of resources with the “Resource Compilation” itself containing hundreds of sources. There is also a source section proving western promotion of terrorism in the region but this is naturally ignored. And yes, it is justified to talk of the “western narrative” when the vast majority of “research” comes from the U.S. government or NGOs affiliated with it. Notice the thread mentioning the repeated use of ASPI (a front for western imperialism) in sourcing (he forgot to mention Uyghur Human Rights Project, an NGO based in DC, which is repeatedly sourced in the report and was founded with an NED grant; I hate to repeat myself but current president of the NED Carl Gershman said, “We should not have to do this kind of work covertly. It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created” and the founder of the NED said, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”; the report is citing the CIA).
Uyghurs have never been part of some special family planning that exceeds other groups. Many ethnic minorities (including Uyghurs) were excluded from the one-child policy (which no longer exists) for some time, and when integrated into general family planning alongside other minorities were not singled out, so what is this point anyway? Family planning itself is a result of mass-line consultation and democratic procedures supervised by the CPC, which has over 90% support of the people and 10% of the population as members; it is simplistic to talk of “forced” family planning.
In regards to “demolishing mosques”, the report talks of the demolition of mosques (point 85) but without citation. Furthermore, a note on page 26 reads, “However, there is no official data available with respect to the locations of these sites, which has made it more difficult to verify alleged patterns of destruction.” The report continues, “Nevertheless, several researchers, predominantly based on detailed analysis of publicly available satellite imagery, consider that a large number of mosques have been destroyed in XUAR over the last years.” Very well, and what is the citation for this? Australian Strategic Policy Institute, of course. There is no evidence of forced “tearing down” of mosques, and satellite images have been abused in this manner before and contain no context of affairs relating to this. Having one of the highest mosque densities in the world is not something to scoff at, and if the Chinese government is attempting to eradicate mosques, they’re not doing a good job.
This is a very interesting thing to select to reply to. For one thing, this is merely a note accompanying this comment “Even if you believe the western establishment narrative, AP News has produced an article largely adhering to this but noting based on their visit that the camps and repression have been removed.” This was naturally not replied to, but let us investigate this more closely: you deliberately cut off the comment on the other end as well. My full note was:
Of course the final sentence is cut off, and this is quite fine (since one cannot expect someone to reply to an entire two sentences), but you also cut off the end of the parenthesis in the first comment: a region which has been largely artificially closed off. This allows you to say, “Tourists not visiting the internment camps is proof that nothing is happening”, but this makes no sense if it followed the mention of Yemen being artificially closed off in comparison to Xinjiang being open to tourism. There is a massive genocidal operation in a region open for tourism, and yet not a single death at the hands of the government has been identified, as compared to the actual genocide in Yemen where hundreds of thousands have been identified as killed in a completely closed off region due to Saudi occupation? What is more, the BBC did film a visit to one of these facilities. Many Islamic nations have also visited Xinjiang in envoys but this will naturally not convince you.