You ain’t wrong about the social credit thing! There was only one municipality that tried to implement it in any way that even vaguely resembles how mainstream media hysterics portray, and that city’s administration was punished for it on the national stage.
The only thing the “social credit” system was meant to do is make major public figures accountable for corruption. It was never aimed at REGULAR people!
But yeah nah fuck anyone and anything that opposed democracy especially the two faced single political party of the United States of America. If they actually gave a shit about democracy for real instead of just consuming lives to pay for their pedophilia addictions, we’d have ranked choice voting by now.
Unfortunately I don’t think ranked choice voting will save you. You need to clear the board so to speak and get some options that actually represent people over corporate interests.
You do realize that ranked choice voting is one of the simplest and least violent ways to push forward progressive candidates right? Because it makes people comfortable with voting options that with first past the post would be throw away votes
That makes sense, and then you look at Europe and realise the issues at hand are systemic, caused by material conditions and bourgeois democratic electoralism is never going to fix those issues.
Much of Europe already uses ranked choice or proportional voting, yet remains austerity-ridden and sliding toward the far right because it is still under the dictatorship of capital. The voting mechanism is secondary to the concrete material conditions: capital’s imperative to accumulate, the commodification of labor, and the state’s role as an instrument of class rule. Until that dictatorship is overthrown, electoral reform is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
The core contradictions at hand are:
Socialized production versus private appropriation:workers collectively create value, but capitalists expropriate the surplus
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall: as organic composition of capital rises, profitability declines, forcing capital to seek new fixes
Overaccumulation and underconsumption: capital produces more than can be profitably sold, leading to crisis, layoffs, and austerity
The contradiction between capital’s global mobility and labor’s relative immobility, which fuels a race to the bottom in wages and protections.
As imperialism declines (neocolonial extraction becomes costlier, interimperialist rivalry intensifies, and the Global South resists outright plunder) capital can no longer rely on external superprofits to offset domestic falling rates of profit. The response is internal repression: austerity to slash social wages, union-busting to weaken labor power, surveillance to preempt dissent, and the normalization of authoritarian governance. This is capital’s logical reaction to crisis.
This dynamic mirrors Weimar Germany: economic crisis, delegitimized liberal parties, and a bourgeoisie that ultimately backed fascism to crush the organized working class and restore “order” for capital. Today’s far-right surge is the same phenomenon: capital’s emergency management when consent can no longer be manufactured through bourgeois democracy alone.
Voting under these conditions is not a path to liberation; it is a ritual that legitimizes the managers of decline. For voting to matter, you must overthrow the dictatorship of capital and reach the synthesis of these contradictions: a revolutionary transformation that socializes production, abolishes exploitation, and builds a state that serves human need, not profit. Only then does political power and thereby voting become meaningful.
Ranked choice and proportional voting are 2 very different concepts. You are falsely pretending they’re similar when they’re wildly different concepts. Only Ireland presently uses it from the eu, because they as well have an establishment, and ranked choice voting is anti establishment at its core.
Why are you trying to pretend they’re the same concept?
How do you expect to have a revolution if 90% of people don’t agree with your viewpoint? And I say that as a socialist. Pushing forward the agenda over the course of decades is more likely to be successful than a single revolution, in my opinion.
Yes, they are different, but the point at the core of my argument is that it’s irrelevant as they serve the same purpose at their core.
Whether it’s s RCV or MMP, the outcome remains austerity, imperialist foreign policy, and rising far-right influence because the state remains an instrument of capital. Ballot mechanics don’t override class power. RCV isn’t “anti-establishment at its core”; it’s a procedural tweak that can just as easily stabilize bourgeois legitimacy.
How do you expect to have a revolution if 90% of people don’t agree with your viewpoint?
In my country the revolution has already happened. We now conduct class struggle through party debate and socialist democracy, not bourgeois elections.
Also revolutionary consciousness isn’t a precondition you wait for, it is forged through struggle. The 90% figure is wrong for a start, even in the US communist sympathys are quickly growing, you also assumes static opinions under static conditions, but material crises radicalize people faster than decades of electoral gradualism. Reformism doesn’t build toward socialism, it manages capitalism more palatably and demobilizes movements by channeling energy into cycles of hope and disappointment.
Pushing forward the agenda over the course of decades is more likely to be successful than a single revolution, in my opinion.
History suggests otherwise. Social democracy produced the welfare state only under the unique pressure of postwar reconstruction and Soviet competition, then dismantled it once those pressures faded (and even that was built off massive exploitation and imperialism in the periphery). Capital concedes reforms only when forced and retracts them the moment profitability demands it. Waiting for electoral consensus while the climate burns, fascism rises, and imperialism massacres isn’t a strategy. Bourgeois democracy won’t let you vote through its own abolition. The task for those still under bourgeois democracy is to build dual power: organs of working-class authority that can confront and replace the dictatorship of capital. That’s how you can make voting matter.
Alas, I fear the US might be too far gone for ranked choice to have an effect.
The problem is quality of candidates. Since Citizen’s United opened the door for unlimited corporate money in elections, literally 90% of candidates are on someone’s payroll. “Grassroots” is a thing of the past. Mass media and name recognition are everything.
It’s quite possible it’s too late for the usa, but I still do want other democracies to push for it. Only 4 odd countries have it worldwide.
Worth saying, while grassroots is less common, it is not gone. Kat in il-9 is somewhat a good example of this though she failed community engagement and came from out of town so she’s unlikely to win. Though it is arguable how grassroots she is. Of course the top priority is revoking citizens united.
It’s one of the simplest ways of helping push countries to the left, because it allows you to have people vote for the leftist politicians without worrying about boosting a right wing politician or party, as first past the post forces, and also not forcing people to vote for parties, which lock out leftist candidates from being able to gain traction as easily such as in proportional voting systems.
Many far right countries (australia, japan, south korea) use ranked choice voting… it doesn’t make a bit of difference. If capitalists control the political system, then they will stack candidates and fund the campaigns that support their interests, and the “democracy” there is nothing but political theatre.
Outside of Marxists, even the ancient greeks knew that representative government is just another name for plutocracy, because only wealthy / landed family have the money and prestige to fund campaigns to get themselves elected. Liberals still haven’t learned this simple lesson.
How will compulsive voting improve anything? Now you’re dragging even more uninformed dopes to vote, a lot of them will vote for spite. Far more than you realize, I think
Trump was 100% the vote-for-spite-burn-it-down candidate. That’s how they get you, the old switcheroo
Now you’re dragging even more uninformed dopes to vote, a lot of them will vote for spite.
uninformed defines almost all american voters and the last election showed that 30 million people who voted in 2020, chose not to vote in 2024 instead of spite voting.
“Authoritarianism” is meaningless because all it means is “uses state power.” It doesn’t acknowledge which class controls the state and who it uses state power against. In China, the working classes control the state, and use state power against bad actors and capitalists more than anything else. China is oppressive to capitalists and liberating to workers.
I haven’t much evidence for the claim: “In China, the working classses control the state”
sure you will say that is my western bias from living with china bad propaganda, but you could actually provide something to me read on topic if possible
You can debate whether the system works well, but it isn’t accurate to say there’s no evidence for the claim that the working classes play a central role in the Chinese state.
China’s constitution explicitly defines the PRC as a socialist state “led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants,” with state power exercised through the National People’s Congress (NPC) system. The NPC is the highest organ of state power, with nearly 3,000 deputies drawn from provinces, the PLA, and different social sectors.
The makeup of the NPC is not just party bureaucrats or business elites. In the 14th NPC there are hundreds of deputies from workers and farmers and large numbers of grassroots representatives, along with 442 ethnic minority deputies covering all 55 minority groups. Most deputies in China’s people’s congress system (about 95%) serve at the county and township level, which are directly elected and involve hundreds of millions of voters. Higher congresses are elected from these lower levels. This structure is what China calls “whole-process people’s democracy.”
Sources explaining the system include CGTN’s Who runs the CPC and the State Council white paper China: Democracy That Works.
You can also look at how the state treats capital. China has private capital, but it is clearly subordinated to state goals. When Jack Ma tried to push an aggressive fintech model through Ant Group that would massively expand lightly regulated consumer credit, regulators halted the IPO and forced restructuring under stricter oversight. That is a case of disciplining capital when it conflicts with social stability and the broader economy.
Likewise, China has pursued policies like eliminating extreme poverty and building massive infrastructure networks (including projects that are not monetarily profitable) because they are treated as long-term public development goals. That kind of large-scale, socially oriented investment is difficult to sustain in systems where private capital dominates the state.
So you can disagree with the Chinese model, but there is actually a large amount of Chinese material explaining how their system is supposed to function and why they claim it represents working-class political power.
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Moreover, the economy in the PRC is socialist, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
The working classes in socialist countries are the ones dictating the state and its direction.
There is no genocide of Uyghurs. Uyghur genocide atrocity propaganda akin to claiming that there’s “white genocide” in South Africa, Christian genocide in Nigeria, or that Hamas sexually assaulted babies in Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of “genocide.” Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens.
The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.
Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time as well. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.
Abuses and genocide are 2 very different things. If you want to talk about the abuses during the ETIM crackdown and what was done wrong etc that’s definitely possible but you should really stop spreading the genocide narrative that smears mud on this real serious conversation.
Linking British propaganda outlets like the BBC, who were caught putting a yellow filter over their vidows in Xinjiang and lying about what people were saying, ie mistranslating, isn’t the win you think it is. I asked why you love Adrian Zenz, not for you to keep posting him.
China is a socialist country, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. Child labor is illegal in China, you may be thinking of the US.
I am a Chinese minority living in China. You really don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to China. You very clearly have done 0 research beyond maybe reading RFA. You should be quiet until you have done some proper research.
It isn’t an ad hominem fallacy to point out that doing little research on a topic and repeating easily disproven talking points isn’t a sound basis of argument.
Dialectical materialism. I look at material reality, analyze it within context and as it changes over time, where it came from and where it’s headed. I am certainly confident in my research, as I’ve done extensive reading on the subject. Your rejection of facts is what points at dogmatism.
I am done arguing across the thread so I am just going to deal with all your bullshit in one go here.
You keep repeating the word “authoritarian” as if it is a self-evident argument, but it is not. It is a vague political insult that Western political discourse applies to states it dislikes and almost never applies to itself. Every state exercises authority: it enforces laws, maintains internal security, regulates media to some extent, surveils threats, and suppresses movements it considers destabilizing. The United States conducts mass digital surveillance, criminalizes whistleblowers, historically infiltrated and destroyed political movements through programs like COINTELPRO, and imprisons more people than any country in the world. Yet it is rarely labeled “authoritarian” by the same commentators who apply the term to China reflexively. That should already tell you the term is being used ideologically rather than analytically. If every state exercises authority, then calling one “authoritarian” without specifying material structures of power, governance mechanisms, or outcomes is just moralizing rhetoric.
The same applies to your claim that China is “fascist,” which is not merely wrong but demonstrates that you do not understand what fascism actually is. Fascism historically emerges in advanced capitalist societies during severe economic crisis when sections of the ruling class mobilize a violent ultra-nationalist movement to crush organized labor and socialist movements in order to preserve capitalist property relations. It is defined by the fusion of corporate and state power, preservation of monopoly capital, destruction of socialist parties and unions, and expansionist militarism. China does not fit this model in any meaningful way. Its political system is led by a communist party whose legitimacy rests on long-term development planning, massive poverty reduction, public infrastructure investment, and a large state-owned economic sector. Private capital exists, but it does not politically dominate the state the way corporate capital dominates Western liberal democracies. You may dislike that system, but lazily labeling it “fascist” simply shows that you are throwing around historical terminology you clearly have not studied.
Your argument about Xinjiang relies on the same pattern: confident assertions built almost entirely on a narrow ecosystem of ideological sources. The modern “Uyghur genocide” narrative traces heavily back to Adrian Zenz, a far-right evangelical researcher who openly states his religious mission is to destroy communism. His methodology (guesswork extrapolated from administrative statistics and speculation about buildings seen in satellite images) has been widely criticized by scholars across multiple fields. Meanwhile, international delegations, journalists, and diplomats have visited Xinjiang repeatedly over the past several years. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation publicly acknowledged China’s efforts in addressing extremism and safeguarding Muslim citizens rather than declaring a genocide. Dozens of Muslim-majority governments have taken similar positions. If a genocide were genuinely occurring, it would be extraordinary for the major international organization representing Muslim states to refuse to recognize it.
Satellite imagery itself proves almost nothing. Images of buildings do not magically become “concentration camps” simply because a Western think tank says so. Every country has prisons, schools, training centers, and administrative facilities. Converting “there are buildings” into “therefore genocide” requires layers of speculation that are rarely demonstrated. The testimonies most widely promoted in Western media frequently come from individuals affiliated with political organizations advocating regime change, such as the World Uyghur Congress. Some prominent figures cited as witnesses have direct institutional connections to U.S. security agencies. That does not automatically invalidate testimony, but it absolutely means the claims require scrutiny rather than blind acceptance because they align with Western geopolitical narratives.
You also dismiss Chinese public opinion entirely because it comes from Chinese institutions. That is not analysis; it is simply prejudice dressed up as skepticism. Multiple long-term studies, including research conducted by Harvard’s Ash Center, have consistently found extremely high satisfaction with the Chinese central government across decades of rapid development. Hundreds of millions of people have experienced massive improvements in living standards, infrastructure, healthcare access, and poverty reduction. China eliminated extreme poverty on a scale unprecedented in human history. These material outcomes are a major reason the government maintains broad legitimacy domestically. Pretending that 1.4 billion people must all be brainwashed or terrified because their views contradict Western narratives says more about your worldview than about China.
Your claims about censorship suffer from the same lack of nuance. China regulates its information space, particularly around political organization and extremist ideology. That is true. But the idea that Chinese society exists in total informational darkness is nonsense. Hundreds of millions of people use Chinese social media platforms every day where public debates, criticism of local officials, policy complaints, and social controversies are common. Domestic media frequently exposes corruption and administrative failures. The system is designed to prevent destabilizing political mobilization and separatist extremism while still allowing broad social discussion. Again, you can disagree with that model, but describing it as total censorship shows you are repeating talking points rather than observing how the system actually operates.
Your repeated insistence that your position cannot possibly contain racist assumptions also misses the point. Criticism of any state is legitimate. What becomes chauvinistic is the underlying assumption that Chinese people are incapable of forming genuine political opinions and must therefore be either brainwashed or coerced if they express support for their own government. That assumption appears constantly in Western commentary about China. When someone dismisses the perspectives of an entire population while elevating a handful of exile activists as the only “real voices,” it reflects a colonial pattern of thinking whether you want to admit it or not.
More broadly, your arguments show a familiar pattern: start with a predetermined conclusion that China must be oppressive, then accept any claim that supports that belief while dismissing contradictory evidence as propaganda. That is not critical thinking; it is ideological confirmation bias. Real analysis requires examining sources, incentives, and historical context rather than repeating whatever narrative is most popular in Western media cycles.
So the issue here is not that criticism of China is forbidden. The issue is that the criticisms you are presenting rely on vague labels, historically illiterate misuse of terms like “fascism,” contested evidence promoted by politically motivated actors, and a reflexive dismissal of the perspectives of the Chinese population itself. That is not a serious argument. It is a collection of slogans and assumptions repeated with confidence but very little understanding.
It is possible to oppose all three things. It is possible to simultaneously oppose the Social Credit System in China, the Credit Score system in the United States, and the elites connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
Is it? You need to think more pragmatically, you are a laborer. Your only bargaining chip is your labour, decide who gets it. Personally, I don’t want to be part of any helping them live their best life.
No don’t, you never will. You’ll always contribute what ever system you’re a part of. Just choose one and the chienese might do a lot of bad things but they aren’t the pedofile baby eating elites.
Authoritarian is a meaningless pejorative.
The social credit score isn’t real.
You ain’t wrong about the social credit thing! There was only one municipality that tried to implement it in any way that even vaguely resembles how mainstream media hysterics portray, and that city’s administration was punished for it on the national stage.
The only thing the “social credit” system was meant to do is make major public figures accountable for corruption. It was never aimed at REGULAR people!
But yeah nah fuck anyone and anything that opposed democracy especially the two faced single political party of the United States of America. If they actually gave a shit about democracy for real instead of just consuming lives to pay for their pedophilia addictions, we’d have ranked choice voting by now.
Unfortunately I don’t think ranked choice voting will save you. You need to clear the board so to speak and get some options that actually represent people over corporate interests.
You do realize that ranked choice voting is one of the simplest and least violent ways to push forward progressive candidates right? Because it makes people comfortable with voting options that with first past the post would be throw away votes
That makes sense, and then you look at Europe and realise the issues at hand are systemic, caused by material conditions and bourgeois democratic electoralism is never going to fix those issues.
Much of Europe already uses ranked choice or proportional voting, yet remains austerity-ridden and sliding toward the far right because it is still under the dictatorship of capital. The voting mechanism is secondary to the concrete material conditions: capital’s imperative to accumulate, the commodification of labor, and the state’s role as an instrument of class rule. Until that dictatorship is overthrown, electoral reform is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
The core contradictions at hand are:
Socialized production versus private appropriation:workers collectively create value, but capitalists expropriate the surplus
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall: as organic composition of capital rises, profitability declines, forcing capital to seek new fixes
Overaccumulation and underconsumption: capital produces more than can be profitably sold, leading to crisis, layoffs, and austerity
The contradiction between capital’s global mobility and labor’s relative immobility, which fuels a race to the bottom in wages and protections.
As imperialism declines (neocolonial extraction becomes costlier, interimperialist rivalry intensifies, and the Global South resists outright plunder) capital can no longer rely on external superprofits to offset domestic falling rates of profit. The response is internal repression: austerity to slash social wages, union-busting to weaken labor power, surveillance to preempt dissent, and the normalization of authoritarian governance. This is capital’s logical reaction to crisis.
This dynamic mirrors Weimar Germany: economic crisis, delegitimized liberal parties, and a bourgeoisie that ultimately backed fascism to crush the organized working class and restore “order” for capital. Today’s far-right surge is the same phenomenon: capital’s emergency management when consent can no longer be manufactured through bourgeois democracy alone.
Voting under these conditions is not a path to liberation; it is a ritual that legitimizes the managers of decline. For voting to matter, you must overthrow the dictatorship of capital and reach the synthesis of these contradictions: a revolutionary transformation that socializes production, abolishes exploitation, and builds a state that serves human need, not profit. Only then does political power and thereby voting become meaningful.
Ranked choice and proportional voting are 2 very different concepts. You are falsely pretending they’re similar when they’re wildly different concepts. Only Ireland presently uses it from the eu, because they as well have an establishment, and ranked choice voting is anti establishment at its core.
Why are you trying to pretend they’re the same concept?
How do you expect to have a revolution if 90% of people don’t agree with your viewpoint? And I say that as a socialist. Pushing forward the agenda over the course of decades is more likely to be successful than a single revolution, in my opinion.
Yes, they are different, but the point at the core of my argument is that it’s irrelevant as they serve the same purpose at their core.
Whether it’s s RCV or MMP, the outcome remains austerity, imperialist foreign policy, and rising far-right influence because the state remains an instrument of capital. Ballot mechanics don’t override class power. RCV isn’t “anti-establishment at its core”; it’s a procedural tweak that can just as easily stabilize bourgeois legitimacy.
In my country the revolution has already happened. We now conduct class struggle through party debate and socialist democracy, not bourgeois elections.
Also revolutionary consciousness isn’t a precondition you wait for, it is forged through struggle. The 90% figure is wrong for a start, even in the US communist sympathys are quickly growing, you also assumes static opinions under static conditions, but material crises radicalize people faster than decades of electoral gradualism. Reformism doesn’t build toward socialism, it manages capitalism more palatably and demobilizes movements by channeling energy into cycles of hope and disappointment.
History suggests otherwise. Social democracy produced the welfare state only under the unique pressure of postwar reconstruction and Soviet competition, then dismantled it once those pressures faded (and even that was built off massive exploitation and imperialism in the periphery). Capital concedes reforms only when forced and retracts them the moment profitability demands it. Waiting for electoral consensus while the climate burns, fascism rises, and imperialism massacres isn’t a strategy. Bourgeois democracy won’t let you vote through its own abolition. The task for those still under bourgeois democracy is to build dual power: organs of working-class authority that can confront and replace the dictatorship of capital. That’s how you can make voting matter.
Haha, you think the epstein class will allow you to vote away their fascism
It’s an important reform no matter what, even if we have to resort to other methods to take out the class first.
Alas, I fear the US might be too far gone for ranked choice to have an effect.
The problem is quality of candidates. Since Citizen’s United opened the door for unlimited corporate money in elections, literally 90% of candidates are on someone’s payroll. “Grassroots” is a thing of the past. Mass media and name recognition are everything.
It’s quite possible it’s too late for the usa, but I still do want other democracies to push for it. Only 4 odd countries have it worldwide.
Worth saying, while grassroots is less common, it is not gone. Kat in il-9 is somewhat a good example of this though she failed community engagement and came from out of town so she’s unlikely to win. Though it is arguable how grassroots she is. Of course the top priority is revoking citizens united.
It’s one of the simplest ways of helping push countries to the left, because it allows you to have people vote for the leftist politicians without worrying about boosting a right wing politician or party, as first past the post forces, and also not forcing people to vote for parties, which lock out leftist candidates from being able to gain traction as easily such as in proportional voting systems.
As good as preferential/ranked voting is. Compulsory voting would have a much larger positive impact on US’ democracy
Ideally both
Neither can fix the systemic problems caused by capitalism though, democracy in capitalism is democracy for capitalists.
Well then use that amendment that children keep dying for or stop complaining. So pathetic
I already organize with a communist party, I have no intention of simply complaining alone.
What good is complaining amongst a communist org, if your democracy and elections a rlcapitalist?
Communist parties are revolutionary parties, generally. I’m not just whining about the system.
Yes you are, you are winging about the the system to people like me who aren’t part of it
Please stop financing and enabling the USA, also, and stop using the US dollar for international trade. So lame that you haven’t done that
I actively steal from the USA
Well, I can’t argue with that! Carry on, watch your back
Okay. Thank you for your service.
Many far right countries (australia, japan, south korea) use ranked choice voting… it doesn’t make a bit of difference. If capitalists control the political system, then they will stack candidates and fund the campaigns that support their interests, and the “democracy” there is nothing but political theatre.
Outside of Marxists, even the ancient greeks knew that representative government is just another name for plutocracy, because only wealthy / landed family have the money and prestige to fund campaigns to get themselves elected. Liberals still haven’t learned this simple lesson.
In what world is Australia far right? Center right/neoliberal today maybe. But not far fight, especially compared to other countries
Also I recommend compulsory voting.
In this world, the world where open support for genocide is bipartisan in Australian politics
I do not and will not dispute that either.
How will compulsive voting improve anything? Now you’re dragging even more uninformed dopes to vote, a lot of them will vote for spite. Far more than you realize, I think
Trump was 100% the vote-for-spite-burn-it-down candidate. That’s how they get you, the old switcheroo
uninformed defines almost all american voters and the last election showed that 30 million people who voted in 2020, chose not to vote in 2024 instead of spite voting.
That doesn’t happen in reality
deleted by creator
Re: authoritarianism— your opinion.
Some of us aren’t in favour of oppressive regimes that aren’t transparent, surveil, and censor.
“Authoritarianism” is meaningless because all it means is “uses state power.” It doesn’t acknowledge which class controls the state and who it uses state power against. In China, the working classes control the state, and use state power against bad actors and capitalists more than anything else. China is oppressive to capitalists and liberating to workers.
I haven’t much evidence for the claim: “In China, the working classses control the state”
sure you will say that is my western bias from living with china bad propaganda, but you could actually provide something to me read on topic if possible
You can debate whether the system works well, but it isn’t accurate to say there’s no evidence for the claim that the working classes play a central role in the Chinese state.
China’s constitution explicitly defines the PRC as a socialist state “led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants,” with state power exercised through the National People’s Congress (NPC) system. The NPC is the highest organ of state power, with nearly 3,000 deputies drawn from provinces, the PLA, and different social sectors.
The makeup of the NPC is not just party bureaucrats or business elites. In the 14th NPC there are hundreds of deputies from workers and farmers and large numbers of grassroots representatives, along with 442 ethnic minority deputies covering all 55 minority groups. Most deputies in China’s people’s congress system (about 95%) serve at the county and township level, which are directly elected and involve hundreds of millions of voters. Higher congresses are elected from these lower levels. This structure is what China calls “whole-process people’s democracy.” Sources explaining the system include CGTN’s Who runs the CPC and the State Council white paper China: Democracy That Works.
You can also look at how the state treats capital. China has private capital, but it is clearly subordinated to state goals. When Jack Ma tried to push an aggressive fintech model through Ant Group that would massively expand lightly regulated consumer credit, regulators halted the IPO and forced restructuring under stricter oversight. That is a case of disciplining capital when it conflicts with social stability and the broader economy.
Likewise, China has pursued policies like eliminating extreme poverty and building massive infrastructure networks (including projects that are not monetarily profitable) because they are treated as long-term public development goals. That kind of large-scale, socially oriented investment is difficult to sustain in systems where private capital dominates the state.
So you can disagree with the Chinese model, but there is actually a large amount of Chinese material explaining how their system is supposed to function and why they claim it represents working-class political power.
Sure!
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Moreover, the economy in the PRC is socialist, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
The working classes in socialist countries are the ones dictating the state and its direction.
Removed by mod
There is no genocide of Uyghurs. Uyghur genocide atrocity propaganda akin to claiming that there’s “white genocide” in South Africa, Christian genocide in Nigeria, or that Hamas sexually assaulted babies in Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of “genocide.” Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens.
The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.
I also recommend reading the UN report and China’s response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.
Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time as well. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.
Removed by mod
“the world”
Do you have any proof? The OISC disagree with you. And even the UN doesn’t call it a genocide because that’s not what happened.
Please explain how what I said is “bullshit,” I even included the UN report. Why do you like Adrian Zenz?
Removed by mod
Abuses and genocide are 2 very different things. If you want to talk about the abuses during the ETIM crackdown and what was done wrong etc that’s definitely possible but you should really stop spreading the genocide narrative that smears mud on this real serious conversation.
Linking British propaganda outlets like the BBC, who were caught putting a yellow filter over their vidows in Xinjiang and lying about what people were saying, ie mistranslating, isn’t the win you think it is. I asked why you love Adrian Zenz, not for you to keep posting him.
I’m using the term to refer to suppression of people (which isn’t restricted to workers) in politics, media, etc.
Except by “the people” you seem to mean capitalists and fascists, not the broad majority of society that are uplifted and support the system.
Removed by mod
China is a socialist country, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. Child labor is illegal in China, you may be thinking of the US.
I am a Chinese minority living in China. You really don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to China. You very clearly have done 0 research beyond maybe reading RFA. You should be quiet until you have done some proper research.
You can’t possibly be a minority in China, what with all those intact organs.
Ad hominem, ad hominem, and mmm, ad hominem. Yeah, nothing to see here.
Least insufferable redditer
It isn’t an ad hominem fallacy to point out that doing little research on a topic and repeating easily disproven talking points isn’t a sound basis of argument.
And I have, and my responses were given little in return from them.
You have not, considering everything you’ve said has been easily debunked, and when encountering hard numbers you reflect to dogmatism.
Dogmatism? And what about you?
Dialectical materialism. I look at material reality, analyze it within context and as it changes over time, where it came from and where it’s headed. I am certainly confident in my research, as I’ve done extensive reading on the subject. Your rejection of facts is what points at dogmatism.
Not an adhominem. You’re not wrong because you’re stupid you just happen to be both wrong and stupid.
Well in the comment I said that you didn’t explain why I was wrong and simply resorted to making a string of ad hominems.
So I’ll reiterate: ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.
Saying you should shut up if you haven’t researched a topic isn’t an adhominem.
“No investigation, no right to speak”
Alright, you should shut up if you can’t respond to my answers.
I am done arguing across the thread so I am just going to deal with all your bullshit in one go here.
You keep repeating the word “authoritarian” as if it is a self-evident argument, but it is not. It is a vague political insult that Western political discourse applies to states it dislikes and almost never applies to itself. Every state exercises authority: it enforces laws, maintains internal security, regulates media to some extent, surveils threats, and suppresses movements it considers destabilizing. The United States conducts mass digital surveillance, criminalizes whistleblowers, historically infiltrated and destroyed political movements through programs like COINTELPRO, and imprisons more people than any country in the world. Yet it is rarely labeled “authoritarian” by the same commentators who apply the term to China reflexively. That should already tell you the term is being used ideologically rather than analytically. If every state exercises authority, then calling one “authoritarian” without specifying material structures of power, governance mechanisms, or outcomes is just moralizing rhetoric.
The same applies to your claim that China is “fascist,” which is not merely wrong but demonstrates that you do not understand what fascism actually is. Fascism historically emerges in advanced capitalist societies during severe economic crisis when sections of the ruling class mobilize a violent ultra-nationalist movement to crush organized labor and socialist movements in order to preserve capitalist property relations. It is defined by the fusion of corporate and state power, preservation of monopoly capital, destruction of socialist parties and unions, and expansionist militarism. China does not fit this model in any meaningful way. Its political system is led by a communist party whose legitimacy rests on long-term development planning, massive poverty reduction, public infrastructure investment, and a large state-owned economic sector. Private capital exists, but it does not politically dominate the state the way corporate capital dominates Western liberal democracies. You may dislike that system, but lazily labeling it “fascist” simply shows that you are throwing around historical terminology you clearly have not studied.
Your argument about Xinjiang relies on the same pattern: confident assertions built almost entirely on a narrow ecosystem of ideological sources. The modern “Uyghur genocide” narrative traces heavily back to Adrian Zenz, a far-right evangelical researcher who openly states his religious mission is to destroy communism. His methodology (guesswork extrapolated from administrative statistics and speculation about buildings seen in satellite images) has been widely criticized by scholars across multiple fields. Meanwhile, international delegations, journalists, and diplomats have visited Xinjiang repeatedly over the past several years. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation publicly acknowledged China’s efforts in addressing extremism and safeguarding Muslim citizens rather than declaring a genocide. Dozens of Muslim-majority governments have taken similar positions. If a genocide were genuinely occurring, it would be extraordinary for the major international organization representing Muslim states to refuse to recognize it.
Satellite imagery itself proves almost nothing. Images of buildings do not magically become “concentration camps” simply because a Western think tank says so. Every country has prisons, schools, training centers, and administrative facilities. Converting “there are buildings” into “therefore genocide” requires layers of speculation that are rarely demonstrated. The testimonies most widely promoted in Western media frequently come from individuals affiliated with political organizations advocating regime change, such as the World Uyghur Congress. Some prominent figures cited as witnesses have direct institutional connections to U.S. security agencies. That does not automatically invalidate testimony, but it absolutely means the claims require scrutiny rather than blind acceptance because they align with Western geopolitical narratives.
You also dismiss Chinese public opinion entirely because it comes from Chinese institutions. That is not analysis; it is simply prejudice dressed up as skepticism. Multiple long-term studies, including research conducted by Harvard’s Ash Center, have consistently found extremely high satisfaction with the Chinese central government across decades of rapid development. Hundreds of millions of people have experienced massive improvements in living standards, infrastructure, healthcare access, and poverty reduction. China eliminated extreme poverty on a scale unprecedented in human history. These material outcomes are a major reason the government maintains broad legitimacy domestically. Pretending that 1.4 billion people must all be brainwashed or terrified because their views contradict Western narratives says more about your worldview than about China.
Your claims about censorship suffer from the same lack of nuance. China regulates its information space, particularly around political organization and extremist ideology. That is true. But the idea that Chinese society exists in total informational darkness is nonsense. Hundreds of millions of people use Chinese social media platforms every day where public debates, criticism of local officials, policy complaints, and social controversies are common. Domestic media frequently exposes corruption and administrative failures. The system is designed to prevent destabilizing political mobilization and separatist extremism while still allowing broad social discussion. Again, you can disagree with that model, but describing it as total censorship shows you are repeating talking points rather than observing how the system actually operates.
Your repeated insistence that your position cannot possibly contain racist assumptions also misses the point. Criticism of any state is legitimate. What becomes chauvinistic is the underlying assumption that Chinese people are incapable of forming genuine political opinions and must therefore be either brainwashed or coerced if they express support for their own government. That assumption appears constantly in Western commentary about China. When someone dismisses the perspectives of an entire population while elevating a handful of exile activists as the only “real voices,” it reflects a colonial pattern of thinking whether you want to admit it or not.
More broadly, your arguments show a familiar pattern: start with a predetermined conclusion that China must be oppressive, then accept any claim that supports that belief while dismissing contradictory evidence as propaganda. That is not critical thinking; it is ideological confirmation bias. Real analysis requires examining sources, incentives, and historical context rather than repeating whatever narrative is most popular in Western media cycles.
So the issue here is not that criticism of China is forbidden. The issue is that the criticisms you are presenting rely on vague labels, historically illiterate misuse of terms like “fascism,” contested evidence promoted by politically motivated actors, and a reflexive dismissal of the perspectives of the Chinese population itself. That is not a serious argument. It is a collection of slogans and assumptions repeated with confidence but very little understanding.
Still better then the baby eating pedo elite
It is possible to oppose all three things. It is possible to simultaneously oppose the Social Credit System in China, the Credit Score system in the United States, and the elites connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
The social credit system that you know of doesn’t exist.
Interesting phrasing. A phrasing that assumes assumptions on my part. So … what social credit system DOES exist.
My previous comment on it. Mostly there is no “score” it’s a binary list of businesses and business people (some individuals may end up on the list if they lose a defemation suit for example) who owe debts/damages and refuse to pay. It’s not automatic, it’s not affected by your day to day life and you are put on the list only after a court hearing
Is it? You need to think more pragmatically, you are a laborer. Your only bargaining chip is your labour, decide who gets it. Personally, I don’t want to be part of any helping them live their best life.
I am curious, who is “them” in your statement and how does opposing all three of those things inherently cause me to give up my bargaining power?
No don’t, you never will. You’ll always contribute what ever system you’re a part of. Just choose one and the chienese might do a lot of bad things but they aren’t the pedofile baby eating elites.
Removed by mod
Go back to 4chan obergruppenfuhrer. Or provide some evidence/analysis but I doubt you have that capability.
Everybody disliked that
You can dislike it all you want doesn’t make it less true.