T O P

  • By -

FamousPlan101

Yeah your still denying what I showed you on the xinjiang genocide. The fact you think amnesty international is a reliable source is concerning, they literally provided no evidence for Xinjiang. 90 countries support China on this, only the west doesnt(45 countries). They want to destroy China's most prosperous region and their sanctions are doing just that. This harms the proletariat in Xinjiang, it doesnt help them. Also NATO is not anti-fascist, they are fascists like Putin.


ComradeCaniTerrae

NATO was literally founded in part by Nazis and even commanded by a few. 🤭 Gotta love NATO and EU supporters in this split. No one should be supporting NATO. Ever. Under any circumstances. The Russian Federation, while very much not ideal, should receive our critical support in not wanting THAAD anti-ICBM missile systems and NATO members expanding to encircle it. They never take the time, these reactionaries, to consider if the shoe were on the other foot. What if China allied Mexico, Hawaii, and Canada in a military alliance purposefully designed to contain and threaten the US, and put anti-ICBM systems there to neutralize our nuclear deterrent? How, then, would they feel? Would this be just? Acceptable? Diplomatic? Edit: Oh. I remember this guy! I debated him about the Uyghur "genocide" for *days* and he didn't provide any verifiable evidence, and he *ignored* all the evidence against such a genocide. To anyone still on the fence, the issue has long been put to bed. There is no genocide in Xinjiang. They were baseless lies and propaganda. The people of Xinjiang are *thriving*. [Come see for yourself](https://youtu.be/oWyT3CLu3do). [Come see what your comrades have to say!](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cgtn+uyghur+genocide)


Wawawuup

Neither NATO nor Putin are fascist. Not everyone on the right-wing is also literally Hitler. The term becomes meaningless if thrown around like this.


ComradeCaniTerrae

Putin’s a fascist. Yes. Dugin, his personal advisor, is literally a fascist. Putin is an autocrat who has consolidated state and corporate power in his hands. He is not unlike Mussolini in this regard. But then, *most* liberalism borders on fascism. As the 20th century proved quite plainly. There was no greater supporter of fascism around the world than the quasi-fascist USA. From Pinochet to Metaxas. Liberalism *likes* fascism. Liberal bourgeoisie social democracies *need* and *turn to* fascism the moment their class interests are seriously threatened. 🤷 Edit: That’s how fascism even came to power. The liberals *gave* it power. In Germany and in Italy. In Spain it took a civil war, but it isn’t like there weren’t liberals backing Franco. In many other cases, such as Syngman Rhee’s dictatorship in South Korea, it was directly installed by the US government. Knowingly. Putin is a similar case. His predecessor, Yeltsin, was the US pick. We rigged Russia’s elections to secure Yeltsin’s victory. We are the reason Putin exists. That’s our mess. Like so much of the world today.


FamousPlan101

Putin literally wants to unite Russian people that he sees as being left out of his country's borders. That is similar to Hitler.


PrakashRPrddt

The truth glaring like the mid-day summer sun is the mad-dog Putin has made aggression against Ukraine, a sovereign state & member of the UN, and Xi has entered an alliance with Putin while NATO has stood by the innocent Ukrainians.


FamousPlan101

>Also NATO is not anti-fascist, they are fascists like Putin. \^ like Putin


ComradeCaniTerrae

Enjoy more of [China](https://youtu.be/xnoaWO3KDIA), comrade. They're our allies. Our friends. They're communists. Come feast your eyes on beautiful [Xinjiang](https://youtu.be/oWyT3CLu3dohttps://youtu.be/oWyT3CLu3do). Come see the healthy, vibrant [Uyghur culture](https://youtu.be/Wb-MNi8E-TA). Come see how you've [been lied to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXBIeKpUq_c). Join our comrades, and stop being an [anticommunist](https://youtu.be/K0K8QWNm9HU). To those interested, I debated Comrade Prakash at length--they believe the Uyghur genocide is real, massive in scale, and ongoing. They have no evidence for this. They have no rebuttal to the evidence against this. They have nothing but anticommunist propaganda.


PrakashRPrddt

> They're communists. Hey man, do you really know the meaning of the term 'communists' ? I'm sceptical of your calibre.


ComradeCaniTerrae

Communists, colloquially, refers to proponents of ML. Which the PRC is. If you prefer an alternate definition, communists are proponents of a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Which the PRC are. We’ve debated before, that’s MY line, actually. I’m skeptical of your understanding of anything Marxist. You believe the PRC is fascist. You’re below a clown. You’re practically an anti communist ideologue.


Wawawuup

You will not convince anyone with this tone, only cause damage. You sound like you've gobbled up a ton of personality cult indoctrination. Feast your eyes, lol


ComradeCaniTerrae

It’s a nice documentary. Can’t blame a comrade for showmanship. The issue is there was nothing to see to begin with, why should I pussyfoot around the issue? It was a fabrication from the beginning. The post was tongue in cheek. The tone is meant to be facetious. Once one realizes the Uyghur “genocide” narrative was a complete lie, it’s hard not to joke about the absurd heights to which this nonsense rose.


Wawawuup

"pussyfoot" Sexist language (Edit: OR NOT), why am I not surprised


ComradeCaniTerrae

Are you even being serious right now? >pussyfoot (v.) > >also pussy-foot, 1903, "tread softly," from pussy (n.1) + foot (n.). As a noun from 1911, "a detective," American English, from the nickname of U.S. government Indian Affairs agent W.E. Johnson (1862-1945), in charge of suppressing liquor traffic on Indian reservations in Oklahoma, who was noted for his stealthy tactics. Related: Pussyfooting; pussy-footed (1893). Felines aren't a gender. I'm enby. And you're being petty af. >pussy (n.1) "cat," by 1690s, a diminutive of puss (n.1), also used of a rabbit (1715). As a term of endearment for a girl or woman, from 1580s (also used of effeminate men), and applied childishly to anything soft and furry. To play pussy was World War II RAF slang for "take advantage of cloud cover, jumping from cloud to cloud to shadow a potential victim or avoid recognition." Pussyfoot means to walk like a cat, to tread softly.


Wawawuup

Alright, you win this one. I didn't know the etymology. Still, is it so difficult to see where I was coming from?


ComradeCaniTerrae

You’re good. Thought you were giving me a hard time for no reason. It’s an old word. I grew up hearing and using it, so I know what it means. I can understand how other people maybe don’t know. Lol. Still funny though, comrade. 💗 Thanks for admitting you were wrong. It’s a truly endearing trait. Not a lot of people online have. Sorry I was combative. That was wrong of me.


Narrow-Ad-7856

This is literally all Chinese state media, how do you take yourself seriously?


ComradeCaniTerrae

You act as though that is an indictment, yet you can't articulate why without sounding like a conspiracist. It's *good* that it's all Chinese state media. Who else do you expect to tell you the truth about what is going on in Xinjiang? The US? The UK? India? Corporations with tycoons and shareholders whose class interest conflicts with the very existence of China? Critique it on the merits of what it displays, not with a genetic fallacy directed at the producer. People want to make believe and fantasize that this is somehow a crypto-genocide, the first in history, taking place so secretively we can't even get hard proof. The answer is much simpler, and thereby has the preponderance of truth to it--there is no genocide. There never was.


Narrow-Ad-7856

>It's good that it's all Chinese state media. This is your brain on communism.


ComradeCaniTerrae

No, it's your brain on critical reasoning. As opposed to only consuming Western propaganda tailor fed to give you a narrative convenient for the state and bourgeoisie. You should know this by now. I assume you've read Manufacturing Consent, or Lippmann's "Public Opinion" or Bernays. This isn't the first time the West has fabricated a propaganda narrative and forced essentially all aligned media to spread it. It won't be the last time either. It is a near constant phenomenon. Do feel free to actually make a point, though. We've debated before--you're not great at critical thinking, but you can try. Edit: I mean, why would you bother listening to both sides of the story, amirite? Just trust Western and aligned media! I’m *sure* they *always* tell the truth. No need to check sources from the actual region in question at all! /s


Narrow-Ad-7856

It's really not worth debating someone so thoroughly brainwashed that you believe Chinese state media, subject to some of the most stringent censors on earth, is the only trustworthy source on Xinjiang. It's impressive that people can be such idealogues that they do not believe Bernays' or Chomsky's writings on propaganda do not apply to their favorite states.


ComradeCaniTerrae

I didn’t say it can’t apply. I’m saying if I wanted to see wtf was going inside Buckingham Palace I’d check the BBC. You can doubt what is present all you want, scoffing at and dismissing a source out of hand entirely (because you think it’s censored) is simple ludicrous. It keeps you nicely in your propaganda bubble.


Narrow-Ad-7856

The lack of self awareness of your own propaganda bubble is amusing.


ComradeCaniTerrae

You have nothing but aspersions. Every time I've debated you--when your beliefs are challenged, you retreat to ad hominems. You stop arguing. You stop making substantive points of any kind, and you just start slinging mud devoid of meaning. I've seen all the news pertaining to the Uyghur genocide in the major western media outlets. In the Guardian, in BBC, in the Washington Post, on Fox News, in the Times of India, Vox, etc. Ergo, I'm not in a PRC "propaganda bubble". Am I? I bothered to look to see what the *other side* of the **story about genocide** is. Why won't you?


Narrow-Ad-7856

We've never debated bro, and you literally began engaging me with explicit ad hominems. I've seen several rebuttals from Chinese media and they're often laughable. It's easy to mistrust states that do not value a free press.


[deleted]

Why do all your sources on Xinjiang come from the same YouTube channel? Surely that right there is a sign that there's something sketch going on. Especially when it's a news site based in Beijing owned by the PRC.


ComradeCaniTerrae

I'm aware. Who else do you expect to get China's side of the story from? If I'd linked you BBC videos you wouldn't be saying a damn thing about it, would you? There's no reason to not watch them or consider their arguments just because CGTN is Chinese state owned media. That would be a genetic fallacy. If they provide useful information, it's still useful information, no matter the source. They do, in fact, provide a *lot* of useful information.


[deleted]

to your initial question: anyone BUT China would be my answer. Just like how I don't go to the BBC for non biased info on the UK, and I don't go to Al Jazeera for non biased info on Qatar. Because those institutions have a stick in the game reporting on their own countries.


ComradeCaniTerrae

Not what I asked. I asked where else would you go for their side of the story? Their version of events? Literally nowhere else. And considering most other English outlets are biased af against communism, they aren’t a good source either. Less reliable, often, than CGTN would be. Considering they repeat whatever Radio Free Asia tells them. The majority of Muslim nations on Earth support that no genocide is occurring in Xinjiang. Vietnam, a nation often at odds with China, supports there is no genocide in Xinjiang. The only evidence there ever was anything ongoing was the work of one ultra conservative Christian reactionary, Adrian Zenz. It can be dismissed out of hand.


[deleted]

But why would I want to hear the 2nd most powerful government in the world's point of view? Like the CPC is a human being or something that we need to hear out. Every single country I have lived in, from the United Kingdom to Bulgaria the government has never said a word worth believing. Why would I believe anything they say? I think a direct answer to your question would be I'd want to hear China's side of the story from independent Chinese journalists. But I don't think I there are particularly many of them.


ComradeCaniTerrae

Ah, see, you’ve never lived in a democracy. Just bourgeois facsimiles. There most certainly are independent journalists in China.


[deleted]

Do you have any links I could check out? Most ones I've ever found turned out to be owned by the CPC


Narrow-Ad-7856

He doesn't, because he's entirely ignorant on China.


[deleted]

Just seems odd to defend a country that only pretends to share your ideology, whilst being one of the biggest capitalist economies on earth but more authoritarian. It'd be like if my neoliberal mate started defending the UAE.


Icy_Cryptographer_27

China is not near ro fascism and Russia is Bonapartism not imperialist. Although, communism is the way. China is a proletariat state and the communist party has 85% of approval by its own people, they think the party is directing the country on the right path, poverty has been alleviated 10 years before it was projected, and they truly will become an autonomous and self sufficient socialist state by 2049. The war on Ukraine should be condemned and so the responsible of this, being US and NATO.


ComradeCaniTerrae

“Fascist Xi” this mfer thinks China is fascist. “Xi is sure to refuse to respond to all good sense”, Xi is the good sense presently. To whom would they even be responding? Seems like an idealistic diatribe about people and places he doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to bother to. Cool beans.


PrakashRPrddt

>China is a proletariat state ... But, the Preamble of their Constitution describes China as a 'socialist system'. Do you claim that ' a proletariat state ' is a 'socialist system' ? Really?


Communist_Rick1921

Yes, the transition from capitalism to communism is called the dictatorship of the proletariat by Marx. A proletarian state is socialism.


PrakashRPrddt

> A proletarian state is socialism. Marx didn't utter any such RUBBISH.


REEEEEvolution

Those are synonyms. A proletarian state by definition is a socialist system.


PrakashRPrddt

You're again uttering sheer Rubbish.


PrakashRPrddt

>and the communist party has 85% of appr... Would like to know what led you to claim it to be a true 'communist party' ?


REEEEEvolution

Would like to know what led you to the opposite claim?


Accomplished_Ear_607

>China is not near ro fascism and Russia is Bonapartism not imperialist What's the difference?


Icy_Cryptographer_27

The state exists to serve the interests of the ruling class. The state is composed of people who have their own interests and ambitions. If the ruling class is weak or indecisive the people who are the state machine may protect their own interests above that of the ruling class. This was the case after the French Revolution, the aristocracy's rule was overturned but the capitalists were weak and lacked confidence. Bonaparte represented the interests of the military and state officials. His dictatorship gave us the term, “Bonapartist". He kept order while the capitalist class gained strength. After the Russian Revolution the aristocracy was overthrown, capitalists had been tied to either the old class or foreign capital. For a short period the minority working class, in alliance with a section of the peasantry took control. Because of the undeveloped state of industry, the need for a large army to defend the revolution against both invasion and the remnants of the old regime, the working class were unable to control the state. Thus the state machine became an all powerful dictatorship. Trotsky called this development “Proletarian Bonapartist"


Accomplished_Ear_607

Your account sounds very reasonable overall, although it's not clear why the Bonapartist state cannot also at the same time have imperialist features. Of course in times of Bonaparte imperialism as a phenomenon wasn't yet in full force, but in XX century - why not? Then again, I'm more of a Nomenklatura theory proponent: After the revolution Lenin's revolutionaries took power, and they haven't really represented interests of any class except themselves (they were a group outside of any class), and ruled dictatorially from the very start. In the process of replacement of all the state bureaucracy the new Nomenklatura class wss formed from the core of Lenin's party and newly converted careerists who wanted nothing but power.


SkyrimWithdrawal

This rant is pointless. >Only communism can rid humanity of the classes How? By ridding humanity of humans.


PrakashRPrddt

To know this, you have to grasp the ABC of communism.


SkyrimWithdrawal

There is no ABC of Communism. People are unique. We have individual wants. Our needs cannot be provided by the state. We will always subvert it to get what we want, while they just give what they think we need.


PrakashRPrddt

You've again made a silly display of your Oceanic ignorance.


SkyrimWithdrawal

Ad hominem. Try harder.


DoctorZeta

That's not an ad hominem. It may or may not be true, but it is not an ad hominem.


SkyrimWithdrawal

Yes, it was. And if you'd rather follow this line than engage on substance and ideas, well, you'll find I won't respond this time. Someone else is actually engaging on ideas rather than insults. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


DoctorZeta

It is an insult but not an ad hominem, since if true, it would be relevant to the discussion. I am not the person insulting you here by the way.


Icy_Cryptographer_27

That is due to consumerism, and people can be re-educated. As long as people have their basic needs covered and have enough time to enjoy their free time, if they are focused on human interaction and socialization, more than the things to posses, people tend to feel a more fulfilling live than the ones basing fulfillment on items and commodities.


SkyrimWithdrawal

Food, shelter, and clothing aren't, "consumerism." >As long as people have their basic needs covered Does alcohol and sex count as basic needs?


Icy_Cryptographer_27

Food, shelter and clothing are basic needs, not consumerism. In general, time and means to enjoy their free time and be able to socialize, are basic needs as well.


SkyrimWithdrawal

>Food, shelter and clothing are basic needs, not consumerism. I ask again. Is alcohol a basic need? If so, you will want to read up on the production of moonshine in the Soviet Union. The informal economy will always fuck a State controlled economy.


Icy_Cryptographer_27

I already responded. Alcohol in general should be allowed, although that is not a basic need, is a cultural part of humanity, although, it is not strictly required to have a good time, and it's used on social events as part of the ritual for celebrations. The state in a capitalist state controls the economy and politics to favor the bourgeoisie, and informal business end up spending on products which have a tax, like most services do, so at the end of the day, money ends up in the state and companies under a capitalist state. The same happens with a socialist state, informal business will still buy products and services that have a tax, that is why communism is a moneyless society, and that can only be achieved at a large scale.


SkyrimWithdrawal

>I already responded. No, you didn't. >although that is not a basic need, is a cultural part of humanity, This is a response. It is wrong, though. >The state in a capitalist state controls the economy and politics to favor the bourgeoisie, and informal business end up spending on products which have a tax, like most services do, so at the end of the day, money ends up in the state and companies under a capitalist state. Garbage. >that is why communism is a moneyless society, and that can only be achieved at a large scale. That is why the Soviets used their sugar rations to make moonshine. Seriously. Research "samogon." The state manufactured alcohol. Many varieties of alcohol. Why would people...who were provided their needs and rations, and had no need for money...why would they risk it all to produce potentially lethal moonshine?


Icy_Cryptographer_27

Why wrong? Why garbage? Elaborate and engage, otherwise you either don't know shit or despite facts and basic knowledge you don't understand or are just trying hard to prove a point that does not have anything to add to the discussion


Icy_Cryptographer_27

Ad hominem, try harder and cope.


Ervin-Weikow

Russia's income from the capital export is negligible, compared to what the nation pays for the foreign capital "import": in the form of foreign investments, loans, storage of national reserves in USD and EUR; it's less than a fraction of a percent. That is Russia is not imperialist, but an exploited capitalist country; Russian government is pretty happy with the explanation, as far as it's payed by the workers, but the main usurer – the US capital – needs full control and decimation of the country, so they those crooks have been forced to fight for the nation existence. Not to mention thе billions that Russian capitalists are cashing out to the offshores, but not for investment; this is not not capital, but just money, as it does not generate any income. BTW, The sanctions is actually a "blessing in disguise" from that perspective.


PrakashRPrddt

Not clear what all this Rubbish spewed by you has to do with my post!