You need to be banned for make me see the face of this piece of shit.
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
130 points (72.7% liked)
Memes
56601 readers
608 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
all 50 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
What wrong with him? I only know him from low effort "reaction" video's where he is gaming and barely paying attention to the video he's "reacting" to.
Well what's wrong with apart from all of the above I guess ๐
Don't really understand why you are getting downvoted for asking what seems to be a genuine question
Eh, hivemind gonna hivemind I guess. You need to keep in mind that a lot of the Lemmy users where also banned from reddit and that place is a cesspool at times.
Plus it's a nice community activity to pile up on a comment that already got a few downvotes. Kinda like beheadings in the middle ages haha.
Doubt.
Mass surveillance is disliked by all.
Making it a political post is low effort.
No it ain't. Plenty of people cheer on cameras being installed anywhere and everywhere as long as you say it's to stop criminals, Mexicans, or Mexican criminals.
Don't forget about the well, I've got nothing to hide crowd. The same fucks that think that patriotism means giving up liberty
"Libs", pictured: right-wing nut job streamer, Asmongold.
Yes. Liberalism is a right-wing ideology, conservativism is a subsection of liberalism.
I don't think anyone actually thinks this other than like currently serving politicians and cops
Please tag this as NSFW, AssGotMold is not what I'm trying to look at during lunch
[+]
basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com
-7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
(2 children)
CHINA BAD AND USA BAD! They both fucking suck! But hey, keep defending the 'communist' survailence state that is one of the largest exporters in the global market. I am sure the workers feel like they own the profits.
The PRC is leaps and bounds better than the US, and it isn't close. Further, socialism isn't when "no exports," lol.
Socialism is when poor.
-Gang of Four
Also something about western Marxism and Christianity
Spot-on! The only socialism acceptable to the standard western viewpoint is a vow of poverty and self-sacrifice.
What's funny?
In what way? The PRC is leaps and bounds ahead of the US from a developmental perspective and from an ethics perspective, and it isn't close.
Amazing, not a single point, just open admittance of not having any.
I have points, I'm just not wasting my time providing them to you.
But reading your nonsense is hilarious. Therefore: LMAO.
Seems more like cope.
K, don't care.
[+]
basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com
-8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
(2 children)
Can we be honest and acknowledge the fact that if you're doing socialism or communism correctly, your exports are going to be severely lower than capitalist shitholes like China and the USA? A system that values the workers is not going to have as much force behind it economically as a system that just uses as many laborers as possible as wage slaves. So China having a large export implies that they are not actually doing communism in any real way. Any claims that china is actually communist and it supports it's peoples wellbeing is literally an American left wing conspiracy theory.
No, we can't, because that's an absurd premise.
-
Socialism is a mode of production. It isn't when you import more than you export, or vice-versa. In the PRC, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, while medium and small firms have diverse forms of ownership like private, cooperative, and joint-stock. It's in the primary stage of socialism.
-
The idea that the PRC isn't socialist is a "left" wing fallacy among Statesians. In the PRC, socialist countries like Cuba and Vietnam, and among major communist orgs, the PRC's status as a developing socialist country is not in question.
You haven't made any arguments as to why China is capitalist, just that it exports, but in reality it is import driven economies that are the most capitalist, and that isn't even a rule, just a generalization.
Didn't Mao do the Cultural Revolution specifically to prevent (not that it was implemented well or that it worked) what he saw the USSR was becoming and wanted to prevent China from following in the same capitalistic footsteps?
As in do you believe the person who said
(2) The imperialist powers have forced China to sign numerous unequal treaties by which they have acquired the right to station land and sea forces and exercise consular jurisdiction in China, [17] and they have carved up the whole country into imperialist spheres of influence. [18]
(3) The imperialist powers have gained control of all the important trading ports in China by these unequal treaties and have marked off areas in many of these ports as concessions under their direct administration.[19] They have also gained control of China's customs, foreign trade and communications (sea, land, inland water and air). Thus they have been able to dump their goods in China, turn her into a market for their industrial products, and at the same time subordinate her agriculture to their imperialist needs
would approve of the belt and road debt trap or the actual 99 year lease China used to take over the port of Colombo in Sri Lanka ?
Or is it fine to exploit other countries if the people in your country benefit?
Even then you believe they're socialist when Deng Xiaoping says (and Xi repeats this "common prosperity" rhetoric) that
โOur policy is to let some people and some regions get rich first, in order to drive and help the backward regions, and it is an obligation for the advanced regions to help the backward regions.โ
So you recognize the failure of neoliberal "trickle down" economics but refuse to accept that if the same capital accumulation happens in a "socialist" country its suddenly not a problem?
And you really think that Jack Ma and his family won't fight tooth and nail to keep their private jets and offshore million dollar houses instead of forgoing them voluntarily for the good of the socialist project? please..
-
Trade is not imperialism. The PRC is not imperialist just because of the Belt and Road Initiative involves multilateral exchange. It is not a debt trap.
-
The large firms and key industries in China are publicly owned. Capital accumulation is a contradiction, but it is not one that has led to capitalist takeover.
Ultimately, the Cultural Revolution failed, whether you believe it correct or incorrect in analysis. What's important is taking a scientific approach to analyzing the PRC, and not simply thinking that because they are in the primary stage of socialism that they will never advance beyond. The evidence is to the contrary.
Jack Ma and the other capitalists have no choice, they don't control the large firms and key industries, but the secondary industries and medium firms. They will fight as they can, class struggle exists until class no longer exists, but they exist with the consent of the state alone.
So you're saying that China didn't extend or take advantage of western debt traps for their own economic and geopolitical goals?
So
- Sri Lanka desperately needs $1.12 billion to avoid defaulting to Western bondholders
- China provides that cash immediately
- In exchange they get 99-year control of a $1.4 billion strategic asset
- Sri Lanka still owes them the original construction debt
- China now controls 70% of future port profits for a century (or two)
And look I'm not claiming that this crisis wasn't caused by western imperialism - but calling it a "trade" or "multilateral exchange" when China very obviously took advantage of a country in crisis for almost exclusively their own benefit is disingenuous.
Do you really see no issues with such predatory lending (irrespective of it being done by the IMF or BRI)?
There's a widespread campaign to try to paint the PRC as imperialist to drive countries back to the IMF, but fundamentally the PRC is not imperialist. It isn't controlled by private monopoly that needs to expand outward through the export of capital, which is why it often forgives debts partially or entirely. Further, the PRC does not require austerity politics or otherwise giving up sovereignty over the recipients economy, they pay for infrastructural development.
Because the PRC is heavily involved with the development of the global south, you can find exceptions where it doesn't seem like the PRC is much different from the west, but at a systemic level these are outliers. You don't even need to base this on "China good," they just fundamentally don't have the same mechanics that force imperialism in the west, like huge private monopoly and falling rates of profit.
The article you've linked says they've forgiven less than 5% of the total amount lended so not sure I'd classify that as "frequent"
Further, the PRC does not require austerity politics or otherwise giving up sovereignty over the recipients economy, they pay for infrastructural development.
I agree this is definitely a good thing but I want to acknowledge they do also directly profit from all this development - they're not doing it to help others for the socialist ideal but for strategic geopolitical goals
they just fundamentally don't have the same mechanics that force imperialism in the west, like huge private monopoly and falling rates of profit.
But they still operate in the same system which is why even their renegotiated loans never fall below the 2% inflation rate.
Idk I can understand critical support of China when it comes to challenging western imperialism I just don't agree with their approach of rejecting egalitarianism and enforcing material inequality as a means to supposedly reach communism
It's one article, Dessalines has a nice collection of a bunch you can read.
Fundamentally, though, you're erasing the actual underlying base of the PRC vs the west, and why their loans function in qualitatively different ways: the mode of production.
The west is driven by and driven to imperialism through its private monopolies and decaying rate of profit. They rely on export of capital in order to expropriate value, that is the drive of their economies. The west produces very little of actual value, and relies on the global south to make everything for them.
The PRC is socialist. It doesn't have private monopoly of the banks or industry, and it's a production-focused economy. Of course the PRC trades with the global south for its own self-interest, socialist countries aren't charities. However, China primarily seeks expansion of circulation, as well as access to rare earth, and new customers.
Because of these key differences, falling under western imperialism results in stagnation, slight growth, or even reverse development, while trading with the PRC and entering BRI results in rapid development while retaining sovereignty. No country involved is doing anything for ideals or selfless reasons, but because of the differences in mode of production, the outcome for the global south is prosperity when dealing with the PRC and imperialism and stagnation when dealing with the west. That's why the global south is rushing towards BRICS and the PRC especially.
If you want to get started with theory, I recently updated my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Section 6 gets into imperialism, from its origins all the way up to 2021.
[+]
basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com
-9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
(1 children)
https://www.ie.edu/insights/articles/is-china-a-communist-country/
Though you'll probably deny this article as valid because it harms your perception of China being a Communist state, and usually people do not like they're conspiracy theories to be challenged by actual fact.
Additionally, besides the argument of whether it's communist or not, it is not a good country and if that's what communism looks like, then I actually want no part in communism. They have no ability for free speech or even protests. Say what you want about it's economics, but that is not how humans should be forced to live.
That's an opinion piece by a non-Marxist that makes the incredibly basic error of confusing the developing stage of socialism with the characteristics of the advanced stage of communism. You're incredibly arrogant for someone who clearly has done very little reading of Marx.
I've written frequently on the PRC's model of socialism, such as this summary from a few days ago, including resources for further reading. You can even shortcut to my Read Theory, Darn it! introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, though it's getting some revisions.
The people of China have freedom of speech, capitalists and businesses do not. The people of China do not protest often, because the system works:
It's time for you to turn off Fox News.
[โ]
basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com
1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
(1 children)
I will admit, I have not read the source theory, but I engage often with communists (most of my immidiate sphere are communists) enough to get a lot of it (I am actually an Anarcho-Communist, just to note). But my problem, as always, with a lot of you people who are obsessed with trying to use China as an example of communism, is the fact that theory and practice are two very different things. Very few places if any even follow your own theory from what I have gleaned from other comrades.
It is also really easy to pressure people to give the answers you want to for those kind of questions if you are an authoritarian state. Also from the cyber security sector, most citizens of China desperately try and get their hands on vpns or use tor in order to be able to actually access the external world, which is never a good sign and does not scream "We're free!" to me.
Also fox news is abhorant, as is all American backed official news outlets. I use lemmy, did you really think that I watch state provided news? Or was that an ad hominim because people here dislike Fox specifically?
Marxist-Leninist theory and practice are united in the PRC. As you admit, you have not read much theory, and are commiting the same error as the person you linked: a non-Marxist judging a socialist state in the primary stage by the characteristics applicable to an advanced communist society. I linked you some good starting points so you can correct these misunderstandings, but if you are going to continue to insist on being right about theory you admitted you haven't even read, then there isn't much room for constructive discussion.
As for the dismissal of consistent hard data on the grounds that Chinese citizens are "pressured," this data is from western orgs surveying Chinese citizens, unaffiliated with the CPC. Western orgs have been trying to understand CPC resilliance because they wish to undermine it, and as such have been trying to best understand why the CPC is beloved. Spoiler: it's socialism.
The Fox News bit was a tongue-in-cheek jab referencing the fact that you are repeating right-wing talking points about the PRC near-identical to mainstream media. I apologize for the jab, but I consider it fair after you opened with jabs and condescension yourself.
A bit on the "stages of socialism" I referenced, a table from Cheng Enfu:
I appreciate the apology for the jab and i as well apologize for seeming somewhat resistant and bitter. Most of my problem with china comes from how they handle the digital front and has kind of left a bad taste in my mouth for how they treat their citizens, so it's really hard for me to imagine they're doing socialism correctly. I will probably go and look into the sources you linked.
Apology accepted!
For the PRC, specifically with respect to the "Great Firewall," it's largely a two-fold measure.
-
It forces internal internet development, rather than relying on the present system flooded by western capital. This forces self-reliance.
-
The west has huge amounts of money and a near total control on information, and has historically used it in "Radio Free X" news stations to propagandize against and undermine socialism in the real world. It keeps control out of the hands of capitalists in the PRC, which is critical in a country where class struggle is very much alive and constant.
The people use VPNs if they want to, it isn't very strictly enforced against. Ultimately, what's important is that, in the information age, China has sovereignty over its own infrastructure and the working class is in charge. This is directly shown in huge approval rates, and rapid development from democratically decided Five Year Plans. China has taken a scientific approach to production and development, and while they have a long way to go, they've come farther than anyone else in far shorter of an amount of time.
I'm not saying you have to abandon anarcho-communism (though I once was an anarchist myself), I just encourage you to take a sympathetic approach rather than an antagonistic one when trying to understand the system the people of China have fought and died for, and work day in and day out with pride to continue building up.
I've yet to see a convincing explanation of why China would even be interested in this data... what good would it even be to them?
We know American tech, media giants, and government contractors and agencies use it for profit and domestic control but, even if you believe China is just as much of a dystopian capitalist surveillance-state as the USA, what profit is there for Chinese capitalists to extract from American data that they can't already extract much more efficiently through American data brokers? As for the government end, is the interest in having control over Americans in American territory even comparable to that of the American government? It's not like the vast majority of the data would even be actionable or relevant to the Chinese government.
It just doesn't make sense for Chinese capitalists/government to be even a fraction as aggressive in surveilling Americans as their American counterparts. It seems more like a distraction to me and an excuse to avoid talking about American surveillance being every bit as bad as you imagine Chinese surveillance to be.
As for being the "largest exporters in the global market", if the profit was all that enticing on a private scale, the US capitalist class certainly could have chosen to compete with China in that avenue. They chose to boost their short term profits by deindustrializating instead. What does that tell you?