Some resources for a lot of the people below claiming that China is just like any other capitalist country.
Is China State Capitalist?
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
- Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
- Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
- Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
- China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
- Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
- How the State runs business in China.
- 50% of the economy is in the socialist public sector and directly follows the plan (40% if you ignore the agricultural sector). 20 to 30% is inside the state capitalist sector, which is the sector partially or totally owned by domestic capitalists but run by the CPC or by local workers councils. The rest is made up of the small bourgeois ownership like in the NEP.
- China pushing forward Marxist training in colleges, attracts 1M students.
- China tells the US that it has no plans to weaken the role of its State-Owned-Enterprises, one of the US’s main demands in the trade war. “Beijing plans to make the state economy stronger, bigger, and better.”
- Unlike the US, China refuses to bail out over-leveraged property developers, and lets them go bankrupt.
- A China misinformation Megathread.
smd admin
I actually agree that the PRC is still presocialist but at least I didn’t spit out your useless ‘lol fuk u’ reply.
Presocialist as in the economy isn’t yet at public ownership and planning levels to be considered fully Socialist, or preparing to transition to Communism? I know you’ve read a lot more than I have so I’m curious what you mean here. I’m still a “baby ML.”
As far as I know, capital, the law of value, and generalized commodity production remain phenomenal in the PRC. Their prevalence does seem to be diminishing, though, which is one reason why I think that equating the PRC with something like Imperial America is wrong.
I agree largely, I suppose I just use the term “Socialist” because I believe the Public Sector to be primary and the trends to be towards collectivization. The “stages” of Socialism model common among Chinese Marxists at work.
Removed by mod
what’s inaccurate about this meme?
Death to America
Wow this one really brought out the votes, both kinds 😂
Putting the agitation in agitprop
Actually, Hitler did the same. So you’re saying that what he did was not wrong?
What are you talking about. Hitler and the nazis were just as much about empowering corporations and suppressing workers movements, as the US is.
Equating Communism with fascism is false thinking, because it ignores the real classes served by each and therefore the direction of power and the consequences of their implementation. Communism has always corresponded with dramatic working class improvements while fascism has served the bourgeoisie. I highly recommend Blackshirts and Reds.
Except he didn’t, actually he was appointed chancellor due to CEOs influence and pressure on Von Hindenburg, please don’t say stupid shit.
But if libs don’t say stupid shit they have tp not say anything and just read. This is a human rights violation.
great thread OP
It really hit the right balance, it prompted discussion in what is (hopefully) a productive manner by highlighting mass support for violence against billionaires compared to the actions of AES states. Hopefully people start reading Marx after this.
Removed by mod
I heard they all accidentally fell out of windows.
Three times
Oh, so like Boeing whistleblowers?
One is authoritarian in nature, the other is protestant in nature. These are not the same thing
What are you talking about?
Luigi’s alleged actions were an attempt at drawing attention to social issues. Xi Jinping’s actions on the other hand are attempts at violently suppressing opposition ergo authoritarianism.
Can you provide any support for your argument that the PRC executes billionaires because of opposition, and not, say, massive corruption? Because you again seem to be making up a narrative to suit your present biases without looking at any sources.
The opposition in China is the capitalist class, that gets capital punishment if they get out of line. China executes billionaire tycoon convicted of being ‘ruthless underworld kingpin’
That’s a fun way of saying the government consumes you if you commit wrongthink. That’s authoritarian lol.
so according to your own definition, luigi killed that CEO for committing wrongthink and is authoritarian.
like davel just showed you, they’re doing the exact same thing, but it’s only bad to you when it’s law and not adventurism. anarchists or whatever you want to call yourself really are just vibes-based and it’s so fucking annoying and reductive. you will never accomplish anything because you instinctively oppose progress as “authoritarian” when it’s actually made. you just want to feel like a rebel no matter what kind of system you’re living in.
If only Adolf Eichmann had committed his atrocities 10 years later or so, all he had to do was say “the authoritarians are canceling me for wrongthink, literally 1984” and you liberals would have ate it the fuck up
The authorization of CEO execution sounds like a good thing. People are clearly singing for it, so why not make it policy?
bc when the gubmint do thing it makes it communist and that’s literally like that book with the animals at the farm
Taking a life is the most authoritarian act there is, the CEO certainly didnt consent lmao
I wonder if it has anything to do with PRC’s punishment towards citizens who have been critical of their government. Who knows man.
I wonder that too. Do you have proof that it does?
I have shared some links further in the thread, here you go.
Thank you for your comment. From my skimming of the articles you sent, they seem to argue that the state has a track record of cracking down on dissent and protests.
I’m not sure this proves your initial claim though (that CEO executions were done to combat government criticism), unless there’s a detail in these articles that I missed by skimming too fast. Please let me know if I missed it.
While your claim is plausible, it is also equally plausible that they are acting within the defines of their state ideology, and we would need more evidence to prove it is one or the other.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the articles and did not attempt to verify the evidence they present, as it didn’t seem that they are addressing your initial claims.
I think you’ve misread my comment.
“Xi doesn’t get the solidarity like Luigi, because his government has a track record of punishing citizens when they show dissent” was the point of my original comment.
I believe this context is important if we’re to discuss the likability of a country’s leader based on their actions. Additionally, “acting within the defines of state ideology” would permit a national head to practically do anything since they are the ones defining the state ideology.
With due respect, that’s quite different than the claim you explained in the comment I replied to, so I hope you will edit it to clarify that.edit: I seem to have misunderstood the original comment.As to the point you stated in quotes in this comment (edit: which is what OP originally intended), I don’t see how they’re related. Criticizing China’s crackdown on dissent must not mean you should deny their credit on executing CEOs.
That wasn’t his point and he doesn’t need to edit his comment because you misunderstood it.
Upon rereading, it looks like I misunderstood it due to conflating it with some other comments, so you’re right. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will edit my comment accordingly.
The people of the PRC approve of Beijing to a far greater degree than western countries, with an over 90% approval rate. If we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
Again, unfalsifiable nonsense, both A and the opposite of A are proof that China bad, no need for evidence.
What’s more, why do they have to be critical? What are they missing from their lives? Their government actually works lmao. More than 700 million pulled out of poverty, corrupt officials at all levels get jailed or executed, most young people own their house, everyone has a job and very cheap food and cultural activities, as well as the best public transit in the world and well maintained infrastructure, not to mention billionaires keep their fucking mouths shut unless it is to pay lip service to the people’s government.
You know who punishes their citizens, verifiably often and viciously? Say it with me: the USA. The Ferguson protesters were murdered one by one in the following months with no investigation, the occupy wall street organizers were detained by Homeland security, the black panther party was infiltrated and their leaders murdered by police whether openly or covertly, the Gaza protests had students beaten, arrested and tried en masse and the US passes new surveillance and protest crackdown laws every other day it seems.
And, on the opposite side, what good does “being allowed to be critical” do, in and of itself? About 30% of Americans approve of the government at any given time, corrupt officials are openly insider trading, passing laws for bribes that they don’t even have to hide, and big business is allowed to KILL YOU FOR PROFIT.
You liberals are delusional, you buy that you live in the best country ever and shit is almost impossible to change for the better and assume the rest of us must have it so much worse, facts be damned.
There are people upset enough with Chinese imperialism and rule that they light themselves on fire in the neighboring country as a way to try and get attention and assistance.
That doesn’t come from nowhere even if it’s not a majority.Multiple things can be true such as different governments can be each doing their own form of abuse. It doesn’t excuse one to admit to the other and there can be positives to all relationships.
Be upset with what you have and what’s around you but don’t use that to imagine a fantasy of greener grass on the other side of the fence. Do it to will a better existence around you.
Chinese imperialism
lmao, libs co opting revolutionary language without understanding a single fucking thing about it will never not be funny to me
Yeah not a liberal and what would you call predatory loans to Africa and export systems of raw goods, or the annexation of Tibet, or the threatened annexation of Taiwan, or the skirmishes in the late 80s for the “South China Sea” which mainly cover reefs that have now been over fished, or even Russian, Tajikistan and Vietnamese land as recently as 2009?
A word you think belonging to you doesn’t make it wrong to be used just because you don’t like it. It’s not even revolutionary just a Latin root word of ruling used for Napoleon using military to gain other counties support, and has been used in lots of ways by lots of people since.
A red lib or a blue lib is still a lib. Even Bloomberg doesn’t buy the debt trap idiocy lmao. Washington mouthpiece The Atlantic doesn’t either. You want predatory loans? Look at the IMF. China regularly does no-strings-attached loans and regularly forgives hundreds of millions in loans that were interest free in the first place. China has NEVER seized an asset from a debtor. Poor way to do predatory loans, they should ask the US for advice if that’s the endgame.
Most debt in Africa is held by western banks and the IMF, who demand you strip your economy for parts like the mafia (who probably got the idea from them). In Sri Lanka, the most quoted example, more than 90 percent of debt is owed to Western countries.
Still not a liberal.
And alright. I understand that other countries are more directly responsible for the economic woes of the world as that is the whole point of them and China is the manufacturer so their issues will be more worker treatment related than economic policy.
You move on to whatever to protect your point of view. You are on a conquest to be self righteous rather than right.
My point is don’t seek for other, seek for better. It’s not a golden paradise, just another reality that isn’t perfect, because it’s top busy being a reality.
Still not a liberal
Conservatism is a form of liberalism.
I base my opinion on multiple people I personally know who moved from China to SG, because they were unhappy with the kind of control government maintained over any public criticism. I won’t pretend that I remember all the instances they’ve mentioned, but I know better than to reject the claims of the countries citizen when they have some concerns. I won’t pretend that I know better than the people living in the damned country.
We all know Chinese people, dude, there’s 1.4 billion of them lmao. That doesn’t make you an authority on their opinion and the sample size is negligible to say the least. 95 percent of them, according to Harvard, are happy with the government.
I never claimed to be an authority, and there’s a reason I mentioned it was my opinion.
And again, it’s not like there could be selection biases in a Harvard study. That absolutely never happens.
And again, it’s not like there could be selection biases in a Harvard study. That absolutely never happens.
Jesus dude, just admit that nothing could ever be enough to change your mind.
I have shared some articles on China’s crackdown on dissent here. Will you will change your mind after reading them?
Change my mind that the vast majority of Chinese are happy with their government? Why would your articles cause me to do that?
The only biases that Harvard could pull would be AGAINST the interests of the CPC, that’s the point. You wouldn’t accept a Chinese poll because of racism/chauvinism so I provide overwhelming proof even on your terms and the answer is “em, uh, nu uh”.
My friend, you’re the one who’s actively denying the opinions of the Chinese people I know, while pushing a Harvard study on my face. And then calling me racist/chauvinistic. I am not sure how that helps your case, but I guess just spouting random nonsense is your idea of a conversation.
To help you out, I have taken some time to find some of the articles from the time I was in SG, and cases I discussed. These are the articles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-64592333
https://www.economist.com/china/what-peng-shuai-reveals-about-one-party-rule/21806441
Most of the people I talked to related with these incidents, and acknowledged that while they may not the be the norm, they’re certainly not anomalies. And a lot of people dont come out because the government reacts in such dracnonian ways.
The people I talked to were not representative of all of China, it would be ridiculous to consider that. However, ignoring multiple unrelated people sharing similar stories would be an asinine thing.
If your response is going to be a an aggregate study about economic development, and ask me why would people be unhappy with that, then you need some sort of help to understand that economic freedom is not the only freedom in the world.
He specifically doesn’t want to hear anything that doesn’t confirm his world view and in being loud about it it’s getting him likes from his in-group which he thinks is all he needs and makes him superior.
You can see it in the way he responds to everyone with either the idea they fully agree with him or are deserving of indignation.
Wait till he finds out even his echo chamber doesn’t pass the purity test and God forbid he ever fail it himself.
Also I swear the amount of small business owners I know in Singapore who agree they live there for a better life is wild if you know anything about the authoritarian lean of Singapore. Grass is always greener and all that.
i used to feel badly blocking accounts
If you’re that shook just from somebody mentioning the commies I don’t think you’re gonna provide much in the way of productive discussion anyway, so, by all means.
Removed by mod
Pasting my comment from earlier:
Any “leftist” that thinks the fact that China has billionaires means it therefore isn’t actually Socialist needs to read Marx and Engels. There are many such liberals here in these comments. Marx predicted Socialism to be the next mode of production because markets centralize and create intricate methods of planning. As such, he stated that folding private into the public would be gradual, and by the degree to which industry would develop. From the Manifesto:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
In even simpler terms, from Engels in Principles of Communism:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
That doesn’t mean billionaires are good to have, necessarily, either. It remains a contradiction, but not an uncalculated one. I highly recommend anyone here read China has Billionaires. As much as Marxists want to lower wealth inequality eventually as much as possible (insofar as thr principle "from each according to ability, to each according to needs applies, Marx was no “equalitarian” and railed against them), in the stage of developmemt the PRC is at this would get in the way of development, and could cause Capital Flight and brain drain. Moreover, billionaires provide an easy scapegoat that the USSR didn’t have, and thus all problems of society were directed at the state. It’s important to consider why a Marxist country does what it does, and not immediately assume you know better. The CPC has an over 95% approval rate, you can’t just assume you know what’s best.
The phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is meant to depict higher stage Communism. Until that is possible, the answer becomes “to each according to his work,” because as Marx said in Critique of the Gotha Programme:
these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis. There are genuine Marxist critiques of the PRC that don’t rely on nonsense. If you consider yourself a Marxist, correct your study. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you need one.
At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis.
The PRC is not socialist because, it produces commodities (the commodity form), Has A Dictatorship of The Bourgeoisie, The Wage System, and an employer-employee distinction.
Which um, is in the passage you quoted:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour.
Socialism is a transitional status from Capitalism to Communism. There can be no immediate jump from one to the other, this jump must be gradual. Moreover, you cannot eliminate Wage Labor without eliminating Private Property, and you cannot eliminate Private Property overnight, but gradually, and by the degree to its development. Socialism is about which is primary, Public Ownership and Central Planning, or Private Property and Markets, not the mere existence of one in purity or the other. Such a stance is anti-dialectical and erases Marx’s analysis of Capitalism and Communism.
Furthermore, even Communism will have an “employer-employee” relationship, insofar as it still retains labor for labor vouchers. Communism is about Central Planning and Public Ownership, not horizontalism. The passage you reference is indeed the essential condition for the existance of the bourgeoisie, and its eventual elimination, but not the existence of Socialism.
Finally, the PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You can’t simply assert the opposite when it’s very clear that in the PRC the State is absolute over the Bourgeoisie.
All of these misconceptions of yours betray a deeply “Wikipedia-educated” notion of Marxism. If you want, you can start reading with my introductory Marxist reading list.
Socialism is a transitional status from Capitalism to Communism. There can be no immediate jump from one to the other, this jump must be gradual.
Agreed. As in, Capitalism is also a transitional stage to Communism. China is a decidedly capitalist society, as evidenced by their production of commodities.
Furthermore, even Communism will have an “employer-employee” relationship, insofar as it still retains labor for labor vouchers.
There will be no “employer” class under communism. A communist society is classless. China does not use labor vouchers even, it has a system of money.
Finally, the PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You can’t simply assert the opposite when it’s very clear that in the PRC the State is absolute over the Bourgeoisie.
The state is the Bourgeoisie in centrally planned economies. They extract surplus value from the Proletariat just like in a private market economy. The difference between the State Bourgeoisie and the Private Bourgeoisie, in China, is just aristocratic rank.
I am sorry, but none of what you have said makes any sense from a Marxist perspective.
- The presense of Commodity production does not mean the system is Capitalist. To that extent, if you have a 99% publicly owned and centrally planned economy, it must be Capitalist, and once that final 1% is absorbed, it becomes Communist. There is no Socialism by this definition, it’s a straight jump from Capitalism to Communism. Even in the PRC, the majority of the economy is Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned. Engels disagrees with your stance:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
You kill the Scientific and Dialectical aspects of Marxism and deny the existence of Socialism.
-
This is really 2 points in 1. “Employer” is not a class. Classes are not jobs, but relations to production. Communism will have managers, planners, and so forth to assist with economic production. The other point, on the PRC not using labor vouchers, that’s for when China reaches Communism, when they are currently Socialist.
-
This is entirely anti-Marxist. The State is an extension of the class in power. In a fully centrally planned economy with full public ownership, there is no state. The bourgeoisie is focused on competition and accumulation, it isn’t a “power dynamic” but a social relation to production. From Engels:
When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
Bolded the most relevant bits. The state ceases to exist when classes cease to exist, because when all property is public there are no classes. However, production remains administrated and directed! I think it’s quite obvious from reading the source material that Marx was no Anarchist, nor did he believe that Socialism was devoid of private property, nor could it be. This is a gradual process for Marx, one we call Socialism, as it works towards a fully Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned Economy, Communism. The government does not “extract surplus value” in a profit accumulating manner, but to pay for public services and infrastructure, directly spelled out by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme. The State is an extension of the dominant class, and the class which is dominant can be found through real analyzing of the trends and conditions of an economy. In the PRC, those trends are towards uplifiting the working class and continuing to fold Private Property into the Public Sector.
Removed by mod
Lmao. There’s a Joe McCarthy inside every gringo. Nice thought terminating cliche tho.
Don’t you dare sully these greats by comparing yourself to them
You would consider all of them “tankies” if they were around today
One comment later, the just demonized tankies turn into greats.
Don’t expect any consistency from anti-communists.
They’re comrades
No, you would have called them tankies. These people are comrades, and liberals love stealing their valor. Castro, a person you here refer to as a “great,” said
"Xi Jinping is one of the strongest and most capable revolutionary leaders I have met in my life. I think China is a socialist country, and Vietnam is a socialist nation as well. And they insist that they have introduced all the necessary reforms in order to motivate national development and to continue seeking the objectives of socialism.
There are no fully pure regimes or systems. In Cuba, for instance, we have many forms of private property. We have hundreds of thousands of farm owners. In some cases they own up to 110 acres. In Europe they would be considered large landholders. Practically all Cubans own their own home and, what is more, we welcome foreign investment.
But that does not mean that Cuba has stopped being socialist."
Guevara, another you call a “great” here, was openly against condemning Stalin as well. Famously, he once said
“In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context. I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Series of things that are very good.”
Don’t try to absolve them of their words and turn them into toothless liberals for you to celebrate, either condemn them honestly or uphold them honestly. It’s okay to disagree with them, and it’s okay to agree, but don’t lionize figures who disagree fundamentally with the stance you’re taking now and would condemn hatred for the PRC and Xi here as though they are some “pure” saints untainted by the reality of turning theory into practice.
Many of the chronically online social media poster (read: western professional class) are closer to the CEO than they are to any other group. The temporarily embarrassed millionaires as they’re also known.
Statistically a not insignificant number of them are millionaires by net worth. Especially when we consider demographics where it’s mainly tech workers. But of course that doesn’t count because of some indeterminate line between evil CEO and average Joe who worked hard.
The cognitive dissonance is that they’re all part of the same system. Climbing the same ladder. In any other context these people are bragging about being executive of some random startup or whatever.
They’re not, they just think they are. They’re every bit as oppressed and the sharing of the imperial spoils hasn’t been a thing since at least the fall of the USSR, once there was literally no alternative. Now there is an alternative but the population has been so thoroughly propagandized that you mention any enemy of the State Dept and they start frothing at the mouth.
Non-westerners’ view on what life is like here always amaze me. Then they complain they’re not rich besides earning “a lot”, because they’re fed the propaganda that we’re all dirty imperialists exploiting them. No, most of us are not millionaires. Most of us can’t even buy a place to live without enslaving ourselves for half our life to bankers. But OK buddy
Removed by mod
Which is why the rest of us is confused about why most of y’all so rabidly do the propaganda work for your oppressors. Y’all consistently get to the line of class consciousness and then do a 180 and sprint in the opposite direction whenever it concerns foreigners.
Removed by mod
I am a westerner. No other comment. You’ve already made up your mind. And I can’t be assed to talk over what ever incronguencies you have of mindset.
we’re all dirty imperialists exploiting them
Okay just one comment I’ll have to withold else I’ll probably get banned for insulting your intelligence
What are you on about
Playing connect-the-dots by just scribbling whatever we want on top of the dots
A tale of two countries
Bro but they did it dictatorshiply 😭 in a real democracy you’d yell at them online, get arrested by Homeland Security, and politicians give them another 500 million in subsidies and tax breaks.
How many non billionaires do they execute?
Not sure. But the US just executed an innocent man, Marcellus Williams, just a few months ago.
Some more US legal system fun facts!
- The US currently operates a system of slave labor camps, including at least 54 prison farms involved in agricultural slave labor. Outside of agricultural slavery, Federal Prison Industries operates a multi-billion dollar industry with ~ 52 prison factories , where prisoners produce furniture, clothing, circuit boards, products for the military, computer aided design services, call center support for private companies. 1, 2, 3
- The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world. Even individual US states outrank all other countries.
- The War On Drugs, a policy of arrest and imprisonment targeting minorities, first initiated by Nixon, has over the years created a monstrous system of mass incarceration, resulting in the imprisonment of 1.5 million people each year, with the US having the most prisoners per capita of any nation. One in five black Americans will spend time behind bars due to drug laws. The war has created a permanent underclass of impoverished people who have few educational or job opportunities as a result of being punished for drug offenses, in a vicious cycle of oppression. 1, 2
- In the present day, ICE (U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement), the police tasked with immigration enforcement, operates over 200 prison camps, housing over 31,000 undocumented people deemed “aliens”, 20,000 of which have no criminal convictions, in the US system of immigration detention. The camps include forced labor (often with contracts from private companies), poor conditions, lack of rights (since the undocumented aren’t considered citizens), and forced deportations, often splitting up families. Detainees are often held for a year without trial, with antiquated court procedures pushing back court dates for months, encouraging many to accept immediate deportation in the hopes of being able to return faster than the court can reach a decision, but forfeiting legal status, in a cruel system of coercion. 1, 2
- Over 90% of criminal trials in the US are settled not by a judge or jury, but with plea bargaining, a system where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in return for a concession from the prosecutor. It has been statistically shown to benefit prosecutors, who “throw the book” at defendants by presenting a slew of charges, manipulating their fear, who in turn accept a lesser charge, regardless of their innocence, in order to avoid a worst outcome. The number of potentially innocent prisoners coerced into accepting a guilty plea is impossible to calculate. Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients. Plea bargaining is forbidden in most European countries. John Langbein has equated plea bargaining to medieval torture: “There is, of course, a difference between having your limbs crushed if you refuse to confess, or suffering some extra years of imprisonment if you refuse to confess, but the difference is of degree, not kind. Plea bargaining, like torture, is coercive. Like the medieval Europeans, the Americans are now operating a procedural system that engages in condemnation without adjudication.” 1
- A grand jury is a special legal proceeding in which a prosecutor may hold a trial before the real one, where ~20 jurors listen to evidence and decide whether criminal charges should be brought. Grand juries are rarely made up of a jury of the defendant’s peers, and defendants do not have the right to an attorney, making them essentially show-trials for the prosecution, who often find ways of using grand jury testimony to intimidate the accused, such as leaking stories about grand jury testimony to the media to defame the accused. In the murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice, all of whom were unarmed and killed by police in 2014, grand juries decided in all 3 cases not to pursue criminal trials against the officers. The US and Liberia are the only countries where grand juries are still legal. 1
- The US system of bail (the practice of releasing suspects before their hearing for money paid to the court) has been criticized as monetizing justice, favoring rich, white collar suspects, over poorer people unable to pay for their release. 1
deleted by creator
You really pissed off the .world neolibs with this one. Good work.
