Actually, this town has more than enough room for the two of us
He/him or they/them, doesn't matter too much
Marxist-Leninist ☭
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my Read Theory, Darn it! introductory reading list!
The EU is imperialist, just like the US. Russia is run by oligarchs, true, but China is both democratic and a socialist country.
Oof, my bad, thought I saw 300 pages and didn't check before I sent. I'm riled up a bit. Thank you!
PieFed isn't the same thing as Lemmy. It's federated, but has severe problems with the code, and a racist, anti-communist developer that puts that bias into PieFed itself. PieFed and Lemmy handle many things differently.
The study itself says 31,000. Go to the study itself if you want firm understanding. You also lied about not having any information on how it was gathered, it was also linked. Here's the full PDF.
“The views expressed in the Ash Center Policy Briefs Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard Universi- ty” so okay, not really Havard’s opinion or name behind the study
Published by Harvard.
"While no single survey can adequately address all aspects of satisfaction levels in China, this brief identifies two important yet contrasting findings.” Seems your own article disapproves of being used by itself to form opinions.
Correct, which is why many others were linked. It doesn't mean the data is inaccurate, either, just that no study can be comprehensive.
“Yet long-term, publicly-available, and nationally-representative surveys in mainland China are so rare that it is difficult to know how ordinary Chinese citizens feel about their government.” Very insteresting “Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread” gotta love when your conclusion needs to mention this.
It mentions this because it's a western org presenting it, one hostile to China, admitting popular support.
All in all no details for the actual methodology nor about the so called private company that perfomed the survey (since the institute apparently only created the survey itself).
Well, this is enough for me today, not gonna bother replying futher since you seem to be trying to waste my time and ‘beat’ me by tiring me with nonsense.
This is the peak of your logic, you endlessly move goalposts, tie yourself into pretzels logically, and even lie to avoid acknowledging that Chinese people can speak for themselves.
You're confusing finances with raw industrial power. An 8 USD big mac in Switzerland isn't 3 times better than a 2.54 USD big mac in Indonesia.
The goal of this research brief, and of the longitudinal survey that informs it, is to address the question of gov- ernment legitimacy in China using the most objective and quantitative methods currently available. Our sur- vey1 contains data from eight separate waves between 2003 and 2016, and records face-to-face interview responses from more than 31,000 individuals in both urban and rural settings. As such, it represents the lon- gest-running independent effort to track citizen ap- proval with all four levels of the Chinese government across time (ranging from the township, to the county, to the provincial, and finally to the central government).
The sample size was over 10 times what you claimed, and it was absolutely statistically relevant. Here's a neat link on sample sizes, 31,000 is more than plenty. There indeed were discrepancies between the urban and rural, that's because historically rural areas have been slower to develop than urban areas, and now rural areas are made a priority to close the gap.
It does have direct links, like to Harvard here. There's a major difference with disagreeing with everything the majority of Chinese people say about themselves, and with disagreeing with what the majority of Statesians say about Chinese people. Disagreement itself isn't wrong, it's disagreeing with easily verifiable statistics and facts regarding ownership and support.
Harvard, among many others. Read what's been linked.
I'm aware that Reddit is entirely different as a platform, I'm speaking about the Reddit format itself that Lemmy and PieFed descend from. Reddit is unacceptable to me for many of the reasons you stated.
Western organizations have found that over 90% of the population approve the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate. This isn't coming from the government, but from western orgs directly asking Chinese people. Further, despite evidence that the government of China isn't lying about public ownership being principle, and the transparent form of democracy we can view, you still don't trust the government's claims either!
I do disagree with what the majority of the west says about a different country that they've mythologized for centuries, yes. That's not dehumanizing the west, it's acknowledging a different class interest. You're disagreeing with what Chinese people say about themselves, and are framing it as them being brainwashed into doing so, incapable of thinking for themselves.
Explain your views, why isn’t China socialist despite public ownership being principle and the working classes controlling the state?
I answered every single one of your claims, fully, and with evidence. What issues did I sidestep? Which of my claims are "propaganda?" You're sidestepping the entire argument itself because you can't make one, so you jump to insults to protect your honor.
Just did, the fact that you jump to dehumanization instead of responding to anything I am actually saying is evidence to your incapability of doing so.
If you disagree with what the overwhelming majority of Chinese people say about their own system out of your distrust for the Chinese government, and have no credible reasons to do so, then yes, it's chauvanism and dehumanizes Chinese citizens. It means they can't think for themselves, in your eyes, and are just "brainwashed" by "evil."
Explain your views, why isn't China socialist despite public ownership being principle and the working classes controlling the state?
You're on Lemmy.ml.
Hoarding wealth is by definition antithetical to what you claim the PRC is trying to achieve.
The presence of the bourgeoisie, and by extension private property, is in fact a contradiction, in the dialectical sense. This doesn't mean it is antithetical for private ownership to exist within socialism, however, just that it is something that must be gradually negated. In the PRC, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Private ownership is about half sole proprietorships and cooperatives, and the rest governs secondary and medium firms.
The purpose of this is that markets and private ownership naturally centralize into monopoly, ie they socialize as Marx says. As these firms grow, the CPC folds them into the public sector, negating them. To nationalize even the small and medium firms, dogmatically, before they socialize, is contradictory with Marxist analysis.
It is just a wolf in red clothing; the class struggle remains
Class struggle continues under socialism, that's factually true. It is only when all of production and distribution have been collectivized globally that class struggle can truly be negated. Since we cannot jump straight there, the proletariat stands above the bourgeoisie by holding the state and the state controlling the large firms and key industries.
just flavoured in a way that makes it easier for the Chinese people to swallow all while lacking any real input into the system itself and suffering the burden of social credit.
China's system is already democratic, as I explained. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
Further, the idea of a "social credit score" is a myth. The system was only partially implemented, and is about businesses, not the working classes. The fact that you claim I am the one "blasting propaganda at the expense of truth" as you quite literally are dogmatically spouting propaganda based on fabrications and exaggerations is peak hypocricy.
I would challenge you, forgoing our current debate, criticise the CPC and Xi; surely they are flawed.
Sure they are. I’m plenty critical of China for valid reasons, such as their presently poor LGBTQIA+ legislation (though it has been gradually improving) or their backing of Cambodia over Vietnam back during the time of Pol Pot. Your “criticisms,” more often than not, aren’t logically justified.
I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm explaining why your comments are seen as dehumanizing and chauvanist. It's tied directly to your distrust of statistics coming from China and your distrust of China's system being what it actually is. If you can give credible evidence supporting your views, then you can clear your name, if you're just going to say "it's obvious" then it's clear that you don't actually have such evidence, and that it's likely pure chauvanism.
I didn't, I simply stated that the overwhelming majority of Chinese citizens support their socialist system and consider it as such. Against them, you claim that private ownership is somehow principle despite being relegated to secondary industries and medium/small firms, and claim that the bourgeoisie are in charge of the state despite evidence to the contrary.
On what basis do you believe what you do?
An easy example is blocking. PieFed takes a deliberately different stance to how blocking is handled, one far more abuseable, and thus I prefer Lemmy. Another is that PieFed blocks communist instances by default, unless the instance admin overrides that. Another is the social credit score PieFed maintains, the way it blocks certain images, etc, the way it's coded in Python, etc.
PieFed is quite different, and worse in my use-case. They federate, but PieFed is not future Lemmy.