Forcible suppression of opposition: The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, during 1989. The protests started on 15 April and lasted until 4 June, at which point Chinese government troops carried out a crackdown on the demonstrators around the city and the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre. (Better scrub your history for that one before the CCP sees that link)

You don’t even know the proper name of the Communist Party of China, but somehow are qualified to talk about the nature of this state and, again, as argument you link a wikipedia article? Linking an article isn’t an argument.

And again, suppression of capitalist and counter-revolutionary movements is inevitable in class struggle. You can’t be a revolutionary if you can’t defend your revolution. You can’t be a communist if your refuse to suppress and fight your exploiters. China engaging in this class struggle makes the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say.

Also le ebin funni CPC will arrest you for reading Tinyman link meme. +500 FICO score for your incredible wit and ingenuity.

Ignore btw the absurd violence the imperialist subject the world to in their neocolonial holdings. Those millions upon millions, not to mention the hundreds of thousands that get brutalized at home for such existential things as “please police don’t kill us” or “we don’t want to work till we’re dead”, sacrifized on the altar of profit in the name of capital pale in comparison to those peaceful, soldier burning reactionaries surrounding the 1989 events. Bashing thousands of heads when the actually suppressed minority in the US rises up against the permanent violence inflicted on it by liberals like you, is a fact of life. The governments committing this violence totally wouldn’t crack down on subversive movements murdering the representatives of that government. Never.

Belief in a natural social hierarchy: Han nationalism is a form of ethnic nationalism asserting ethnically Han people as the exclusive constituents of the Chinese nation. (See also: Genocides against non-Han, as mentioned above)

Saying something exists isn’t proof of that thing existing as a policy of a state. Me linking your a Wikipedia article to Nazi apologia and White Supremacy, isn’t a proof that you’re a white supremacists or Nazi apologist. Though your chauvinistic, reactionary comment is making that argument perfectly fine.

See also: Exemptions for the 1 child policy of non-Hans, the birthrates of those non-hans. The genocide that has no victims, isn’t traceable, not filmable, not provable, but totally exists and isn’t simply another cooked-up non-story for chauvinistic Western liberals in their endless quest to render the word genocide entirely meaningless and therefore to minimize the singular horror of the Holocaust.

Subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race: Chinese workers allege forced labor, abuses in Xi’s ‘Belt and Road’ program.

Again, linking an article to a singular alleged cases of labour abuses are not proof of ‘subordination of individual interests for the percieved good of the nation and race’. These to do not follow from each other. Me linking you an article of child labour abuses in the US wouldn’t be an argument for the US operating under a paradigm of ‘subordination of individual interests for the percieved good of the nation and race’.

That you’re even attempting this argument only, again, shows that you don’t have a clue about the character of either ‘rightwing’ nor ‘leftwing’. The right-wing does not subordinate the individual interest for the perceived good of the nation and race. It very much subordinates the national interest, the interest of the majority, that of the working-class under that of the individual interest of the power-wielding exploiters ie capitalists. So you’re not making the point China is right-wing, because you do not understand what right-wing even is.

So either China is right-wing or it subordinates individual material interests for the good of the majority.

If it does the later, congratulations, you again made the point that China is engaging in class struggle against the individual interests of the exploiter class, which is the defining characteristic of ‘left-wing’. If you don’t engage in class struggle against that class, you’re not a communist.

Not to mention you do not understand the relationship of the individual and the collective in left-wing thought. Which is fine, but disqualifies you from talking about left-wing thought.

Strong regimentation of society and the economy: While the Chinese economy maintains a large state sector, the state-owned enterprises operate like private-sector firms and retain all profits without remitting them to the government to benefit the entire population.

I’m not sure what your point even is. China isn’t a neoliberal capitalist economy…therefore it is right-wing?

Yes, socialist countries regiment society and the economy. What is your point?

Also imagine taxation is the only way of remitting social gain. “How does that cheap, reliable, widespread high-speed rail benefit society without taxation???” It remits profit by the very fact of existing.

Not sure either how this non-remitting point supports the claim that China has strong regimentation of society and the economy. It’s making the exact opposite point.

But go on. Tell me that’s not fascism.

You do not understand what fascism is. You don’t understand what communism is. You don’t even understand the useless, vague labels like “left-wing” or “right-wing”. So I’ll go on: That’s not fascism.

Authoritarian: Elections in the People’s Republic of China occur under a one-party authoritarian political system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Direct elections, except in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, occur only at the local level people’s congresses and village committees, with all candidate nominations preapproved by the CCP.

Authoritarian is a meaningless buzzword, communism isn’t opposed to authority and the use of authority to suppress counter-revolutionaries and the still existing bourgeoisie in the transitional phase isn’t only materially necessary, it’s use is prerequisite for any revolutionary organisation. If you’re unwilling to suppress the exploiter-class of capitalists, you are not waging class war against that class, you are therefore not building socialism and you’re most definitely not working towards the abolition of said exploiter class and therefore class society itself. You are therefore not a communist.

Hence saying ‘authoritarian’ and ‘communist’ exist on opposite ends of the spectrum betrays simply your total lack of understanding of both terms. Insinuating the working class and its organization suppressing the exploiter class is equivalent to the most violent forms of the exploiter class suppressing the exploited, is legitimization of that violence. In its ultimate consequence it’s just literal horseshoe Nazi apologia.

Ultranationalist: Using Chinese nationalism, the CCP began to suppress separatism and secessionist attitudes in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and among the Uyghurs, a Turkic minority in the far-west province of Xinjiang, an issue that persists. (Also: Taiwan.)

Nationalism isn’t per se right-wing. If you had any understanding of people’s liberation struggles in history you’d understand this. Nationalism of the victims of colonialism and imperialism isn’t equivalent of the nationalism of the colonialists and imperialists. Nationalism as a tool to suppress the actual counter-revolutionary ethno-nationalist movements isn’t right-wing in any way and simply linking a Wikipedia article, as if that were an argument, is embarrassing.

Also: Taiwan is the product of the literal fascist, reactionary movement in China fleeing the successful revolution of the people it was opressing and only still exist due to the US imperialists protection of said reactionary tendency. Using that counterrevolutionary tendency’s existence as an argument to…show that China is - right-wing somehow is ludicrous.

Dictatorial leader: China’s Xi allowed to remain ‘president for life’ as term limits removed

There are no term limits in Germany. Was Merkel therefore a dictatorial leader?

Centralized autocracy: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially the Communist Party of China (CPC), is the founding and sole ruling party of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Yes, communists don’t allow reactionaries and capitalists in their countries. How you thought not allowing right-wingers in China’s political system is a good argument for China’s supposed right-wing character, is beyond me. ‘right-wing’ isn’t defined by ‘have many party or no’, but by the class character of the tendency, movement, organization or state. China being a dictatorship of the proletariat, which your own point proves since it oppresses the bourgeoisie, is the single best argument for its communist character. You not understanding this simply means you do not understand class, class struggle or what states are and this honestly simply disqualifies you from talking about this in any serious capacity.

Militarism: Chinese coastguard and navy ships intruded into Malaysian waters in the disputed South China Sea 89 times between 2016 to 2019, and often remained in the area even after being turned away by the Malaysian navy. (See also: Taiwan.)

Militarism is when navy in contested water. Not that a wikipedia-citing liberal is expected to argue on a higher level than this…but come on.

And again, the militarism of communists to struggle against imperialism is not only not right-wing, it is in fact tantamount to anything revolutionary and communist. Militant struggle against capital and imperialism and the struggle of capital and imperialism to exploit are not the same, believe it or not. The armed struggle of the slave against his master isn’t the same as the threat of that master’s whip.

See also: Taiwan. China not allowing the imperialists to arm a secessionist movement within its own recognized borders isn’t right-wing. Imperialism arming reactionary, secessionist movements within socialist countries, however, is. So too, if you want to talk about reactionary militarism, is the encroachment, encirclement of China and the countless provocations in its waters and on its land by the imperialists.

Niger has suspended the export of gold and uranium to France this Sunday with immediate effect

Jesus Christ, I’m getting brainworms reading those comments

So you can’t quote it, because you made it up, gotcha. Can you then at least quote me expressing sympathy for the AFU? Like quote the whole sentence where I did that.

Quote me talking about Azov, Aidar, C14 and dismissing Donbass Russians being shelled and raped.

Literally who’s saying any of that?

The implicit chauvinism in this whole ‘NATO training’ narrative is astounding anyway. If someone should be training and learning frome someone, it should be NATO from Ukraine, not the other way around. Outside of the US NATO countries have literally 0 institutional experience with conventional peer warfare. Even the US is over 30 years removed from anything resembling that. Their entire docrine and structure is geared towards fighting irregular forces in the periphery with total air, artillery, intelligence and every other superiority. Which isn’t the case in Ukraine in any fucking way.

The AFU has that experience, knowledge and doctrine. If it wasn’t such a reactionary puppet shithole I’d feel bad for the AFU soldiers fighting that war for 8 years and then being schooled by some NATO wanker who’s maybe shot at a peasant with an AK once. What’s some German officer gonna teach the Ukrainian military? The Bundeswehr has been playing logistics and practicing sitting in bases while their equipment rots away since WW2 and padded itself on the shoulders for leaving the little combat to Nazi SOF or the Yanks. They have 0 experience relevant to this conflict. It’s madness that Westoids are so deluded they believe the issue isn’t with them.

Relevant is some Ukrainian soldier in an interview with the WaPo (iirc) telling a story how they asked their German trainers how they should deal with minefields and the guy telling them they should ‘just bypass them’. That’s the training these guys are getting for the slaughterhouse.

Only hope is this gets smashed so quickly and thoroughly it has ripple effects that end or at least significantly decrease the level of fighting and dying in Ukraine as soon as possible. There should be nothing left materially after this and this push to the Sea of Azov is the only strategic possibility for something like a military succes for the AFU. If this fails, there is no possibility of military victory for them left and someone somewhere would have to realize that.

AOC Is Just a Regular Old Democrat Now

Good wrap up of ‘left’ Dem politicians and AOC in particular, but especially fascinating to me just how close libs can get to realizing the futility of electoralism without ever actually getting there.

The absolute effect of liberalism on women’s perception of themselves and their role in the world

Capitalism’s ability to provide moral and ideological cover for the self-commodification of every aspect of humanity is incredible. 100 years ago you’d have to force women to do this, today some are not just willing to do it, but see it as a noble cause and contribution for the war machine of empire.

Pure simulacra

people in so many socialist countries just rose up and overthrew their own governments

Where do you get the impression from that the people rose up and overthrew their governments?

Great, give Russia absolutely no incentive to ever stop this war short of destorying the Ukrainian state in its entirety. That’ll calm shit down and avoid further suffering

The wildest thing to me is, that she is imitating something like an AI generated bot. AI imitations of humans are sometimes quite unsettling and uncanny, but this is a million times more terrifying to me. And to be fair, she’s doing it really well. It looks robotic as fuck.

Obviously this is the natural conclusion of the commodification of everything, every aspect of what it means to be a human. It’s like the division of labour in factories, the breaking down of complex manufacturing into easily repeatable, mechanic processes - just here the commodity produced is human interaction.

It’s terrifying what this says about the zeitgeist and modern societies that there’s even demand for it. That people are so alienated from the interactions they produce, they’re now consuming them in these repetitive, bite sized, alienated, simulated portions.

Horrifying, as you said. I honestly haven’t felt this weird and uneasy about anything on the internet in a very very long time.

Ok comrades, not to beat the ‘muh modernity is degenerate’ drum, but can someone seriously explain to me what’s going on in this vid?

Like I honestly do not get what’s happening, but whatever it is, it gives me serious existential dread

It isn’t in technical terms. Western media only described it as such for PR points.

Victoria Nuland is Hermoine Granger

Bruh…

It’s mad scary these people exist in real life. Like how do you end up like that?

This is why I hope for the organization to flourish, because the conclusions that individuals will come to is always the same: revolution or capitulation.

Yes and liberals like Thunberg are actively working so people avoid the conclusion is revolution. Those that came to that conclusion did not get there, because principled communists were defending white liberals, but because they offered an alternative and a systemic critique to the shortcomings of liberal climate movements.

Revolutionary organisations can work on the grounds of liberal organising and even with liberal organisations, even on the grand strategic level as in the Russian, Chinese, Cuban and many other revolutions. But they decidedly do not do that by merging with them or refraining from citicizing them when they’re objectively wrong and to be criticized.

Communists don’t need to do the work of the liberals, the liberals are doing that already. The communists need to do the work of the communists, which is attacking liberal ideology relentlessly and structuraly, offering alternatives for the contradictions within liberal ideology. You don’t get someone from FFF to a CP by defending the liberalism within FFF.

I mean to say that Greta, FFF, or whatever similar organization, while most certainly not in any form revolutionary, is nonetheless the ground upon which we can flourish

Yes, but that is only so if we provide and attack them from the left, not if we defend them. If we do so, there’s no meaningful difference between us and them and then ultimately there’s no movement from them to the left.

Yes, but people only progressed from those naive, liberal tendencies towards revolutionary action because of revolutionaries attacking them not because principled communists were praising the white liberal.

We criticize people, parties and organisations when their stances are wrong. Whatever good they might or might not have done in the past is no grounds for refraining from attack.

If there’s one thing that’s more than abundant in this world, it’s people defending milquetoast, apologetic liberals. We as communists don’t need to beat that drum too, but have to offer a different tune.