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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.