Why do you believe the riots started? Why were they put down, and how? Western reporting on counter-protests was limited because western media supported the anti-PRC protests, as they usually do, but that doesn’t mean they did not exist.
Obviously the conflict was two-sided. The rioters called it “fighting back,” while the counter-protestors supported the extradition law that would allow the government to arrest a convicted murderer that had fled to Hong Kong to avoid punishment. The correct course was to put down the riots, which happened with less than 5 deaths according to Wikipedia.
I understand not having a lot of time, it’s optional. I do recommend it though.
Counter-protestors and the government. That’s why it’s important to recognize that the majority opposed independence.
The “bad things” you pointed to were putting down violent protests from the Chinese equivalent of 4chan posters. The “freedoms” the CPC suppresses are not blanket but instead directed against capitalists, fascists, and those that undermine the socialist system and work against the majority of society. There is nothing inconsistent about opposing the right-wing DNC and GOP and supporting socialism.
Propaganda doesn’t work that way, and brainwashing does not exist. I recommend reading Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” when you’ve got a spare hour.
Either way, I support states controlled by the working classes, which sounds to be authoritarian by your view. In that sense, all Marxists are authoritarian, so I again assert that “tankie” is just a pejorative for communist. The problem I see is that too many people fall for Red Scare propagandizing, and are allergic to contextualization, preferring to analyze everything metaphysically, ie in the abstract, rather than dialectically, ie within its real, existing context. That’s why dialectical materialism is so useful.
Lmao. You know very well that the idea of stateless communism exists, so no
Communism is stateless, but it can only come about post-socialism, which has a state. You cannot skip from capitalism to communism.
The overwhelming majority of self-described communists support socialist states? According to who? Polling from CPUSA?
The CPC alone has over 100 million members, and communist orgs around the globe are most commonly Marxist-Leninist. This includes the Black Panther Party, which supported the DPRK and sent people to learn from the WPK and CPC:
There are plenty of leftists on lemmy who would call themselves anarchosocialist or anarchocommunist.
We aren’t talking about anarchism.
Tankie is a pejorative mostly used by leftists to punch right, not by liberals to punch left.
I’ve only ever seen it used by liberals or anarchists, and never to punch right but to punch left.
Don’t joke with me. You know the material difference between a state imposing law on sometimes unwilling citizens and people that live harmoniously in good will with one another.
Is your point that any state with laws is authoritarian? I’d agree, which is why it’s better for the working classes to control the state as they do in socialist countries so that we can collectivize all production and distribution to erase the material basis of the state for good.
As I said in my other comment, can you define authoritarianism in your own words? The overwhelming majority of communists support socialist states, and support the working classes having the authority of the state to suppress capitalists and fascists. I do have legitimate criticism, the problem is that in the west people are so off-base to begin with.
What does “authoritarian” mean, in your words? If the overwhelming majority of communists support socialist states, isn’t that just being a communist? I support the working class having the authority of the state to suppress capitalists and fascists, and I am against the capitalist class having that authority. I’m also for a democratically run society. What separates my views from what you believe a “non-authoritarian communist” believes?
It’s ridiculous because “tankie” isn’t an ideology, at best “tankism” is a pejorative for communist ideology the way “tankie” is a pejorative for communists.
“Tankism” isn’t an ideology, communism is. “Tankie” is just a pejorative for communist.
Yes, just wanted to make it clear in case anyone thought you were denying any presence of the DPRK in the broader war.
To be clear, the DPRK did send troops, just to help with Kursk.
Why are you complaining about communists on a community known to have a lot of communists? Secondly, Ukraine sanctioned Iran and has been assisting with western attempts to strangle Iran for decades.
Yep! That’s been helping fuel development projects like Pyongyang’s expansions and the 20x10 policy.
The benefits of having nukes.
No problem!
Geneva is a big fan of Bad Empanada, so I doubt it’s deliberate. I think Geneva genuinely believes it. Geneva has good political instincts, but instincts can only take you so far and eventually you run into shit like this.
The strait is open to China and Russia, not to the US. Iran made that clear. Geneva once again rushing to conclusions to type “Chinabad.”
The west calls them peaceful, but I gave several examples of how that wasn’t the case. If you feel I am being too biased in my charactrtization to a manipulative degree, I ask that you apply the same scrutiny to, say, BBC’s portrayal of events, including their intentional use of language.
Being 100% transparent, I am trying to get you to reconsider your position, and part of that is by deliberately using the word “rioter.” This causes you to re-contextualize what you thought you knew more than if I had just said “protestor.” We all have bias, and my bias is pro-communist, and pro-PRC. Just as you try to see how and why I use language, sources, and whatnot to portray how I see the events, I ask that you hold western media to the same degree of scrutiny.
Finally, bias does not mean the absence of fact. I did my best in recommending largely western sources, if I had just used CGTN it might have been easier but then I would have been taking the easy way out, and just as easily dismissed as only accepting official state media. Bias paints how we percieve the same events, how we speak about them, and connects it to a broader class character.