Thanks! 🫡

Correct.

Good lord man. I’m not having a philosophical discussion about idealism and materialism.

But we are. We are specifically talking about ideology, how it relates to the PRC, and your own thought process.

I’m not religious and I don’t believe in the supernatural, if you need to know. I’m by training and engineer, physicist and mathematician.

And yet you use supernatural explanation by treating phenomena as unknowable, ie not a part of the material realm, and appeal to a vague “human spirit.”

I also don’t believe that any ideological system can approach perfection, and I’m pragmatic enough to understand that if you believe that, it is borderline delusional.

This is what I mean. You are appealing to the idea that no ideology can correctly understand the world and help us understand it better. Your own ideology is idealist.

I don’t think China has a perfect society and I expect I would not be happy there. I’m perfectly happy here with 3 kids, my pets, my wife (who owns a small business), a modest house and a family cottage, on a decent salaried job, in a country with a reasonable approximation of universal health care (I wish it were better), that makes attempts at regulating the excesses of capitalism with social programs and government oversight, that gives some freedoms in respect of rights, that values individual liberty and doesn’t get in your business on everything, that doesn’t overwhelmingly exert its will outside of its territory, that allows me to build a small consulting business and occasionally rent our cottage, that has a proud military history of which I have taken a small part, that is open to immigrants and ranks very high on multiculturalism and low on racism, that has enormous economic potential with one of the most educated populations in the world, that ranks highly in press freedom, democracy and economic mobility.

You live in an imperialist settler-colony as a well-off person married to a business owner. Your own class outlook is forcing you to see the world through a specific lense, and is pushing you towards idealism. You’re a labor aristocrat married to a petite bourgeois, and an occasional landlord.

My country has problems, but you’re not going to convince me that I’d be better off under a government like China, or a Marxist ideal, even if I thought it would be possible to change this country without enormous violent upheaval in which, very likely, members of my family or friends would suffer and die.

You probably wouldn’t be better off, personally, but the global south would be better off without Canada imperializing it of its surplus value and resources. Your class interest has made you hostile to working class, internationalist perspectives. This is your own, idealist philosophy.

And as I’ve tried to say since my very first words on this topic, you’re not going to convince me that a government organized according to Marxist thought will be - unlike every other human organization in history (that is, not ideal, but in practice and based on historical evidence and experience) - somehow a utopia that is incapable of oppressing people or attempting to exert its will on others who do not consent to it.

I have never said Marxists cannot oppress people, just that Marxism-Leninism is anti-imperialist, and that fighting imperialists is a good thing. Landlords, the bourgeoisie, etc would be oppressed by Marxist governments as their property is collectivized.

Having said all of that, my claims are clear. What is your objective in this discussion? Of what are you trying to convince me?

I suppose I am trying to convince you to become a class traitor and side with the working classes, or highlight for other working class folks the flaws in idealist thinking that you display.

The economic size and success of China means you should probably try to see why they do what they do. As for the book, no, idealism is the belief in supernatural explanations for phenomena, intentionally or not. It is opposed to materialism.

The 3 major assertions of idealism are as follows:

1. Idealism asserts that the material world is dependent on the spiritual.
2. Idealism asserts that spirit, or mind, or idea, can and does exist in separation from matter. (The most extreme form of this assertion is subjective idealism, which asserts that matter does not exist at all but is pure illusion.)
3. Idealism asserts that there exists a realm of the mysterious and unknowable, “above,” or “beyond,” or “behind” what can be ascertained and known by perception, experience, and science.

The 3 basic teachings of materialism as counterposed to idealism are:

1. Materialism teaches that the world is by its very nature material, that everything which exists comes into being on the basis of material causes, arises and develops in accordance with the laws of motion of matter.
2. Materialism teaches that matter is objective reality existing outside and independent of the mind; and that far from the mental existing in separation from the material, everything mental or spiritual is a product of material processes.
3. Materialism teaches that the world and its laws are fully knowable, and that while much may not be known there is nothing which is by nature unknowable.

When I called your arguments “idealist,” I meant it because of your habit of using “human nature,” or vibes, as a method of explanation, as well as treating phenomena as unknowable. When I linked Cornforth’s book (which I stole the 3 aspects of idealism and materialism from), it’s so you can study the reasoning behind the communist perspective and why it is different from past philosophies, and not subject to the same failings.

Further, I highly disagree with your take on China. It’s too vague to directly answer, though.

Communists control the world’s largest economy by PPP, so I’d say you should at least learn a bit more about what we have to say. I recommend starting with the subject of dialectical materialism. Maurice Cornforth’s Materialism and the Dialectical Method is a good intro! It especially helps explain some of the problems I have with your arguments relying on idealism.

If you had actually maintained a sense of honesty when reading and replying to the original comments, then it likely wouldn’t have spiraled into this. I can empathize with you feeling attacked, but from the onset you weren’t interested in good-faith discussion based on how you read my comment and refused to accept any clarification.

Why does it matter? I’ve said so before, so it isn’t really a secret, but what is the purpose?

Great talk.

No I don’t. OP did when they hoped for increased militarism.

I’m OP, and no I didn’t make that claim. I used “millitant” to refer to taking an active role, rather than a passive one. That’s why I said you assumed all intervention is violent based on my use of the word millitant.

No I don’t. Foreign military adventures are not always imperialism.

But you did. You said millitant intervention leads to imperialism.

You’re starting to get to what I was claiming, which is that unchecked power backed by ideology convinced of its moral, ethical or political superiority will eventually aim to spread itself, likely through violence, military or otherwise. Marxism is no different, and the implementation of it in China is not showing any moral superiority beyond what I’ve seen in history from any other soon to be superpower, colonial or otherwise. We’ll soon see how that plays out in Taiwan I’m sure, which will be the next example of China’s ‘beneficence’.

This is idealism, though, and is based more on the supernatural than the material. By claiming that no ideology can actually be genuinely anti-imperialist, you treat anti-imperialism as something unknowable, beyond the material, and therefore the realm of the supernatural. Materialism teaches us that there is nothing truly unknowable, while your reasoning relies on some grand “human spirit” to explain your insistence that ideology inevitably turns to imperialism.

I admit I didn’t read anything past your three points because your first two interpretations of my claims didn’t impress me (so I’m not really interested in how you rebut the claims you made up) and moreover this entire exchange with everyone has been insulting and lacking in any good faith whatsoever so I’m disinclined to attempt further discussion with anyone.

And this is why your argument is getting correctly deconstructed by everyone, you aren’t actually listening and have made up your mind that you’re correct.

It is, though.

So you’re not different from your opposition. For sure you’ve got the right answer, and your might will prove it.

You aren’t arguing about the answer. When we say “violence against fascists and imperialists is justified,” you attack the fact that this is ideologically driven.

It’s not about me, it’s about the principle you’re espousing. Also you don’t know anything about me, and presuming you do does nothing for your position.

This argument, again, is saying principles are incapable of being good.

believe a Marxist regime is immune to abuse of power

I don’t, though, and neither do other communists.

None of you have given me any indication of good faith, and quite a few have in fact made some rather abhorrent claims about me, someone they know nothing about.

I’d like an example, because I don’t know how to discuss this otherwise.

We should collectively take this as an indication that there is no discussion to be had here.

I don’t see evidence that that’s the case. I understand that you feel attacked by Marxists, but I don’t see what you mean by that practically.

Gotcha, just nonsense.

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.

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.

Been that way since 1949.

No? I have a job in the US, that’s what I do for a living.

Socialism is incompatible with billionaires; full stop.

Says who? Legitimately. Socialism requires public ownership to be the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in charge of the state, not the absence of private property entirely. No economy is “pure,” which is why Marx focused on developing dialectical materialism as a frame of analysis. Your analysis is metaphysical in nature.

Further, public ownership would imply that it is an expression of the will of the people; obviously this is incongruent with what is effectively an extension of feudalism and not genuine communism nor socialism.

Can you elaborate? I gave a large and well-sourced explanation of China’s economy and democratic structures. China does not have a class of lords, nor peasantry that pay their lords tribute in the form of agrarian goods like rice using parceled out land. This argument of yours is absurd.

Lets not forget those massacred at Tianaman or the Uyguhrs or the Taiwanese… Im sure they have thoughts about how glorious the CPC is too

Let’s indeed not forget the few hundred deaths in Beijing on June 4th, 1989, and not forget the students on Tian’anmen Square itself that were peacefully dispersed, which even Wikipedia agrees on.

Let’s not forget Xinjiang either. In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of “genocide.” Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens.

The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.

I also recommend reading the UN report and China’s response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.

Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time as well. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.

Let’s not forget Taiwan, either, where the nationalists that fled the mainland and slaughtered domestic resistance in the White Terror have solidified.

You have no points.

It’s absolutely true. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy in the PRC, and the working classes control the state. For example, when looking at publicly owned industries, we can see the following:

Even checking Wikipedia, data from 2022 shows that the overwhelming majority of the top companies are publicly owned SOEs. This is China’s strategy, they’ve been honest about it from the beginning. The private sector is about half cooperatives like Huawei or farming cooperarives and sole proprietorships, with the other half being small and medium firms. As these grow, they are folded into the public sector gradually. This is China’s Socialist Market Economy.

As for the state being run by the working classes, this is also pretty straightforward. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. 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, and we can see the class breakdown of the top of the government itself:

Overall, this system has resulted in over 90% of the population approving the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate. If you want to learn more, while not nearly as in-depth due to time limits as Roland Boer’s work (and mostly focused on the Xi Jinping era), Red Pen’s A Summary of Xi Jinping’s Governance of China can be a good primer! There’s also This is how China’s economic model works: Explaining Socialism with Chinese Characteristics by Geopolitical Economy Report.

Socialism is not the absence of private property, but the transition between capitalism and communism, indicated by public ownership as principle. Collectivization of production and distribution is a gradual process, and to dogmatically apply this to secondary and small industry before markets naturally centralize them and prepare them for public ownership isn’t necessary.

The PRC has a bourgeoisie, but the bourgeoisie owns only the secondary firms and below, not the principle aspects of the economy, and has no political power.

Okay? I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Do you actually have a point to raise? What do you think socialism is? Why would you consider past China socialist, and modern China to not be?