You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
As a fellow communist, I was always bewildered by this urge of many tankies to prove by all means, against any evidence, that China is socialist and ultimately good.
It's neither. China turned to markets, privatized many industries, and really did commit atrocities on Tiannamen square and in Xinjiang.
Doesn't mean socialism as a system is dysfunctional. United States are directly responsible for insane atrocities all over the world, and we don't need to deny that either.
We need to learn from the experience and strive for it not to happen again. Not close our eyes, scream "blah-blah-blah" and pretend it never happened.
China and the Soviet Union were responsible for acts of genocide, mass murdering/starving people, etc.
Doesn't mean this didn't happen in a capitalist world, and doesn't mean we should close our eyes on that to defend the good look of the system. If anything, this does the opposite. Problems need to be solved, not ignored.
Currently we are witnessing a capitalist genocide in Gaza were children are starving to death and the working class are powerless to stop this. But yea denial on both sides certainty is problematic, the issue is though "tankie" communists will argue propaganda as well as the libs and conservatives. We have been bombarded with fictitious narrative that its a real struggle to find comprehensive and honest reporting of previous events.
Last month I read a "tankies" recap on Tiannamen Square protests, it went as far as to say there was no massacre and quoted creditable journalist that had reported a peaceful evening on the night of the massacre, but I equally saw photos of piled up buddies, bloodied police officers and alike. There's also a conspiracy that the CIA staged the massacre or played some rule within it.
Ive also dealt with american denying the genocide in Vietnam, or Americas rule in creating North Korean.
Solidarity comrade
Tables are, like fascists, searching for dogmatic "easy" in a complex world. You know, like ignorant assholes.
All while it actually is kinda easy.
Some people found their niche and created good for the world, for which they were financially rewarded (this stage is every capitalist proponent's dream).
Then those who earned money this way let their heirs inherit wealth. Some of those heirs multiplied it, and became so wealthy they could influence either politicians or the market itself.
From that moment onwards, generation after generation accumulate power and skew the world to fit their needs, with little regard to anyone else.
Without wealth redistribution, everyone else loses real economic and political power, and this is an inevitable endgame for capitalism because without this incentive such people wouldn't do good stuff for the world to begin with. We just finally reap the fruits of the system that were always there, and without a great shake, a "communist threat", this isn't going anywhere.
The thing that influenced the world and turned the tides in the early XX century was the success of Soviet Union which radicalized people around the globe and forced bourgeoisie to make concessions.
Unfortunately, workers of most countries stopped there, the proposed worldwide revolution never came, and most of the capital remained by capitalists, which has put socialist block at a huge capital disadvantage, with which they still managed to sustain for most of XX century, building huge economies almost from scratch.
Along this way, many regimes have either faced grave mistakes or considered all means worthy, which has led to a lot of suffering. This was exacerbated by the fact that socialist block was primarily dominated by authoritarian regimes, which gave carte blanche for many leaders to act as they please, with little regard to collateral damage. Aside from that, the Cold War, while it can and should be blamed on both sides of the conflict, has led to plenty of proxy wars costing hundreds of thousands of lives.
That's really it.
You also don't affect lasting, meaningful change with dreams of an "uprising" or other fanciful ideas spawned by stories of Cuba in the 50's. There will be no romantic struggle here, no plucky rebels, no heartwarming finale where everyone is happy.
If you want to make the world better, work on it from within the system and learn why the system is the way it is and what power you have as an individual and as a group, THIS is how people have changed the world before.
I would delight in socialism becoming more widespread and accepted as a system to maintain population growth and happiness, I argue for it all the time, we need a number of very important safety nets before we start feeling like our tax money is going into something less abstract than "America: fuck yeah!" But I also know it takes more than cosplay theatrics and defending tyrants.
edit: the tankies are mad.
On that, I'd sadly have to disagree to a degree.
Most radical shifts, especially as large as revamping an entire economic system, were violent or at least highly outside the existing framework, not some "change from the inside".
Behind any government is a desire for self-preservation - and capitalist democracies rig elections by underrepresenting the disadvantaged and also, as other systems, through the bureaucratic inertia that is there for a reason.
Taking America as the most studied case, the two-party system absolutely does not allow for the building of socialism, as both parties are highly capitalist in nature, and the rest exist there as a pure formality, deprived of resources for actual political campaigning. All while plenty of anti-freedom acts are taken specifically to silence who people in power don't want to see.
At the same time, the two leading parties create an illusion that this is the only choice and that Democrats are "the left" and act in the interest of the people. Even the most unprecedented case - the campaign of Bernie Sanders - came with what essentially can be seen as centrism - and even that was seen as "too much" with him failing miserably.
Similar story in many countries.
They flood the media, they control the opposition, and they approve anti-democratic laws - all to cement their place and make sure exactly that no change is ever gonna come from the inside.
Which is why, sadly, through all my desire for peace, I have to say that small and steady change is not enough. That's not to say that you shouldn't vote whoever's the biggest and leftest in your area, that you shouldn't do what is within the law and the current system to improve the situation where possible - but thinking it would be enough is a bit of a fairy dream.
The fairy dream here is thinking that America is ever going to suffer a violent uprising from a socialist/left direction.
I know if you consume all the propaganda it will feel like this is really the viable solution to so many of our problems, but every meme that proudly shows people in jumpsuits marching under a red flag, they tend to ignore the reality which is if every tankie and socialist were to topple the US government tomorrow, we would still have to live with the hundreds of millions of people who do NOT want a socialist utopia. There is no long-term planning, there is a really delusional belief with some people that actually says "Once the population sees how good it will be, they will fall in line" and I want to scream and physically shake you idiots out there who think this shit.
You can push our society towards more social policies that help more people, but this is nowhere close to a realistic time to talk about actual takeovers and coups. It's insane and stupid and it fucking HURTS the cause advocating for better policies and social services.
No one expects America to turn communist today, not in 10, 20, 50 years. The red scare and capitalist propaganda is so bad it would be idiotic to assume America as a socialist frontier.
But:
I get involved in my local elections and city/county boards to endorse and support every policy or candidate that either leans distantly socialist, or puts any measure of power or control back in the hands of the people and workers. That alone will do far, far more realistic good for each of us than "developing revolutionary movements." That's still roleplaying and I don't think the USSR's "successes" were as meaningful as the tankies propaganda makes it out to be. But that's not an invite for a biased history lesson.
I think USSR really did influence the world in a big way. No debates, just stating my stance.
It is great that you participate in what you do, and I advise any socialist to act the same, but it doesn't mean you can't do both.
Fight the system in existing framework, but don't forget it's not the only way. Think revolutionary, but do not settle for that alone and fight the system by legal means too. One shouldn't exclude the other.
That's not what revolutionary Leftists think would happen, lol. That would be adventurism, not a mass worker movement. Please read any book by a revolutionary, nobody is advocating for coups and then hoping everyone falls in line, lol.
It sounds stupid because it is stupid, which is why the adventurists you speak of are seen as ridiculous among revolitionary leftists.
k
Taps life expectancy, infant mortality, and education statics
That's it. That's the nefarious methodology of the villainous Wumao.
By that I primarily meant "Chinese government is not guilty in atrocities it ordered to commit"
But in general, of course China is a miracle in many ways.
You could write textbooks about bad Chinese policies - foreign and domestic.
But a country on it's fifteenth five year plan is most definitely socialist. And if any nation can qualify as "good", the miracle of Chinese central planning would seem to qualify.
That's why leftists are prone to like it. That, and the derth of foreign military conflicts. At least from the perspective of an American, the Chinese government is practically saint-like, simply because it isn't trying to regime change every country it doesn't like.
Pre-Iraq, I think you could make a much stronger "China bad" argument. But the bar is so much lower now.
The economy of China is not characterized by the common/social ownership of the means of production, which means it is not socialist. No amount of five-year plans can change that.
China does spark international conflicts and does bully its neighbors, but it is true that the country doesn't cosplay world police and doesn't participate much in military operations outside the country, which is a big plus.
As per the bar, it shouldn't fall lower just because some country got even more evil. We can compare the evils, but the evil will be there.
With all that said, I do not say "China bad". But claiming "China good" would also not be correct.
I don't think people are saying that the PRC is economically Socialist, just that it has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat of some sort and appears to be more keen on keeping its bourgeoisie in check.
Coupled with their intent to challenge Western Imperialism (Lenin's definition), I believe this explains critical support among Marxists for the PRC, despite the many flaws.
Kinda like supporting Biden over Trump, not like supporting Bernie over Trump. You work with what's actually there, even if it isn't what you wished, and hope things change for the better.
That makes sense.
30% of their industry is SOEs. They have a 90% home ownership rate and one of the most generous pension systems left standing - affording Chinese workers the opportunity to retire inside their 50s. The local property laws force foreign companies to share equity with regional firms, keeping both profits and IP domestic.
And while the high point of the old-school Commune System is long passed, the household responsibility system still guarantees public ownership of arable land. If you work the land, you own the fruit of your labor. That's textbook Communism.
It goes beyond the negative. They've been a positive force for international relations, helping to buffer North and South Korea to prevent a new war, exporting $100B/year in agriculture products to curb global hunger, and pioneering industrial scale solar, wind, and nuclear technologies to mitigate climate change.
As a global diplomat, they've got cache that the Western states have squandered, making them a popular back channel in Middle Eastern politics.
And to quote Dr. Lubinda Haabazoka, Director at the University of Zambia's Graduate School of Business
I would say that alone illustrates why Chinese foreign policy deserves praise.
Textbook communism is an economy that is 100% worker-owned, with everyone's needs directly met without the intervention of money. The rest is not that, by literal definition. Let's not play into the hands of people who want to call that communism and ultra-left to exploit in their own needs.
China does have some strong policies, but it doesn't make it communist by any definition. Also, high home ownership rate is mostly a cultural phenomenon, with housing still seen as "best investment" despite the fact there are entire ghost towns full of houses that never ever filled.
I'm well aware that US pressures China militarily, and that China has a much more peaceful approach. However, Chinese ships regularly bully other countries in the South China Sea against international maritime laws.
The infrastructure China builds is not just a gift - but an investment on which China expects a return. I'm not convinced China is actively pursuing debt trap diplomacy, but it certainly uses economic power to pressure other countries into various concessions.
Utopian Communism is a stateless, moniless society that was hypothized by 19th century European theorists as a possible result of generations of revolutionary struggle.
But if you sit down and read the textbook, you'll discover even the most idealistic thinkers don't hold that it would happen overnight. Marx, himself, asserts a number of transitional states - industrial capitalism being one of them - necessary to reach surplus volumes capable of sustaining a post-money society.
The policies are the direct result of experimental application of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist socio-economic theory. They are explicitly and deliberately Communist, in the same way that American socio-economic policy is Capitalist.
The end goal of Chinese state policy is to advance to a state of publicly controlled superabundance. This is markedly different from the American policies intended to fashion fully privatized ownership of an artificially scare pool of goods and services.
A return in the form of improved economic and political relations. It is for the same reason you would bring a gift to a birthday party.
You're right on classics - but off topic.
I'm saying that China does not economically classify as a communist state, neither did even USSR, because it just wasn't feasible at the moment.
I'm combating the change of meaning where communism as officially proclaimed ideology is conflated with communism as an actual economic system. As a result of this, people start thinking that communism is when a state controls some sides of economy and gets involved in social programs, which is not a definition of communism, it's a capitalist state with social elements.
A state can even apply some of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles, but it is economically capitalist as long as means of production are controlled by private entities looking for profit. This is not an argument about what China should or shouldn't do - this is an argument that China is not economically communist or even socialist, like it or not. Neither was USSR during the so-called New Economic Policy.
A return in form of cash or lease.
They do. Because they're pursuing communist economic policies.
Sure. If I'm Elon Musk and saying "By the way, I am actually a socialist. Just not the kind that shifts resources from most productive to least productive" then that's horseshit nonsense.
However, if I'm Luo Wen, the current director of the State Administration for Market Regulation, focused on breaking up monopolies and limiting the capacity of private business to consolidate control in a given industry, I'm both ideologically and actually committed to communist economic principles.
The Chinese state leadership gave up on trying to be direct owner-operators of capital during the Deng Era. However, it still strictly enforces a prohibition on foreign control of domestic capital as a legacy of its anti-colonial mission. The means of production remain property of the Chinese proletariat.
Define "communist economic policies".
If you're Luo Wen, you're in favor of state regulations of the capitalist market; you are not pursuing communist policies.
It's not enough to maintain domestic control of the capital - this is a feature of any protectionist regime, even a fascist one. You should also make sure this capital is entirely democratically controlled and owned by the workers - which is not what happens in China. The capital of Chinese businesses is not the "property of workers".
Strict prohibitions on foreign controlling interest in real estate, capital, and intellectual property, for starters.
State regulation for the purpose of limiting foreign ownership, foreign manipulation of domestic markets, and foreign monopoly of natural resources. This leads to:
All of these rules are intended to protect domestic markets and maintain local control of business capital.
It is the property of the Chinese People, as opposed to a cartel of foreign landlords. The surplus produced by Chinese business returns to the Chinese economy in the form of improvements to the socio-economic landscape. Chinese consumers enjoy an abundance of at-cost / below-cost social services, because they are not exposed to the rent-seeking behaviors of the predatory capitalist class. And Chinese business executives suffer the kind of regulatory surveillance and oversight that is largely neglected in Western democracies.
This guarantees that workers enjoy the surplus value of their labor. And that is the end goal of a Communist economy.
This is protectionism and it has literally nothing to do with communism. Those are two absolute different things that can coexist or not coexist.
Same relates to your other points.
Your rhetoric is eerily similar to protectionist points of Nazi Germany, a very non-communist state that was obsessed with domestic control and protecting domestic capitalist with the proclaimed idea of "capital belonging to all people of Germany", as opposed to "evil Jewish cartels".
Simply trapping the capital inside the country speaks little of what gets to the workers. And if we talk communism, ALL of the capital is directly owned by the collective of workers. Which is not China.
It's protection for domestic ownership of property.
It was similar to Communist protectionist points of the KDP.
You've been pumped full of bad info, and at this point I don't know what to tell you except to get outside whatever Western propaganda hot house you've found yourself in.
As I said, protectionism may coexist or not coexist with communism, as it can with any other economic system.
If you're serious about equating protectionism and communism, you should probably be happy with the way things were done in the Third Reich.
You should seriously reconsider the terms you employ, and read the classics more thoroughly. Also, open the goddamn Wikipedia if you're too lazy for that.
Only if you ignore the history of anti-colonialism that gave birth to communist movements in the third world.
That's utterly ahistorical. There was nothing protectionist about Nazi Germany.
No, I just state the fact that protectionism doesn't mean communism and globalism doesn't mean capitalism.
They are different terms for a reason.
There was everything protectionist about Nazi Germany, who seeked to give control of German industries to German capitalists.
Capitalism requires an economic frontier for continuous growth, which necessitates extraterritorial expansion. Communism requires home rule and self-sufficient domestic industry, which necessitates protectionism.
One describes a broad philosophy and the other describes a tool of policy. Might as well say Plumber and Pipe are different terms for a reason.
Communism does not necessitate self-sufficiency, moreover, a switch to fully domestic production is detrimental to any economy. The reason modern economy is globalized is that it's simply more efficient, and capitalist economies are all about efficiency, as it allows to extract more value. At the same time, many past socialist economies were forced to only partner with other socialist economies, which limited their options and hurt their economy.
One of the key reasons communist classics called for a global revolution is to gain the critical mass of communism-aligned countries to minimize this effect and maximize globalization efforts. The communist endgame is one interconnected world without any nations to begin with, not to mention any protectionism.
That's all, like, economics 101.
I don't think you've ever actually read the theory.
I don't think you did read Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
Can't say for Mao, did not read his works close enough.
But the communism classics would strongly disagree with you; besides, you stray so so far from the original topic.
This has not been my experience speaking to leftists at all.
Two things:
Winning the rhetorical war cannot be done if you stop to qualify every single thing you advocate for by disavowing every society that has ever advocated for that thing. The USSR was the most equal society that has existed on this earth since the industrial revolution, and served every one of its member countries better than they are served by their capitalist successor governments today. Meanwhile, basically every person who has been lifted out of poverty in the past thirty years has been Chinese, proving that socialism fucking works in a way that capitalism doesn't, even when both systems contain markets, wage labor, and an investment class.
Absolutely! But we should also own up to the mistakes that really happened. China did turn to markets, because capitalist world once again got a critical share, and the benefits of international trade could hardly be overlooked. Tiannamen square massacre really happened, as documented in many instances. The conversion happening in Xinjiang is barely peaceful. USSR really did send insane amounts of people to GULAG, despite the scale of this atrocity often being overblown by liberals (but even still it's massive), and really did forcefully move entire nationalities.
Don't get me wrong, by any means, I do not denounce USSR or China and the roles they took in building a better future for everyone. In fact, the achievements they've made forced governments around the world to improve working and living conditions of the people - people that saw what the world could actually be. And inside countries, socialism has caused immense economic improvements - though, it must be said, the turn in both USSR and China was cruel and radical, which caused a lot of massive supply problems, famines, and more. But at the end of the day, they truly emerged the powerful forces on the world stage, and this really was an economic miracle and victory of the people.
If I would personally assess the heritage of the socialist era, I would say it was a massive win for the world. But if we want for the socialism to finally take over the world, we need to be fair with ourselves and others on the shortcomings of the bygone times. At the very least, not to repeat them again.
Not sure where you are from, but your type of worldly reasoned view does not come without exposure to multiple systems of governance. Labels like “socialism”, “communism”, “capitalism” are the Newspeak that are used to place the populace opinion into buckets with which to control. And I completely agree about the US - its entire history is based upon capitalism and will always be based upon capitalism. Biden is the MOST progressive president in 50 years, yet it’s a stretch to even call him a centrist he’s so enmeshed with the existing corporatists.
I operate dictionary definitions.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism is dictated by the common (social) ownership of the means of production, and communism is a subset of socialism that entails absence of money and private property (note: not personal property).
US is blatantly capitalist. Nordic countries are capitalist, too. USSR was socialist, Russia is capitalist; revolutionary regime preceding the creation of USSR was also briefly communist (see: War communism), though, make no mistake, this wasn't the kind of communism anyone wanted, it's just that government couldn't run monetary policy properly at the time and had even bigger issues.
What. The. Fuck?
Clarify, please?..