@Cowbee@lemmy.ml
New thread as max thread length reached.
Let's move on.
How does holding China accountable for what it currently lacks look like to you?
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2026
3 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
6769 readers
532 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
What do you mean by "holding them accountable?" How can any of us do so, if we aren't Chinese, and aren't in any position of power? We should support positive movements where they happen, and focus on improving where we lack.
I mean taking into account and consideration where the country is lacking or has flaws.
This does not require one to be a member of the same ethnicity as the nation one is critiquing.
This is just about views so being in a position of power isn't relevant right now.
You mention focusing on improving where we lack, but where does China lack in your view?
I'm not talking about ethnicity, I mean neither of us live in China. Neither of us can hold them accountable. If you mean what problems China is working on that I consider to be pressing, there's the rural/urban development gap, the continuing improvement and struggle for better queer rights, the importance of electrification and energy independence, and more.
I don't frame this as "lacking," because again, China is the fastest developing and improving country in history, and all of these areas are being actively worked on. They are not regressing. They still have areas to improve, but framing them as "lacking" implies a regression.
The same applies; if one must live in a country to critique it that means everyone can only critique one country and no other countries at a time.
Also, you are framing it again as "problems China is working on" and not just "problems in China" which is narrower and filters any issues China may not be working on. The result would be a more positive outlook on the country than could be warranted by reality.
What evidence exists that the state of china is actively working on queer rights? Specifically the state.
Fastest developing, in what regard?
There's a difference between critique, and "holding accountable." One is a matter of judgment, and the latter is not possible without control. As for judgment, it's important to actually have an all-sided view, not just those of foreigners looking in. As for problems in China, the positive is that the CPC is working on the pressing problems in China as seen by the Chinese people.
As for China working on queer rights, here's a video from CGTN talking about the progress of queer rights, and here's one from Jin Xing on CGTN talking about the progression of trans rights. The state controls media like CGTN, the purpose here is to gradually improve public perception of LGBTQ rights and bring the people upward on it, as in China policy generally comes from below, not above.
As for fastest developing, in terms of economic growth, life expectancy, literacy rates, you name it. Compare the China of today with 10 years ago, 20, 50, and 100. It's an incredible feat.
By "holding accountable" I meant balanced critique that doesn't exclusively focus on the positives of the country.
If the state is accepting of queer people (or tries to project that image), it seems hypocritical that the police don't act in accordance to this, given that the police is an instrument of the state.
We've had police raids on queer events and censorship of gay couples on TV in recent times (as recent as 2023).
More elaboration on China's state-sponsored censorship of queer populations in media from equaldex:
Since 2016, China censors LGBT content, including LGBT-themed films, TV shows, and media, under the General Principles for the Production of TV Drama Content which took effect in March 2016. According to The Guardian, the Chinese government has "banned all depictions of gay people on television," calling it "vulgar, immoral and unhealthy content." The popular "boy love" (BL) TV drama "Addicted" was banned in 2016.
A Chinese broadcaster, Mango TV, which broadcasts Eurovision blurred a rainbow flag during the semi-final of the show.
In April of 2022, a few lines of dialog were removed from the Chinese release of the film 'Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore.' The dialog referenced the gay romance between Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald.
In August of 2023, Chinese officials removed an LGBTQ song from the set list of popular Taiwanese pop star A-Mei, ahead of her concert in Beijing. Security guards at the event forced fans to remove rainbow symbols and clothing. On the 22nd of August, Chinese officials shut down a handful of popular social media accounts on the Chinese social networking service WeChat.
As I already explained, China is not a monolith. You can look at any western country and find similar state repression at the local level, which is even more varied in China due to having 1.4 billion people. You are looking at it one-dimensionally, which is the problem I was getting at earlier.
You say I'm looking at it one-dimensionally, but you always dismiss or shrug off any negatives that may come about w.r.t. China, or frame it as being positively worked on, when you don't do the same for other countries. If I mentioned a different country in such a context you would have called it deflection.
A monolithic representation of the positive is still a monolith.
I don't present China as universally positive, I have drawn a clear line between socialist countries that are generally working towards a better society, imperialist countries that have been declining and are a net drain on the world, and non-socialist countries in the periphery that ultimately are progressing, albeit not necessarily as much as they could be if they were socialist.
There's also the fact that we aren't at all on the same page when it comes to dialectical materialism as being the start point for any genuine analysis, and as such I tend to reject framing that involves metaphysics.
You say you don't, but you exclusively discuss positivity or progress w.r.t. China and socialist countries. When anything negative is reframed out of the equation, the resulting assessment necessarily becomes unilaterally positive.
Imperialist countries being a drain on the world isn't something I'm arguing against, although we do not share a common understanding of imperialism.
It's true that I don't believe analysis must be through the diamat outlook for it to be rational, though framing away negatives as metaphysical or any other framing that makes them to be other than what they are (i.e. negatives) isn't something that I find compelling.
I've said a number of things are problems, such as the urban/rural development gap. This is a problem to be solved, and thankfully it's one being actively worked upon. How is this not a "negative" in your view? You keep trying to look at things as a laundry list of pros and cons, and try to put things into neat categories, but that's not how the world works.
You did, as a list of "all things china is actively working on". It's the framing away of negatives that makes it not seem as much of a negative whenever you do mention them, however briefly.
Maybe it's not how the world works, but it does strike me as strange if that's only the case when it comes to describing socialist countries.
I don't really see any major issues China has that aren't being actively worked on, big or small. China of course has problems, but these aren't static and permanent. China is both socialist and anti-imperialist, so in that way it makes sense.
Zoom out, 100 years pass. What do you think is going to get worse in China? What is China doing that's actively progressing in a bad direction?
I think you're confusing my condemnation of imperialist countries as being unable to address their problems due to the faulty mode of production they rely on, with the belief that these are simply "negatives." I see them in the same way all societies have problems, the difference is that some societies are actually able to address these problems by putting needs over profits, and this goes back to the mode of production.
Why do you think I constantly centered imperialism as a problem unable to be solved without revolution?
It's not just China though, you approach other socialist countries the same way.
You say China's problems aren't static or permanent, but you don't append such disclaimers or framing to issues outside of socialist regions.
I don't see China as anti-imperialist, but I'll drop the words "imperialist" and "fascist" altogether for the purposes of this discussion since we use it to mean different things.
Not everything is always changing significantly, some things can stay the same over time, but to answer the question, I'd say I see state surveillance, suppression of criticism, censorship, and things like that getting worse in China. Though this is kind of something I see happening globally, I'm inclined to believe this is worse in China because it's already etched into the system at a scale more prolific than in the west.
You can routinely find criticisms of America online but China censors this. You do not personally take offense to this because in your view the capitalist should be suppressed ("communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat"), but I do. I will also say that it is this framing which makes it such that one has to be a capitalist in order to criticize the Chinese state (and thus be censored), but this isn't true; I'm not capitalist but I would certainly criticize the state. I am staunchly against the notion of a dictatorship altogether, but this is something not everyone is uncomfortable with, I suppose.
My issue is that you don't frame away the negatives that you mention of non-socialist countries as being part of progress or being actively worked on the way you do for socialist countries.
I don't see China as being innocent and I retain that China is violent and aggressive when it finds the opportunity, and I've seen examples of this prior but I'd have to research to get into that w citations.
I treat all countries the same way, my evaluation of them changes depending on the country.
As for your critique of China, surveillance, suppression of misinformation and capitalist viewpoints, etc. are directed against capitalists. It's a working class state wielding authority against reactionaries. The west also uses state authority against class enemies, it just so happens that these class enemies are the working classes. Opposing socialist democracies is a reactionary viewpoint, even if you consider yourself to be anti-capitalist you'd still be going against both the will of the majority and the working classes.
As for imperialist countries, they aren't generally improving. The reason for this is dependence on imperialism, and putting profit over need. They cannot effectively improve the lives of their people. This isn't me treating them differently, but instead evaluating them based on their own (lack of) merit.
As for China being "violent and aggressive given the opportunity," this is silly and unfounded.
I assumed you would say China's suppression and censorship is okay because it's anti-capitalist and I mentioned why that wasn't an adequate explanation. One could criticize the state without being a capitalist. It is not reactionary for one to criticize the state, unless you are asking for unconditional acceptance of the state. If criticizing the state is considered to be going against the will of the majority, then majority be damned.
I also assumed you would say the west does the same thing, and I mentioned why that wasn't really true either. Despite their suppression you can still easily find and access criticisms of the state within their countries whereas this is not the case in China.
In my view it is impossible to have a balanced view of a state if all dissent and criticism is cracked down. Labelling all dissent and criticism as capitalist is a wholly inadequate and frankly infantile response.
On western countries not improving: I would say you're also not considering their existing state of development; it may be easier to develop undeveloped/less developed regions than it is to develop already developed regions further, I would expect plateaus to be a thing in any country's timeline of development to occur. Some decades from now when China reaches the same level of development one could see plateaus there too.
Again, you can believe yourself to be anti-capitalist, but simply calling yourself one is not an adequate explanation for opposing proletarian state power. Further, you can absolutely find criticism against the CPC in China, and the west also censors to a dramatic degree against the proletariat. Censorship is less transparent and more malicious in the west.
Not all dissent is capitalist. What's absurd is pretending that all criticism is censored in China, which is why I have been repeating over and over that you have no grounds to stand on to criticize China. You have no idea what China is like, just what you hear online, and as a consequence you have an utterly one-sided view.
As for imperialist countries not developing further, it's because imperialism results in de-industrialization. The plataue for capitalist development was already reached, you need to transition to socialism to begin developing further. You continue to ignore real, material systems like imperialism, because you simply disagree with analyzing it as a stage in capitalism and instead wish to analyze it purely as a policy states take. This is not how imperialism works.
Really, it's quite disappointing that this is what you seem to take away from this. You have a view of China that doesn't map to reality, and you have a view of imperialism that doesn't map to reality either. Without analyzing both concretely, we can't really move forward.
Both of these critiques could be applied to your views as well.
You can believe the state of China to be for the working class, but that isn't an adequate explanation for censorship.
Despite censorship in the west, as I pointed out earlier, you can still find extensive criticisms of trump and the American regime in China.
you can absolutely find criticism against the CPC in China
Any examples of open media criticism against CPC in China? Direct and detailed criticisms of Xi Jinping would be the icing on the cake.
You have an utterly one-sided and unrealistically positive view of China yourself, I've been saying that for a while now. It's just in the opposite direction.
I am not a Chinese national, so of course I am going to be getting my information about it from the internet, as I assume is the case for you. Or have you lived there yourself?
Censorship is less transparent in the west.
Highly doubt that. China and transparency are not words I'd put together.
I am choosing to ignore the term "imperialism" because we don't share an understanding on the term, and I'm not boxing myself into a communist outlook to discuss things.
Though it does seem we are at an impasse.
Both of these critiques could be applied to your views as well.
No, actually, they cannot.
You can believe the state of China to be for the working class, but that isn’t an adequate explanation for censorship.
You're right, belief alone is not adequate. What's instead adequate is analyzing the mode of production and distribution in China, the class character of the state, and the historical necessity to prevent capitalist disinformation from spreading uncontested. I don't just believe China has a working class state based on hope alone, but based on concrete evidence. Over 90% of the public supports the government, and China is ranked even by western organizations as a thriving democracy even by western definitions of democracy:
Historically, capitalists have manipulated the press to spread disinformation. Radio Free Asia is an example primarily directed against China. In the USSR, Radio Free Europe contributed heavily towards pessimism regarding constructing socialism. Class struggle does not end under socialism, so the working classes need to continue to win the class war.
Despite censorship in the west, as I pointed out earlier, you can still find extensive criticisms of trump and the American regime in China.
Of course you'll find extensive criticism of the west within China, the west is the world imperial hegemon.
Any examples of open media criticism against CPC in China? Direct and detailed criticisms of Xi Jinping would be the icing on the cake.
Criticism doesn't work like that. People don't generally make hit pieces. If you want an example of more liberal press in China that desires more liberalization, see South China Morning Post. Institutions are prevented from mouthing off, but people on the ground often consider political critique to be a national pass time. The difference between the west and China is that there is a national hope in China, rather than pessimism.
You have an utterly one-sided and unrealistically positive view of China yourself, I’ve been saying that for a while now. It’s just in the opposite direction.
No, I do not. Frankly, I've done far more research into China than you have, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way, but in the sense that I've actually had to grapple with my skepticism of China in the past. I already admitted to many currently existing problems in China, but you've continued to make baseless claims about "Chinese imperialism."
I am not a Chinese national, so of course I am going to be getting my information about it from the internet, as I assume is the case for you. Or have you lived there yourself?
Correct, I have not lived there. That's why I focus on not making authoritative claims denouncing China, and instead seek to learn what I can from the outside while focusing on changing the world I live in, the west. That's where my activism takes me. Where we differ is that I have done far more study on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and the history of AES countries.
Highly doubt that. China and transparency are not words I’d put together.
Why not? Again, look at the polling from the Perception of Democracy index, China is ranked very favorably by its own people:
I am choosing to ignore the term “imperialism” because we don’t share an understanding on the term, and I’m not boxing myself into a communist outlook to discuss things.
You've committed to denying a concrete, materialist understanding of imperialism as a stage in capitalism. I've made it clear that imperialism is a necessary evolution within capitalism once it reaches the monopoly stage, with dominance of finance capital, and switches from export of commodity to export of capital. This is a clear and coherent system with an enormous breadth of study, even if you don't want to call it "imperialism," the fact is that this system exists, that it's the dominant mode of the west, and that China does not practice this system.
It does not matter if you do not consider yourself a communist. This was first analyzed by Hobson, a liberal. You do not have to be a communist to recognize it, if you leave this entirely in the hands of communists then you're just ceding any right to be taken seriously in any geopolitical matter, as it's the primary contradiction in the modern era.
I do agree that we are at an impasse, but I hope you'll reconsider your viewpoints and actually commit to studying phenomena in a materialist and dialectical viewpoint.
Also "free speech" that doesn't apply to corporate platforms. Which is, you know, all of them. Love when a liberal says "that doesn't count, they're a private business" whenever you point out the blatant censorship in the West.
load more comments
(114 replies)
view more: next ›