/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>691610
>b-but muh Purges
Yes, Stalin era, too.

>>691635
nice meme

>>691635
Bruh

>>691469
Although I agree, I'm also interested in how the Chinese government deals with these issues. Rebelliousness is a core value of leftists everywhere. Mao specifically called it out as a positive value too.
Now that a socialist government is in power, how does one deal with rebelliousness?

Rebelliousness in a democratic centralist organization is outright destructive and wrecker behavior.

Rebelliousness in the Chinese state? On one hand, the Chinese government is single handedly making the US shit its pants, but on the other, there is still a big room for improvement in work conditions. And China is arguably a huge democratic centralist org, from what I understand.

It's not an easy task.

>>691668
The diversity of opinion was significantly lower, though

>>691203
Not sequitur

>>691635
Exactly. People like haz are broken clocks but they are right in sharing your opinion. maoists are effectively tools of imperialists because their anti-AES activities and propaganda. The fact that maoists are themselves claiming to be anti imperialist in form doesnt matter when their actions in essence serve to propogate imperialism.
There is no fence to sit on, or third way. Either you are with the west, or the east.

>>691697
Says who, a purged trot?

Diversity of opinion was fucking fine. Purges don't affect diversity of opinions, they ENSURE that DEMOCRATIC DECISIONS MADE get DONE. That's why Stalin transformed USSR into a world power from the backwards European power - because he was overlooking real democracy working.

>>691936
>There is no fence to sit on, or third way. Either you are with the west, or the east.
I'm with the proletariat.

>>691010
calm down bro, there's always idiots but most of leftypol seems to be pro china

>>691010
Русский, обожающий КНР? А у вас китайцы не срубают Сибирские леса? Не говори, что серьезно веришь в Социализм с китайской спецификой.

>>692095
"Pro-China" is a loaded term. Merely being against fake news and war mongering against China gets you called "Pro-China" nowadays. And being publicly critical of China is an implicit support of US aggression. There's no room for nuance, and we need to be aware of that.

So most of leftypol is pro-capitalism and pro-billionaires? Private corporations good when they're Chinese, right?

>>692095
No.
>>692104
If "pro China" means "Deng good" like anon's meme seems to insinuate then no that is absolutely not true. I'm not to get in to normative claims. The capitalist reformers in the CPC like Deng betrayed and sold socialism in Chin for personal aggrandizement.

>>692137
You statement is inaccurate, where is the aggrandizement?

>>692140
Much of the CPC leadership owns a lot of stock in privatized corporations, there is a parallel with the privatizing of the state owned defense industry and high up PLA officers owning large stakes.

>>692166
It's just like 3 retards simping for China that are desperate for copium. I had a similar mindset when I first started coming here. Then I realized the proletariat will free itself, it's not up to some already existing state to do so. One anon put it well: the CPC doesn't need anons on some imageboard to protect them. Like look they will soon be the most powerful nation in the world, they are not beyond reproach.

>>692179
Sure internet guy, I believe you.

>>692187
In other words, the anti-China propaganda got to you.

>>692192
1.Stop treating politics like a cult
2.Don't choose such a shitty and anticommunist cult

>>692196
There are not anticommunists in this thread, only communists and slightly misguided communists.

>>692191
You can look it up for yourself. I had a hard time finding Deng's ownership of private companies and income, but you can easily find information on the privatization of China's military industry online.

>>691461
It's not given that a collapse of either China or US economy would collapse the other. It didn't happen in 2008.

>>692198
Doesn't this just mean those private companies are secretly just hybrid soes

>>692187
Correct

>>692196
You're asking for the impossible anon.

>>691635
>Nooo I have to be allowed to publicly criticize the socialist government and its policies, and thus weaken it
Allowing criticism of a socialist government by its own citizens doesn't weaken it, it strengthens it. It allows non-antagonistic contradictions to be brought into the open and resolve peacefully and to mutual benefit, instead of sweeping them under the rug where they fester and become antagonistic contradictions that can turn violent.

>>692226
It depends exactly on the type of criticism. For instance if the criticism over exaggerates, is uninformed, paranoid and or nonsensical and a bunch of people are allowed to say it then all you have is a recipe for long term disaster. Additionally if the criticism is things like we want political liberalization but the lib kind then in the long term that will accumulate and destroy the party.
Also if the criticism is supported by let's say regional cliques and or etc then we have a recipe for fictionalized based on region grounds or etc

>>692230 factionalization is what I meant not fictionalization

>>692226
There's also ways to channel criticism. If youre not adhering to dem cen then you're wrecking. Not sure how Chinese govt works though.

>>692230
>For instance if the criticism over exaggerates, is uninformed, paranoid and or nonsensical and a bunch of people are allowed to say it then all you have is a recipe for long term disaster.
Why exactly? People spout crazy nonsense all the time, 99% of the time nobody believes it. Should we arrest every homeless guy and tinfoil hat yelling about lizard people and the NWO? Opposition to a set of policies or a government can only manifest itself in a significant way if it acts as an expression of real contradictions, otherwise it's just some rando screaming into the void. Happy, well fed people aren't going to revolt against a socialist government just because somebody tells them to, they will only do so if their own experience indicates that the current order harms their interests to an unacceptable degree. If criticism resonates with large numbers of people, and metastasizes into a large scale political movement, then this is a symptom of deeper social contradictions in need of resolution. Obviously I'm not saying everything should be tolerated, but we have to distinguish between criticism that is the product of antagonistic contradictions (us and the enemy) and non-antagonistic contradictions (among the people). This is Mao's own formula. Tolerating and listening to the latter is not only an essential component of a healthy proletarian democracy, but actually strengthens the state in the long term. It helps it to establish the broadest possible hegemony, and give the largest possible segment of the population a stake in the active support of the existing state. To China's credit I actually think they're pretty good at this, at least when it comes to shit like people's everyday needs in regards to employment, infrastructure, the pandemic, etc. Of course there's always room for improvement, which I think the case of these Maoists shows. As a general rule however, the strongest state is one which is able to exist as the broadest possible synthesis of disparate interests, and this necessarily requires that these interests be free to work out their contradictions peacefully, in the open, through compromise and democracy.
>Additionally if the criticism is things like we want political liberalization but the lib kind then in the long term that will accumulate and destroy the party.
Are Maoists demanding political liberalization of the lib kind? Something tells me no.
>Also if the criticism is supported by let's say regional cliques and or etc then we have a recipe for fictionalized based on region grounds or etc
Again, there often exist contradictions between regional interests, but these are generally non-antagonistic. Why then is it a bad thing for people to express their discontent with how their region is treated if this is unfair? In my own country my home region is relatively rural and underdeveloped, and we are often neglected by the cosmopolitan urban centres. Should we not be allowed to express these grievances? There will be no danger of regional separatism or similar problems if the central government is attentive and responsive to the needs of the people of every region, if it allows them to voice their concerns, hold their leaders accountable, etc. Again, I'll concede that China is actually pretty good at dealing with this, but I'm speaking more abstractly here.

>>692240
I'm not against expressing regional or genuine criticism

It's the bad criticism I'm against. You talk about china and imo that's the perfect system i had I mind. A central authority that stops bad criticism and prevents factionalism, while at the same time allowing and respecting good criticism. Tho imo I want something a bit more democratic than chinas

>>692240
Why should democratic centralism apply to non party members? Why should be people who didn't get a vote in determining party policy at the congress have to abide by policy decisions they had no say in creating? Democratic centralism was a policy that emerged among the Bolsheviks, who were a heavily repressed and censored party operating illegally in one of histories most brutally autocratic societies. Obviously it's an appropriate policy for such difficult conditions. However I don't see why it necessarily needs to be maintained once that party is in power, especially in a country like China where the political base of the state is extremely secure and the party is massively popular.

>>692252
Because otherwise people don't know why decisions are being made.

No participation, no reading, no stake, no investigation, means no vote or say.

>>692252
To keep political unity and stability and to discourage division. However while ultimately they should follow the party line they should at the same time be allowed to critic the party line too. They should be allowed some degree of voice hell in china too while the minority parties are chained they are often allowed to critic the main party so to offer an alternative perspective

>>692246
Also yes while people often say stupid things allowing such stupid things to continue to be allowed is going to lead to dangerous situatioj. Branded America is an example of this. As such we need to limit and suppress the bad critics so the population doesn't get dumbed down by it.

Also there are liberals in china who want liberalization. These people are bigger than you think

>>692256
>Dirty, uneducated, unwashed proles shouldn't be allowed to have a say! Only their betters, the learned elite, should rule.
>>692257
>To keep political unity and stability
Do the bourgeoisie in liberal democratic countries ultimately not have political unity? Do they not manage this despite having multiple parties and factions within those parties? Political divisions are always an expression of divergent material interests. Suppressing the political expression of these interests does not make them go away, it just makes it more difficult to work them out constructively. Moreover the force which carries out this suppression can never itself stand above or outside these divisions.
>Also yes while people often say stupid things allowing such stupid things to continue to be allowed is going to lead to dangerous situatioj
And how can that be the case unless these stupid criticisms nevertheless speak to people's dissatisfaction and grievances? Shouldn't the focus be on remedying these instead of punishing people for bringing them up?

>>692266
>Only their betters, the learned elite, should rule.
No dude. Imagine I bust into your workplace and start telling people how to do their job. There is a very low chance I'll give them good directions. Whereas, if I study their behavior and integrate into the team I'd be able to make better suggestions.

What I'm suggesting is very basic. If you want your vote to count, then get involved. Otherwise you have no idea what's going on and you're voting based on no knowledge of the subject matter.

>>691936
>There is no fence to sit on, or third way. Either you are with the west, or the east.
Lmao, it's proletarian vs bourgeoisie, not a mystical east vs a decadent west.

>>692266
Yes and i agree there are legitimate criticisms that cause these people to critic which is why the problems should be addressed, I'm not against this. If the critic is good then follow upon it and fix it and if the critic is bad suppress it but figure out why the problem emerged in the first place. Punisher suppress bad criticism to show the people what is just nonsense while at the same time listening to good actual criticism which will eventually go to the actual reason why the bad criticism emerged in the first place

Also for your other point yes but if we look at these borg states they are often highly dysfunctional. Sure they might address certain issues efficiently but 80 or 90 percent of the time they don't operate that well. And it's on purpose because by purposely creating a system of faction you create a system of very weak gov. Where your pawns or enemies are absolutely divided with each other and thus they can't act against you. After all a highly weak state domestic wise can't regulate against big power corporations.

We should not apply a system that was purposely created to be weak with factionalism and thus non functional to a socialist state since that would be bad

>>692276
>No dude. Imagine I bust into your workplace and start telling people how to do their job. There is a very low chance I'll give them good directions.
This isn't a workplace Anon, it's a state, and an allegedly proletarian, socialist one at that. Political participation needs to be extended to every citizen (or at least every prole/peasant), that's how a democracy works. You're essentially arguing for relegating the majority of people to disenfranchised second class citizens.
>What I'm suggesting is very basic. If you want your vote to count, then get involved.
Why are you assuming that not being a party member means you aren't informed about the issues, or don't have the capability to advocate for your own interests?

>>692289
>If the critic is good then follow upon it and fix it and if the critic is bad suppress it
And how do you differentiate between the two? How do you differentiate between bad faith and ignorance? How do you prevent this from being abused, with legitimate criticism being simply labeled as "bad criticism" etc?
>Also for your other point yes but if we look at these borg states they are often highly dysfunctional.
Pretty weird how "highly dysfunctional" states managed to subjugate the entire world for centuries.

>>692321
Dysfunctional in domestic issues but not in foriegn. However let me explain. These borg states created these very weak state that can't act against borg interest but if it's for borg interest they can work. And thats the point they were made weak to challenge interests. After all if one faction is used to prevent legislation or anything in the us case the gov stops functioning and the legistilation doesn't pass. Aka the gov is easily weakened to such a degree that pokie can use one faction to protect its interests so to stop gov from doing shit unless it's for porker interests

Now consider this system where interests can be easily protected by the using of factions to prevent things passing that go against certain groups interest and apply that to a socialist country with regional urban or etc factions that want to protect their interest. It's not gonna end well


And for the had criticism well some bad criticism is obvious like hypothetical covid is made in a lab or really absurd shit, but yeah I cam see what you are trying to say and I need to think about it

This is what i mean by weak gov

>>692327
>However let me explain. These borg states created these very weak state that can't act against borg interest but if it's for borg interest they can work.
Well of course, these are bourgeois states were are talking about here. However in terms of reconciling various bourgeois interests which are sometimes in opposition to one another, liberal democracy is pretty effective. What I'm saying is that the existence of multiple factions or parties engaging with one another openly can accomplish the same task for workers and peasants, allowing them to resolve contradictions amongst themselves constructively.
>After all if one faction is used to prevent legislation or anything in the us case the gov stops functioning and the legistilation doesn't pass.
That's a relatively recent phenomenon, in the past both parties were able to pass legislation that balanced the interests of various bourgeois factions pretty effectively, and most liberal countries are still able to do this.

>>692333
Actually I disagree with this but I will type a response on Sunday since one I gotta sleep so yeah nice talk tho

>>692106
Its necessary evil for China to develop into a 1st world country.

>>692051
Then you're with the east, who are DotP