«12. . .16,34916,35016,35116,35216,35316,35416,355. . .20,56020,561»
ikr
I think the motivation is different though. Mao wasn’t targeting sparrows because he felt they were inferior as Hitler did with racial groups, but rather because they spread disease, ate grain and chewed electrical wires, in the same way do you think it’s also wrong to kill animals if they are radioactive. Maybe the sparrow policy isn’t something I’d pursue, but I still think Mao was justified in the four pests campaign, as the pests posed immediate harm to Great Harmony
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212/
-http://www.redspark.nu/en/imperialist-states/revolutionary-praxis-introducing-marxism-study-group/ -
http://chinastudygroup.net/2009/10/was-mao-really-a-monster/#fn-2997-1 -
http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/research/health_improvement_under_mao_and_its_implications_for_contemporary_aging_in_china/
http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/research/://www.fas.harvard.edu/~asiactr/haq/200201/0201a001.htm
http://llco.org/archives/8455 -
http://thesaker.is/when-chinese-trash-saved-the-world-western-lies-about-the-cultural-revolution/
https://youtu.be/gHGRuKqvU7o
https://weeklybolshevik.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/what-makes-a-famine-is-ideology/
https://mronline.org/2018/04/17/maos-legacy-defended-and-famous-swim-decoded-for-clueless-academics/
https://youtu.be/9niSOKGcR_k (very good in depth analysis)
“The Battle for China’s Past” by Mobo Gao (A very good resource, this guy was actually there during the revolution and the Great Leap Forward) -Felix Greene
A Curtain of Ignorance (London: Jonathan Cape, 1965), p. 158. -Judith Banister
http://thesaker.is/daring-to-go-beyond-western-propaganda-on-the-great-leap-forwards-famine/
China’s Changing Population (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987), p. 304.
In a world where we are surrounded by capitalists and imperialists, we must be strong, resilient, rely on ourselves and strive to strengthen the state of Proletarian Dictatorship if we want socialism to survive. We have to suppress the bourgeoisie and its culture or else they will try and capture the minds of the proletariat and endeavour to stage a comeback.
Also, is ‘ungood’ some sort of meme I’m missing out of- I think it’s gong straight over my head, lol!
Fun fact, Taiwan itself is illegitimate because the KMT took over the island and has increasingly been edging out the natives there, thus making Taiwan a colonial state. It’s also funny how you bring them up considering how the Taiwanese government doesn’t want independence or self determinion, they want to regain control over all the former Qing territories. This isn’t some “ML propaganda either,” look it up on Wikipedia and see for yourself the territory the Republic of “China” claims to this day.
Taiwan Territorial claims:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/47hyit/taiwans_territorial_claims_oc_1600_x_1524/
also, please read history and understand that Macu and HK are most definitely China's. I find it funny that all the west has to do is colonize a place for a few decades, give it back and force their people to accept a deal which keeps colonial power structures in place, and then funds some protests to create a new "nation-state." This is literally like me kidnapping your children, raising them, and then giving them back to you under the condition that I get visiting rights, and then teaching them to fight against you and wreck your house and then run away...inevitably back to me. You see my line of thinking here? And you want the latter to happen, just because the original parent is now somehow not up to your standards.
Well guess what? It's not for you to decide xD. If these protests were legitimate, we'd be supporting them. But because they're so blatantly and obviously aiding US and western interests, we do not. A protest isn't always for something good. The protests in Charlottesville sought to take down the American government, but they were forces of white supremacy and thus illegitimate in representing the people. The protests in HK are funded directly or indirectly by the HK oligarchs and western think tanks, and thus illigitimate bc they're not the will of the people. It's just some college kids getting money to pay off their loans going out and violently protesting.
The shortsightedness of western privileged anarchists is truly quite astounding. HK and Macau were taken from China, and creating more borders and national divisions will not help socialism, it will actually divide the working class even further and make our movement even more divided. They also don't meet the definition of a nation. They're not some oppressed minority with a different history, culture, tradition, etc. They're mainly Han Chinese. Han Chinese who have been exposed to a system made by their former colonial master decades after they left.
I ask you, what would happen if all those entities you mentioned gained freedom? They're not going to magically start anarchism, they're most probably going to turn to the US for aid and become new puppets and footholds for the west in China. There is no third way or "we don't support either side" nonsense. It's either against the chief imperial power or against it. Not to mention as I said before, it will divide the working class even further. Nations and national boundaries are what the ruling class has used to separate us for far too long. If you can't see that, then you seriously need to better analyze a situation. It's not hard to see how much the ruling class benefits from these protests and a potential division between China and Hong Kong and the other entities above. All of them wouldn't be able to sustain themselves if they separated, and if they did then the powerful oligarchs within those nations (which the systems Britain and Portugal forced china to keep, systems they've tried to dismantle but with no success due to western funded protests like these), would just hand themselves over to the US. Alternatively, if somehow socialism prevails in these now hypothetically separated Chinese territories, the west would just crush them, mainly because they're likely not to get support from the CCP (which they'd likely demonize in this situation).
If you must understand why we're so fixated on the US, it's quite easy. The US Empire is the largest and most powerful entity right now. Not China, not Russia, not whoever the western media would like you to believe. If you dismantle the US' empire, you can free a lot of people from imperialism and thus allow them to fight against their own ruling classes and establish socialism. You'd free them from the risk of intervention and hijacking from the west. Something I never understood was the anarchist notion that all states are equally bad as if all states have equal power to inflict damage and oppression when this is clearly not the case. Zimbabwe is not as bad as Britain. Both are capitalist states, yes, but both are not equal in their ability to oppress. Not to mention, the former is being oppressed and used as labor by the latter. We cannot support anything that would add to the US' already highly powerful apparatus of production, even if they preach left-wing ideas.
Many Marxists and anarchists do not consider Rojava to be a Libertarian socialist society. Rojava itself has many characteristics of a state. Ranging from a highly ordered social movement and policing system to a system where power is essentially in the hands of the Kurdish Worker's Party. Not to mention there's a lot of issues with their women's movement being highly militant and enforcing strict gender protocols and behavioral codes, and their largely private economy. They're left-wing and socialist-oriented I suppose, but not an anarchist paradise by any means.
It's funny, you condemn MLs for supporting China bc we're supposedly enamored with the fact that they have a Communist Party, a red flag, and have the name and all that, and yet here you all are obsessing over Rojava because it's waving fancy LibSoc rhetoric around. Please, practice what you preach for once.
Marxists support Assad atm because the US has more power and has the largest and strongest ruling class. It is better for our movement to mitigate their influence first, and then move on to the other reactionary regimes. Assad is supported because once US influence is driven out, just like Iran, we can free the people up to carry out a revolution without foreign intervention. Look what happened in Russia as soon as the workers took power, the West went in and started a civil war and nearly ended socialism there. We learned from this and realized that until the most powerful imperialist nations are off the map, we cannot successfully carry out revolutions.
You also do realize how hypocritical you're being, right? Leftism itself is an us vs. them movement. It's literally oppressor vs. oppressed, state vs. people, capitalists vs. proletarians. Thinking within this way is good for the movement because that's what the movement was founded upon. If you actually read theory you'd get a better grasp of this...
Reality itself is dialectical and always a series of conflicts between opposing entities. We cannot hope to win if we cannot see reality in this way.
The United Kindom under Socialist Rule, Che triumphant, and Greatunion of soviet socialist republics
That Rojava/the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (the latter as I understand being the proper title they wish to be addressed by now) is "libertarian socialist" is absolutely not something everyone agrees with, including within libertarian socialist circles (see left communists like Dauve's rejection of the DFNS along with ultraleft anarchist critiques). I would say that it is socialist in aspiration at most as it constitutionally protects private property and the majority of production in the DFNS is in privately owned firms for exchange. I do not fault them for not establishing socialism in reality given the harsh conditions of war and the lack of development of productive forces in the areas they rule, but this standard does not seem to be held consistently on your part given your skepticism towards other socialist projects. If you dismiss the existence of private property in the DFNS as invalidating claims of them being socialist then why do you not do the same with China? Like with anarchists' fetishization of the Makhnovist project despite that folks like Voline, intimately involved with the Free Territory from its beginning to end, acknowledge didn't really establish socialism proper in the economic field (Voline if I recall correctly saying collectivization only went so far as to encompass around 100 families' farms), it seems you set a high bar for other socialist projects, calling them scum not worthy being called socialist at all, but are willing to just take others' word if they call themsleves anarchist/libsoc even when claims of achieving socialism on their part don't hold up to basic inquiry. It comes off as either willfully ignorant or boldly hypocritical.
Moreover, you're ironically getting into a sort of binary logic that you condemn others for in your refusal to acknowledge that a libertarian socialist project could be instrumentalized by the US regime or other imperialist powers (France, the UK, Saudi Arabia, and Israel to varying degrees have ties with the DFNS as well). Things are more complex than simply being a wholly virtuous libsoc project or an evil arm of the US imperialism. Legitimate, organic protests and movements can be distorted and directed towards malicious ends by reactionaries and outside forces; in the same way you may think of Marxists as fools who will rally behind anything with a red flag we see anarchists as liable to often just support any protest with little introspection or knowledge of said protest, something we saw pan out quite embarrassingly for many anarchists in places like Ukraine after their Euromaidan protests. This is something we (Marxists) have understood since Kronstadt and something that actually existing libsoc projects have had to grapple with as well (see the Makhnovists' kontrrazvedka and the DFNS' Asayish, both of which have suppressed organic working class movements to ensure their own security).
Regarding claims of libertarianism in the DFNS, I see it as likewise just an aspiration rather than reality. One of the most blatant examples of this disregard for libertarian ideals comes from last year when the YPG shot up shops that had closed during the general strike in Manbij against their rule. That they had a general strike against them (understood by many to be in response to the SDF's conscription policy [likewise something I think many would see as incompatible with libertarian ideals]) to begin with makes calling them libertarian sketchy and should demonstrate that their project has some serious issues going on. The shaky nature of their claimed libertarianism goes farther than this as I will get into further in this reply...
Bringing up the DFNS also undermines your own argument about China engaging in what Marxists would call national oppression. That you imply Rojava and Kurdistan are one in the same, a perception they in renaming themselves the DFNS are trying to get past, is a self-own on a couple different levels. What Kurdish nationalists generally consider encompassing "Kurdistan" stretches far beyond the territory the DFNS currently holds, going into Turkey, Iraq, and Iran as well. The simple existence of Iraqi Kurdistan for decades now should've been a tip there. This leads into one of the biggest critiques of the DFNS, their oppression of smaller minorities and nations like Assyrians, a cruel irony given the Kurdish peoples' own experiences with ethnic oppression. The DFNS has expanded far past majority Kurdish areas, moving into Arab majority parts of Syria that are skeptical of their rule to say the least (see massive protests against SDF rule in Raqqa) on the basis of military conquest. This is not just "tankie" propaganda, international liberal organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the same folks popularizing claims of Chinese oppression of Uighurs, have published claims of ethnic cleansing (also the use of child soldiers, arbitrary detentions, and more) by Syrian Kurds.
More than the shuttering of Assyrian schools recently or the suppression of non-PYD political organizations a couple years ago, the al-Shaitat tribe's desertion of the SDF due to racism they experienced really underscores the reality of the Kurd's oppression of other ethnic groups to me. The al-Shaitat were on the receiving end of likely the largest single massacre by ISIS, with around 700 people in the Abu Hamam area shot, beheaded, and crucified over three days during August 2014. There is no single Arab tribe in Syria in my opinion that had more justification to join military efforts against ISIS than the al-Shaitat, so for racism in the SDF to be so bad that they decided to sit out the fight says a lot. In the same way you bring up the spectre of vulgar Marxists or anti-imperialists (I don't know if these are people you actually encountered or just complete strawmans) I would mention here that I remember seeing many anarchist supporters of the DFNS on Twitter around the time of the al-Shaitat's desertion dismiss them as secret ISIS supporters, an offensive and arguably racist assertion that goes back to that binary logic you say you loathe. The DFNS puts out a lot of rhetoric trying to downplay this stuff, they try to ensure they have multiple ethnic groups (and women) represented in their local councils, but I regard this as tokenism that I take as seriously as you likely would if a Marxist brought up the extensive affirmative action programs for non-Han Chinese nations within China that they've had for decades.
I will finish this reply in noting that the territories you mention China oppressing are not all the same. Macau and Hong Kong are not separate nations from China, they are overwhelmingly made up of Han Chinese. A majority in these territories could or could not desire to be part of the PRC but that has no bearing on their status as separate nations. Their distinction from mainland China is a product of colonialism, Portuguese and British respectively, and I cannot see presenting them as separate nations as anything but a (conscious or otherwise) support for said colonial partitioning of China; you have made it crystal clear that you have chosen a side. I hate to get personal, but I do not believe your claims of being opposed to Western influence; I cannot recall seeing even the most tepid criticism of Western meddling abroad from you.
This is a public archive of information regarding the pro-democracy protests and riots that took place in Hong Kong starting in the summer of 2019. The purpose of this archive is to dispel the narratives of anti-Chinese media and organizations regarding these protests, and to expose the lies propagated by them, particularly regarding the reasons behind the protests, the alleged brutality of Hong Kong's police force against what are said to be wholly peaceful protests, and the scale of said protests.
The name of this page is a reference to the US-backed 'Orange revolution' in Ukraine in 2004, and a long string of American interference and coups in other countries since that have been nicknamed 'color revolutions'. As the articles and videos linked to this page show, there is plenty of evidence that some foreign power is supporting and fermenting the protests in Hong Kong.
This page is unanimously pro-China and does not pretend to be anything else; it is meant to serve as a voice for mainland China and to provide facts that are concealed or underreported by media outlets that are biased against China. All sources of information are biased, and the only difference is that this page does not hide this fact. On the contrary, we encourage any individuals who want to seriously study the protests to listen to a variety of sources from many different perspectives before forming a concrete opinion, and to cross-reference any information with the opposite camp. This page is only meant to record facts that are systematically ignored by anti-Chinese media, with the aim that it will be only one of the many sources that viewers will listen to rather than blindly trusting a specific narrative.
When this archive was first written, we tried to host it on Github, only for it to be shut down within a day of its conception without any explanation. After this experience of Microsoft's interpretation of American "freedom of speech", this repository was moved to alternative hosting websites. We sincerely hope that Bitbucket will have more integrity and be politically neutral enough to uphold the basic principles of freedom of speech which are too rare in the modern world.
https://bitbucket.org/TheCrypticMan/hong-kong-protests/wiki/2019%20attempted%20'Black%20Revolution'
Hitler didn’t kill people in the Holocaust because he thought they were inferior, although that was most definitely used as a justification just like Mao did against the crows, he genuinely believed they were a threat, that there was a grand Jewish conspiracy to bring down western “civilization” and pervert the youth and so on and so fourth, now of course this isn’t to try and justify what the nazis did more to point out that cartoonish evil, where people do bad things just for the sake of it, is something that belongs in cartoons and fiction not reality, everyone is the hero to their own story and everyone thinks their right
I’ll admit that I’m not an expert on this by any means but I’d be surprised if there weren’t some alternative to mass murder, particularly to the issue of them eating grain
Post self-deleted by Kaltionis.
He was a traitor to the working class and even the good that he did do is vastly overblown
This is a short piece by Grover Furr, probably the best historian out there as far as the Stalin period goes
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/gf_tatalk_bj16.pdf
And this is a larger work of his on the subject if you have time
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover%20Furr/Furr%20tortsky%20japan.pdf
The United Kindom under Socialist Rule and Greatunion of soviet socialist republics
good joke
Grain was a secondary thing; disease was primary, this was the public health campaign, after all. What about killing rats on ships because they carry disease? Was that bad too? What I wanted to say is they were paved in good intentions.
Furthermore, Mao is heavily criticised for disrespecting the environment, but he admired nature and kept the air clean and the scenery preserved. Deng’s factories polluted the air, destroyed the countryside all because “to get rich is glorious.”
But by that argument, purging those who have HIV/Aids/plague/tuberculosis/etc, is entirely justified on the grounds "that they carry disease".
Such programs can thus only be approved of if we accept the position that humans - and therefore human rights - are superior to all other members of the animal kingdom.
But if we do not accept this position, where do you draw the line - at what point does society decide an organism has the same rights to exist as a human?
Apparently comrade, so is the road do hell...
But humans can have the discipline to stop the spread, sparrows cannot. They don’t know what they’re doing, they defocate and urinate in the freshwater, etc
Hello!
The United Kindom under Socialist Rule and East ustya
Oh, really?
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV
Seems like humans are no better - look at the spread of syphilis in the 19th century. Or Cholera in the 3rd world. Or Bubonic Plague in middle ages Europe. Or Smallpox, or Typhoid.....
So do humans - which is why we still have cholera outbreaks, and why the river Ganges is not a good place to take a dip......
Alternatively, look at London/the river Thames prior to 1866.
Well Mao’s campaigns were accompanied by efforts to improve water quality and waste treatment, when ich led to dramatic reductions in the epidemic diseases of cholera, plague, and typhoid.
[quote=
I'm getting this Information from the people who moved to America...
So I don't know maybe it is
There is too much economic freedom in some of the regions of The Communist Bloc. Don't let those Bourgeois Pigs deceive you!
Oh aye gotcha :)
Do
If that was an effective way to reduce disease then why not do that instead of carrying out a mass killing of crows?
If your argument holds that crows had to be killed for the safety of the greater number then it's a different discussion, I'm a utilitarian and am fully willing to look at it through those lens, but if it wasn't necessary then it was just murder, and regardless it's a tragedy.
Not to sound overly harsh but I've heard that same exact argument used so many times by racists to justify sh*ting on poor people in India, people, human or nonhuman, will bathe and drink from wherever they can, and all humans bathed and drank primarily from rivers and streams for the mass majority of our history.
The other argument you presented also has some very ableist connotations, yes, some humans are better at controlling themselves as to prevent disease, but not all humans are, there are many disabilities that a human might have that would prevent that, and for those individuals we would try find some way to protect the people around them that doesn't involve killing them
«12. . .16,34916,35016,35116,35216,35316,35416,355. . .20,56020,561»
Advertisement
