You’re on lemmy.ml psst they really like chinese authoritarian oppression. (and I’m being honest given the current state and future of the US they’re probably better off indeed, but that doesn’t make them good)
I like it when the working classes in China wield the state against capitalists and fascists, and to ensure that social surplus is directed towards social ends above all else.
Enough to be very sure that my statement is correct. Just the keyword “Uyghurs” should be enough as a point.
I don’t think I have to explain Authoritarianism? Do I?
I have a few friends that migrated from China so I know a fair bit about it. It’s not as bad as the western propaganda machine (I think at this point you can certainly call it like that) tries to sell it, but I still rather like to live in Europe,
What do you think is happening in Xinjiang? Do you mean the lies about a genocide? Please be specific.
You are treating “authoritarian” as a special category of state. That is simply untrue. Every state is an instrument of organized authority. A state exists precisely to enforce the rule of a particular social order. Laws, police, prisons, intelligence agencies, and armies are not neutral features. They are mechanisms through which the dominant class secures its position and suppresses forces that threaten it. In that sense every state in a class society must act “authoritarian,” because it must compel obedience and defend the structure that produced it. The label therefore functions less as a meaningful description and more as a moral signal. Governments aligned with Western power are described with neutral language such as “government,” while adversaries are cast as “authoritarian” or reduced to the “regime” of a rival country. China becomes “authoritarian China,” Iran becomes the “Iranian regime,” yet the United States is rarely framed through the same lens even when its institutions exercise clear coercive authority, whether through domestic repression such as COINTELPRO or the routine enforcement of property and political order. The distinction therefore obscures the basic reality that all states rest on organized force. What changes from place to place is not the presence of authority but the historical conditions and social interests that direct it.
I still rather like to live in Europe,
And that’s your right like it is mine to say I would never want to live in any of the imperial core nations especially not at this moment in time where austerity and fascism is coming home to them as imperialism declines and the contradictions of capitalism are heightening. I am happy in China.
You’re on lemmy.ml psst they really like chinese authoritarian oppression. (and I’m being honest given the current state and future of the US they’re probably better off indeed, but that doesn’t make them good)
I like it when the working classes in China wield the state against capitalists and fascists, and to ensure that social surplus is directed towards social ends above all else.
What do you actually know about China?
“authoritarian oppression” entirely meaningless when stripped of context.
Enough to be very sure that my statement is correct. Just the keyword “Uyghurs” should be enough as a point.
I don’t think I have to explain Authoritarianism? Do I?
I have a few friends that migrated from China so I know a fair bit about it. It’s not as bad as the western propaganda machine (I think at this point you can certainly call it like that) tries to sell it, but I still rather like to live in Europe,
What do you think is happening in Xinjiang? Do you mean the lies about a genocide? Please be specific.
You are treating “authoritarian” as a special category of state. That is simply untrue. Every state is an instrument of organized authority. A state exists precisely to enforce the rule of a particular social order. Laws, police, prisons, intelligence agencies, and armies are not neutral features. They are mechanisms through which the dominant class secures its position and suppresses forces that threaten it. In that sense every state in a class society must act “authoritarian,” because it must compel obedience and defend the structure that produced it. The label therefore functions less as a meaningful description and more as a moral signal. Governments aligned with Western power are described with neutral language such as “government,” while adversaries are cast as “authoritarian” or reduced to the “regime” of a rival country. China becomes “authoritarian China,” Iran becomes the “Iranian regime,” yet the United States is rarely framed through the same lens even when its institutions exercise clear coercive authority, whether through domestic repression such as COINTELPRO or the routine enforcement of property and political order. The distinction therefore obscures the basic reality that all states rest on organized force. What changes from place to place is not the presence of authority but the historical conditions and social interests that direct it.
And that’s your right like it is mine to say I would never want to live in any of the imperial core nations especially not at this moment in time where austerity and fascism is coming home to them as imperialism declines and the contradictions of capitalism are heightening. I am happy in China.