wtry

I'm going to stop now because you've also been chasing your tail, not engaging with my arguments, but rather calling me a lib because I disagree with you. You would call Marx a lib if he were alive today. Also, why do you treat libs as people below you, have you not thought of the idea that this could be why they disagree with you?

Whether it prevents bourgeois propaganda or western propaganda, it's not worth it when the people aren't free. I also find it to be very opposite to Marx implying that the Chinese government wouldn't try to control their people if they could.

I haven't only read Wikipedia, I've read things such as interviews from former Chinese citizens saying that Google was banned, and on their search engine the tiennamen square never existed. Also, how is China becoming more communist? The government getting profits from wage-slavery isn't becoming more communist, it's becoming the center of capitalism. Even if the government weren't making direct profits from wage-labor, they still make profits from things like taxes and corporations buying land. When the government is making profits from capitalism, they won't go socialist.

I'm not trying to own you. I'm trying to get a meaningful argument which isn't me being talked about as an animal.

Again, I do not argue for capitalism, I agree with Stalin on this quote. I'm saying that I can go into whatever forum I want, and say that Joe Biden is committing genocide, and I don't disappear, I don't "kill myself" in my hotel room. I'm not defending capitalism, as I am a communist. The condition in which the worker lives is irreconcilable the universal liberty, however if China is socialism, in terms of liberty, they would be the same. I believe that socialism could be so much better. I believe that China could be so much better and it will be someday. But the state will not allow it.

I personally view it as that if you can't allow people to see other viewpoints, then material conditions don't matter. As John Stuart Mill said in On Liberty, the person's ability to choose for themself is more important than an alleged better living condition. Furthermore, I see that if China were so much better, they would let their people see the alternative. By not letting their people see something they allege is worse, they prove it is better.

Is it that hard to not treat me as if you're a natgeo narrator. You're not debunking the libs by not engaging with them, you just alienate your comrades who don't agree with you on everything.

I don't get how it's controversial to say that communists are not the majority of people, and therefore can't act on our own. If we were an established party and didn't need liberals, I wouldn't be saying that we should work with liberals. But if we alienate ourselves from liberals and vote for our own candidates, who won't win due to our small membership, it will be the right that wins, thereby pushing our progress back.

Ah, I didn't see it at first. Thank you!

Have you not heard of the great firewall. Do you think Nike and iPhone factories are coops? Furthermore genocide does not explicitly have to be killing civilians. Xi did things such as forcefully reeducate children, force Muslims to eat pork, and forcefully sterilize them, thereby making them and their culture die out. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China

It really also gets annoying to me that you call them out of context, but don't give context.

First, I am a communist. Second, I'm not victim blaming, I'm saying that we can't attain any progress in a democracy if we dont work with liberals, as we dont have have the number. I'm not saying "become liberal", I'm saying that we need to work within a big teny party to attain power. While I do disagree with you, both as an ML and your specific viewpoint, I will not deny that I'd rather have communists I disagree with than the us' spiral into fascism.

Also, you shouldn't complain about sourcing your arguments. Even if you're not arguing with me, you will argue with other people who, whether you're correct or incorrect, will demand sources.