If nationalization is scandalous violence for you, let me say I want him to get the french treatment.

China doesn’t pretend that their media is unbiased, though. There’s no aura of unbiased media in China.

What they “pretend” to be doesn’t matter, what matters is the thoughts they want to put on the people who read it, why they want to, and how many of them do read it. Any and all state media or state collaborative media tries to paint the state it comes from in a good light. This is not somehow more benevolent or less manipulative when it’s done by China, even if “it’s easy to circumvent” or “people know it’s biased”.

Meanwhile, Facebook’s head of global threat intelligence, is literally a US intelligence plant

According to its CEO and founder Ren, Huawei’s corporate culture is the same as the culture of the CCP, “and to serve the people wholeheartedly means to be customer-centric and responsible to society.” Ren frequently states that Huawei’s management philosophy and strategy are commercial applications of Maoism.

Ren states that in the event of a conflict between Huawei’s business interests and the CCP’s interests, he would “choose the CCP whose interest is to serve the people and all human beings”. Qiao and Marquis observe that company founder Ren is a dedicated communist who seeks to ingrain communist values at Huawei.

I wonder if WeChat and TikTok are any different, too.

Bing has 100 million DAUs worldwide. Reddit has about 55 million DAUs worldwide. LinkedIn has about 22 million DAUs in the US. Twitter has about 54 million MAUs in the US. Threads has about 8 million DAUs worldwide (though probably less now, lol). 1-5% penetration of total users in terms of usage is indicative of very high awareness.

Last October, China clamped down on some VPNs

So basically, it’s easy to do, but illegal, but it’s rarely persecuted? That’s a really weird policy.

No it’s not. Much like you aren’t a CPC shill/russian bot/whatever, no one commenting on a lemmy post is a psyop agent with a secret agenda to manipulate everyone. Those guys have the entire media, they don’t need to hire people to pretend to be redditors. Just because you believe it really really hardly doesn’t make it true.

That was also the day we realized how much nicer C was to C++

Absolutely. I went through a whole process of using less and less C++isms that everyone was recommending me as they just made everything so much harder, longer to compile, produce more unreadable errors, harder to organize… Until I eventually was just writing C but structs have functions.

Then I moved to Rust and I have not looked back.

How in the world did they think no one would notice? Aren’t they a tech savvy company?

I get what you mean, but the other guy brought up democracy as if it was the be-all end-all solution.

Yes. No democracy, no support from me. “But the US isn’t democratic!” Which is why I don’t support it either. Not sure if the other guy is the same.

Countries that disprove OP’s point about democracy being the solution

No country disproves that democracy is needed. “Benevolent dictators” (all dictators think they’re benevolent) die. If you think a dictatorship is doing well just give it a few years.

most urban people either know how to flip the firewall or know someone who can - it’s really not that hard.

“Yes they censor everything, but it’s easy to circumvent!” is not an excuse. How accurate is this really though? Do you have any sources to prove this is the case? Genuinely interested.

As if the large media organizations in the US don’t all cite reports from “independent think tanks” that are conspicuously all funded by the same billionaires and manned by “ex”-US intelligence.

Chinese news cite chinese think tanks, both entities funded by the chinese government. How is it any different? Doesn’t China have more billionaires than the US too?

followed by USA/capitalism works best and is only system that works (does not)

Neither me not the person you were responding to said this. They criticised China on something - you made up the “hence the US is good/only thing that works” line. You just assumed if anyone thinks anything slightly remotely bad about China it’s because they’re an evil idiot liberul!!!. It really is just a reflex for you people no?

It’s not about brains, it’s about the flow of conversation. Everytime someone calls out China on anything there’s always a bunch of people that immediately say “Ah yes because the US–” No one is talking about the US. No one is saying it’s any better. It being a shithole too doesn’t magically make China not one. If that is the only thing you have to say then you don’t actually have an argument, just the vibe that it’s le based epic AES wholesome chungus country and if they do anything wrong it must be propaganda or not actually done by them.

This not an argument. You can’t respond to “X is doing something wrong” with “OH AS IF Y IS ANY BETTER” when literally no one was talking about Y. You’re just trying to derail the conversation. If you’re going to defend China stick to your guts and defend China, don’t attack completely unrelated countries implying I must think they’re any better, they’re not.

At least most people in Russia and China can distinguish between the truth and the party line.

I am sure that most people in the country with the largest censorship firewall in existence know the truth any better. And before you say B-B-B-BUT AMERICA— Yeah they censor shit too. I hate both of them.

So… no, you don’t have an actual point to make.

Yes yes we know America is bad too, now do you have an actual point to make?

Vote with your wallet

When are we going to finally accept that this is nothing but a delusion? How many failed boycotts over and over will it take?

I’ve seen countless times of things we need being completely ignored by the system. When it’s inconvenient enough it will simply never get passed. We can fight for it, and win, but if the same system remains in place, once again, what we won was a concession that can and will be taken away at the nearest chance. You showing me an example of a rich youtuber followed by millions of people being able to do it doesn’t change what the situation is like for regular people like you and me. You can do both if you want to, just don’t think emailing a bunch of rich aristocrats is going to ever have a reasonable chance of being meaningful. Seriously, if you want to make real change, join an org.

Also, “extremism” just means things that go against the status quo. It’s not a synonym for “bad”.

I didn’t ignore it. I said what we achieve working within the system is a temporal concession and thus it’s not actually a reliable and deep change. It’s good, but it shouldn’t be the only thing we do.

I’m not being defeatist at all. Quite on the contrary, I’m telling you to fight.

My point is that fighting within the system never works. Everything we achieve that way eventually gets taken away from us. As long as the ruling class is still in power, they simply benefit the most from granting us as little as possible, and so they will always search for ways to do just that, and to take away things they previously granted us if they think we wont be threatening enough to take them back.

That’s why I am saying, do not hire lobbyists or email politicians or something. Or if you do, make sure it’s not the only thing you do. Join an org. Join an union, a party, a syndicate, organize. That is what has brought, brings and will bring real change. Fight against the system.

This is beside your point, but Lenin is pretty clear about smashing the state machinery and replacing it. You said you read State and Rev, right?

Yes, I feel like I’m just being terrible at expressing myself, I’m sorry.

If you want to talk about them, talk about them, but when discussing the Soviets and CPC and their supporters, there is no need to hedge our language to include the idiosyncratic theorizing of a five-member book club/gaming club in a run-down coffee shop in exurban Milwaukee.

I just don’t agree. I don’t think we should discard or ignore ideals simply because they aren’t very popular. It’s not like it’s a massive effort to do so, you just have to say a word instead of another.

Pretending that classical Marxists still exist and matter, I did volunteer that you simply say “Marxist” and you ignored that too

Marxist could probably work, but when we’re talking about revolutionary strategy, as I’ve said before, there are massive differences between kinds of marxists. “Statist” the way I use it describes the specific part about the strategy I mean so I’m not excluding or generalizing anything.

This feels like definition wars. I am aware marxists believe in the destruction of the state in the end, but it doesn’t change that they advocate for a revolution that takes control of the state and keeps using it. That to me is statism, the strategy. I don’t really use it to mean “the belief in a state” because the only ideology against the state is anarchism, so I just say not-anarchists or archists.

Are we talking about appeasing r/polcompmemes and HoI4 modding forums or actual political movements?

They are political movements, they’re just very niche and small. I don’t see why I have to pretend they don’t exist just because of that though.

This is also, again, completely sidestepping the point that Marx is on my side here, not just Lenin.

Never claimed he wasn’t. I’m saying there are people who follow marxism and want socialism with methods and endgoals that have nothing to do with Lenin so calling any leftist who believes in a transitional state ML or tankie is just a lazy generalization that I don’t see why I should use when statist is a perfectly fine word to me, you disagree with my use of it but you understand what I mean when I do so either way, no?

transitional state is necessary in order for there to be a successful stateless society

So they want a state??

Also, my problem with just saying “ML” or “Marxist” is that there are plently of libertarian socialist that reject basically all Leninism, yet what they propose instead is a state too. Vastly different from ML states, but a state nonetheless. Therefore “statist leftists” is a better catch all term than “leftists who advocate for a transitional state” because that’s just a mouthful.

A lot of people make the claim that individualist anarchism is right wing because they just don’t know what it’s actually about and think it’s some kind of philosophical anarcho-capitalism. But I’ve never met someone who read Renzo Novatore and thought he was right wing at all. Edgy? Extremely so. Kinda dumb? Honestly I think so too. But right wing as in in favour of the reaction and the capitalist class, no way.

What is one supposed to call leftists who advocate for a state if not statists?