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.
Do you mean the lies about a genocide? Please be specific.
Do I speak with the Chinese government?
You certainly sound like someone brainwashed by the Chinese government…
I don’t think I need to be specific, there’s a lot of independent journalism about that topic (not lies…), I’m not even sure I can link specific proofs, that may be blocked by the great (fire)wall of China…
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
So what is not true about that for China? I think the definition for this particular political system is rather clear.
Less so for fascism, although I’d describe China as having a lot of tendencies to fulfill that term as well (like nationalism, dictatorship, autocracy etc.)
I am happy in China.
Good for you, I honestly would also prefer China currently to what monstrosity is emerging in the US, and yes also Europe is not entirely protected from this monster… Yet e.g. I’m free to swear or make fun about our political leadership (publicly, which often enough happened even with state-funded television), which I think is not true for China (without consequences…)
Not a strong start. You open by implying that if someone disagrees with you on this they must either be part of the Chinese government or “brainwashed.” That’s chauvinism. People here are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. And if you have proof for your claims you are welcome to post it. Most people who are online regularly have VPNs anyway and even many who aren’t regularly too. What tends to happen in these discussions, though, is that the same small circle of sources gets recycled, often tracing back to figures like Adrian Zenz(evangelical on self proclaimed mission from god to destroy china), Rushan Abbas(Guantanamo bay torturer and pretend activist), and outlets like Radio Free Asia.
It is also worth noting that major international bodies have not formally classified the situation as genocide. The United Nations has raised concerns about human rights abuses but has not declared a genocide. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, representing dozens of Muslim-majority countries, has not described it that way either. That does not mean nothing problematic happened. During the crackdown on ETIM after the numerous attacks there were clearly heavy-handed policies and abuses. But there is still no credible evidence that meets the legal definition of genocide.
If the standard being applied is simply “serious abuses carried out by the state,” then that label would have to be applied much more broadly. By that logic you could argue the United States is committing genocide against African Americans through decades of structural abuse in policing and incarceration. Practices like dragnet policing and mass surveillance have produced enormous harm. Yet most people understand that this still does not meet the legal threshold for genocide, which is exactly why the distinction matters.
You quoted the definition of authoritarianism from Wikipedia. By that definition a very large portion of the world would qualify, including most Western states in one form or another. Centralized power, limits on certain kinds of political activity, and institutions designed to preserve the political order exist almost everywhere. When a label becomes broad enough to describe nearly every state operating in a world structured by power and class conflict, it stops being analytically useful. Terms like “authoritarian” much like “regime”, (as I tried to illustrate already) are often used as political shorthand for governments that oppose Western geopolitical interests (often with racial undertones).
You also seem to assume that people in China cannot criticize politics or joke about leaders. That is simply not accurate. People complain about policies, argue about politics, and make jokes about officials all the time. The idea that political discussion just does not exist here is a caricature that mostly survives outside the country. If you ever spend real time here and actually talk to ordinary people about politics, you will see very quickly that the reality is far more complex than the version usually presented abroad.
That’s chauvinism. People here are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.
Seemingly not, there’s a lot of evidence that what’s happening in Xinjiang are not “lies”… And that is certainly not chauvinism. Or well I don’t want to deny that you are thinking for yourself, but when a lot of relevant variables/info is missing than the conclusion of the thought is well incomplete (and thus incorrect).
Most people who are online regularly have VPNs anyway and even many who aren’t regularly too
I mean the necessity for that alone is proof to me that china is authoritarian, I cannot imagine having to use a VPN for basic things, like accessing something like the Wikipedia (great loss for you btw. it’s probably one of the greatest things that the internet has brought so far, not all the capitalistic bullshit that the Silicon Valley creates)
It is also worth noting that major international bodies have not formally classified the situation as genocide. The United Nations has raised concerns about human rights abuses but has not declared a genocide. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, representing dozens of Muslim-majority countries, has not described it that way either. That does not mean nothing problematic happened. During the crackdown on ETIM after the numerous attacks there were clearly heavy-handed policies and abuses. But there is still no credible evidence that meets the legal definition of genocide.
I think it’s fairly interesting how much you want to protect this, I wouldn’t mince matters anyhow if something close happens within our system, and I hope a lot of other people wouldn’t too, not even because it wouldn’t be correct, but just to put pressure on the political leadership, such that they know that they don’t get away with this easily, because often there’s some truth to it when there’s a lot of evidence (and well there certainly is for the case of Uyghurs…).
By that logic you could argue the United States is committing genocide against African Americans through decades of structural abuse in policing and incarceration.
Yes I do argue that, you cannot imagine how disgusted everyone around here (in my social circle) is about what is currently happening to the US. It’s really sad, in what speed they drag into the mud… MAGAts are really viewed as scum here, I cannot stop shaking my head about the stupidity of a lot of people in the US…
I definitely don’t defend the US, I honestly would like to cut ties basically yesterday (although geostrategically that puts europe between multiple fronts, but I think it’s worth it non the less, to be independent of this sad development).
including most Western states in one form or another.
While I agree, that most of our democracies are not perfect (European/EU, the US is basically fascism at this point), they basically all allow political plurality, well lets start even by democracy… Rule of law is independent of the executive (separation of powers), nah the more I get into it the less I agree with that…
That is simply not accurate. People complain about policies, argue about politics, and make jokes about officials all the time.
Can they do that with state funded TV, like Winnie the pooh (funny story btw. that your great leader is so offended by that caricature…)?
Seemingly not, there’s a lot of evidence that what’s happening in Xinjiang are not “lies”… And that is certainly not chauvinism. Or well I don’t want to deny that you are thinking for yourself, but when a lot of relevant variables/info is missing than the conclusion of the thought is well incomplete (and thus incorrect).
If you read my post you’d see I know there were abuses but characterising it as a genocide is a lie built on lies and exaggerations of those abuses.
I mean the necessity for that alone is proof to me that china is authoritarian, I cannot imagine having to use a VPN for basic things, like accessing something like the Wikipedia (great loss for you btw. it’s probably one of the greatest things that the internet has brought so far, not all the capitalistic bullshit that the Silicon Valley creates)
The firewall was originally created to foster and protect China’s fledgling digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. That was a legitimate policy choice. Many countries regulate foreign platforms and data flows. China built its own ecosystem instead of depending on foreign companies. We have seen what happens when foreign platforms operate without local oversight: Facebook facilitating genocide in Myanmar, coordinated anti-vax disinformation campaigns in Southeast Asia, algorithm-driven radicalization. The firewall makes those kinds of external influence operations harder to run at scale.
I like many others here support the firewall even though it can be inconvenient (so long as vpns remain accessible and legal). I have seen the alternatives. The trade off makes sense to us.
Also fuck Wikipedia it constantly sites bullshit like RFA and is used by American intelligence to run psyops. If you use it as a source for anything outside of scientific facts like the atomic number of an element you’re an idiot.
Pointing out genocide is distinct from abuse is bad
You do realise if you call all abuses genocide you’re not only diluting the term genocide but also slinging mud on the real grievances of people?
While I agree, that most of our democracies are not perfect (European/EU, the US is basically fascism at this point), they basically all allow political plurality, well lets start even by democracy… Rule of law is independent of the executive (separation of powers), nah the more I get into it the less I agree with that
So you agree it applies to pretty much every country? And again can see how that makes it largely meaningless?
Can they do that with state funded TV, like Winnie the pooh (funny story btw. that your great leader is so offended by that caricature…)?
Why do you need TV to agree with you? Are you incapable of having independant political discussion with people in your country without the TV telling you what to think? Also Winnie the pooh isn’t banned Winnie the Pooh merch is all over the place it’s super popular. Not to mention Disneyland and it’s Winnie the pooh themed areas. What was banned was platforms regulating the spread of a racist caricature in the same way they do all other racist caricatures because social media harm is actually regulated here as opposed to allowed run rampant for profits sake.
Are you incapable of having independant political discussion with people in your country without the TV telling you what to think?
Eh?? This was just an example of the “freedom” that we have here, I for instance don’t watch any TV. I try to avoid any influence that I don’t chose (e.g. I block any ad, I don’t want to be influenced without my consent, reality is more difficult I know).
Also fuck Wikipedia it constantly sites bullshit like RFA and is used by American intelligence to run psyops. If you use it as a source for anything outside of scientific facts like the atomic number of an element you’re an idiot.
So you agree it applies to pretty much every country? And again can see how that makes it largely meaningless?
I like many others here support the firewall even though it can be inconvenient (so long as vpns remain accessible and legal). I have seen the alternatives. The trade off makes sense to us.
(I’ve got a different view from other chinese people…)
Ok, I think we’ve talked enough.
Live a happy life in your echo-chamber.
I cannot fathom protecting some kind of central authority (I’m anarchist), whether it’s european, american or chinese. When there’s something that wants to regulate/restrict me for stuff that doesn’t hurt society than I’m openly against it (hell, I would even consider myself communist, but like the real thing (which IMO includes anarchism), not centralized/authoritarian bullshit, which in reality seems difficult to achieve, but here we are in an imperfect world with imperfect political systems)
What’s the irony? That I don’t want to talk with people who are obviously “influenced” by Authoritarianism?
I consider myself fairly educated about the political state of the world (if you mean the echo-chamber stuff…), unlike a lot of people on this instance. As you might have read in my comments, but AFAIK I recognize you as well as tankie, so…
I’ve honestly forgotten how full of tankies this instance actually is… (once it was just “left” with slight tankie influences, but now, oh boy…)
No you’re a child. You refuse to analyse class power, material conditions and the reality of the world. You prefer the much easier option of just condemning everything short of utopian flat society instantly. You should stop giving anarchists a bad name.
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,
Oh, the old debunked “Uyghur genocide”. American propaganda really needs to become creative
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.
Do I speak with the Chinese government?
You certainly sound like someone brainwashed by the Chinese government… I don’t think I need to be specific, there’s a lot of independent journalism about that topic (not lies…), I’m not even sure I can link specific proofs, that may be blocked by the great (fire)wall of China…
Taking the first sentence from the Wiki:
So what is not true about that for China? I think the definition for this particular political system is rather clear. Less so for fascism, although I’d describe China as having a lot of tendencies to fulfill that term as well (like nationalism, dictatorship, autocracy etc.)
Good for you, I honestly would also prefer China currently to what monstrosity is emerging in the US, and yes also Europe is not entirely protected from this monster… Yet e.g. I’m free to swear or make fun about our political leadership (publicly, which often enough happened even with state-funded television), which I think is not true for China (without consequences…)
Not a strong start. You open by implying that if someone disagrees with you on this they must either be part of the Chinese government or “brainwashed.” That’s chauvinism. People here are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. And if you have proof for your claims you are welcome to post it. Most people who are online regularly have VPNs anyway and even many who aren’t regularly too. What tends to happen in these discussions, though, is that the same small circle of sources gets recycled, often tracing back to figures like Adrian Zenz(evangelical on self proclaimed mission from god to destroy china), Rushan Abbas(Guantanamo bay torturer and pretend activist), and outlets like Radio Free Asia.
It is also worth noting that major international bodies have not formally classified the situation as genocide. The United Nations has raised concerns about human rights abuses but has not declared a genocide. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, representing dozens of Muslim-majority countries, has not described it that way either. That does not mean nothing problematic happened. During the crackdown on ETIM after the numerous attacks there were clearly heavy-handed policies and abuses. But there is still no credible evidence that meets the legal definition of genocide.
If the standard being applied is simply “serious abuses carried out by the state,” then that label would have to be applied much more broadly. By that logic you could argue the United States is committing genocide against African Americans through decades of structural abuse in policing and incarceration. Practices like dragnet policing and mass surveillance have produced enormous harm. Yet most people understand that this still does not meet the legal threshold for genocide, which is exactly why the distinction matters.
You quoted the definition of authoritarianism from Wikipedia. By that definition a very large portion of the world would qualify, including most Western states in one form or another. Centralized power, limits on certain kinds of political activity, and institutions designed to preserve the political order exist almost everywhere. When a label becomes broad enough to describe nearly every state operating in a world structured by power and class conflict, it stops being analytically useful. Terms like “authoritarian” much like “regime”, (as I tried to illustrate already) are often used as political shorthand for governments that oppose Western geopolitical interests (often with racial undertones).
You also seem to assume that people in China cannot criticize politics or joke about leaders. That is simply not accurate. People complain about policies, argue about politics, and make jokes about officials all the time. The idea that political discussion just does not exist here is a caricature that mostly survives outside the country. If you ever spend real time here and actually talk to ordinary people about politics, you will see very quickly that the reality is far more complex than the version usually presented abroad.
Seemingly not, there’s a lot of evidence that what’s happening in Xinjiang are not “lies”… And that is certainly not chauvinism. Or well I don’t want to deny that you are thinking for yourself, but when a lot of relevant variables/info is missing than the conclusion of the thought is well incomplete (and thus incorrect).
I mean the necessity for that alone is proof to me that china is authoritarian, I cannot imagine having to use a VPN for basic things, like accessing something like the Wikipedia (great loss for you btw. it’s probably one of the greatest things that the internet has brought so far, not all the capitalistic bullshit that the Silicon Valley creates)
I think it’s fairly interesting how much you want to protect this, I wouldn’t mince matters anyhow if something close happens within our system, and I hope a lot of other people wouldn’t too, not even because it wouldn’t be correct, but just to put pressure on the political leadership, such that they know that they don’t get away with this easily, because often there’s some truth to it when there’s a lot of evidence (and well there certainly is for the case of Uyghurs…).
Yes I do argue that, you cannot imagine how disgusted everyone around here (in my social circle) is about what is currently happening to the US. It’s really sad, in what speed they drag into the mud… MAGAts are really viewed as scum here, I cannot stop shaking my head about the stupidity of a lot of people in the US…
I definitely don’t defend the US, I honestly would like to cut ties basically yesterday (although geostrategically that puts europe between multiple fronts, but I think it’s worth it non the less, to be independent of this sad development).
While I agree, that most of our democracies are not perfect (European/EU, the US is basically fascism at this point), they basically all allow political plurality, well lets start even by democracy… Rule of law is independent of the executive (separation of powers), nah the more I get into it the less I agree with that…
Can they do that with state funded TV, like Winnie the pooh (funny story btw. that your great leader is so offended by that caricature…)?
If you read my post you’d see I know there were abuses but characterising it as a genocide is a lie built on lies and exaggerations of those abuses.
The firewall was originally created to foster and protect China’s fledgling digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. That was a legitimate policy choice. Many countries regulate foreign platforms and data flows. China built its own ecosystem instead of depending on foreign companies. We have seen what happens when foreign platforms operate without local oversight: Facebook facilitating genocide in Myanmar, coordinated anti-vax disinformation campaigns in Southeast Asia, algorithm-driven radicalization. The firewall makes those kinds of external influence operations harder to run at scale.
I like many others here support the firewall even though it can be inconvenient (so long as vpns remain accessible and legal). I have seen the alternatives. The trade off makes sense to us.
Also fuck Wikipedia it constantly sites bullshit like RFA and is used by American intelligence to run psyops. If you use it as a source for anything outside of scientific facts like the atomic number of an element you’re an idiot.
You do realise if you call all abuses genocide you’re not only diluting the term genocide but also slinging mud on the real grievances of people?
So you agree it applies to pretty much every country? And again can see how that makes it largely meaningless?
Why do you need TV to agree with you? Are you incapable of having independant political discussion with people in your country without the TV telling you what to think? Also Winnie the pooh isn’t banned Winnie the Pooh merch is all over the place it’s super popular. Not to mention Disneyland and it’s Winnie the pooh themed areas. What was banned was platforms regulating the spread of a racist caricature in the same way they do all other racist caricatures because social media harm is actually regulated here as opposed to allowed run rampant for profits sake.
Eh?? This was just an example of the “freedom” that we have here, I for instance don’t watch any TV. I try to avoid any influence that I don’t chose (e.g. I block any ad, I don’t want to be influenced without my consent, reality is more difficult I know).
(I’ve got a different view from other chinese people…)
Ok, I think we’ve talked enough.
Live a happy life in your echo-chamber.
I cannot fathom protecting some kind of central authority (I’m anarchist), whether it’s european, american or chinese. When there’s something that wants to regulate/restrict me for stuff that doesn’t hurt society than I’m openly against it (hell, I would even consider myself communist, but like the real thing (which IMO includes anarchism), not centralized/authoritarian bullshit, which in reality seems difficult to achieve, but here we are in an imperfect world with imperfect political systems)
How do you post this without realizing the irony?
What’s the irony? That I don’t want to talk with people who are obviously “influenced” by Authoritarianism?
I consider myself fairly educated about the political state of the world (if you mean the echo-chamber stuff…), unlike a lot of people on this instance. As you might have read in my comments, but AFAIK I recognize you as well as tankie, so…
I’ve honestly forgotten how full of tankies this instance actually is… (once it was just “left” with slight tankie influences, but now, oh boy…)
No you’re a child. You refuse to analyse class power, material conditions and the reality of the world. You prefer the much easier option of just condemning everything short of utopian flat society instantly. You should stop giving anarchists a bad name.