• space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dissent is limited to disagreeing on where the bus shelter should be built, not the fundamental direction of the country.

    You mean exactly like in the West? What do you think would happen if a western country tried to elect a communist party in charge? You really think that particular transfer of power would be peaceful?

    The dominant ideology in power will try to stay in power by all means necessary, that includes both marxism and liberalism. This is why marxist socialist states are one party states because they don’t shy away from this truth unlike the liberal west.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This isn’t really what I’m trying to get at.

      In the West, you can be a communist, a fascist, or anything else. You can try to make a career in politics if you want and you might even succeed depending on where you are.

      There are elected members of Congress in the USA who propose the country be divided up and dissolved. There are elected members of state legislatures that propose independence. In the UK, a pro-independence Scottish nationalist party controls the office of the First Minister of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. There are plenty of republicans in the UK parliament that want to abolish the monarchy. In Japan, there is a Communist Party that aims to establish a socialist order through electoralism. They’ve watered down their positions in recent years but they’re still there, just not that politically successful.

      All of these positions would be regarded as sedition in China and suppressed. There are zero elected members of the National People’s Congress who would (publicly) support Taiwanese, Tibetan, or Hong Kong independence. People in Hong Kong (including members of the Legislative Council) have been prosecuted under national security laws for advocating for Hong Kong’s independence. Booksellers who sell books about the topic have mysteriously disappeared only to reappear a few months later in police custody in Mainland China.

      You are correct that all political systems try to preserve their own existence. But the difference is that in China, dissenting opinions on the matter by people in power are not tolerated and will be prosecuted as sedition. In a liberal democracy, the worst that happens is social ostracisation. This is what makes liberal democracy liberal. A system that doesn’t espouse these liberties is illiberal.

      I’m not going to respond to any more comments here, because it seems that few people on Hexbear are actual socialists, but rather just knee-jerkingly defend any country that claims to be socialist regardless of whether they are. China largely isn’t a socialist country any more and hasn’t been since Mao died. Even the collective farms in rural areas are dying out. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is a bullshit term because the “Chinese characteristics” added are just capitalism. If you only characterise political systems as “socialist” or “liberal”, and conclude that an illiberal system must be socialist and therefore good, it is not only extremely naïve but a disservice to the socialist cause.

      • space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In a liberal democracy, the worst that happens is social ostracisation.

        You sure about that?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

        Similar shit happened in Europe during the cold war too, to a lesser extent maybe. But no, the worst isn’t just “social ostracisation”, it’s being actively persecuted by the state, up to and including assassination if you make too much noise.

        You’re right that liberal states tolerate dissenting speech a bit more, what they don’t tolerate at all though is you taking action in accordance with your dissenting political beliefs.

        I’m not going to respond to any more comments here, because it seems that few people on Hexbear are actual socialists, but rather just knee-jerkingly defend any country that claims to be socialist regardless of whether they are. China largely isn’t a socialist country any more and hasn’t been since Mao died. Even the collective farms in rural areas are dying out. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is a bullshit term because the “Chinese characteristics” added are just capitalism. If you only characterise political systems as “socialist” or “liberal”, and conclude that an illiberal system must be socialist and therefore good, it is not only extremely naïve but a disservice to the socialist cause.

        I’ve heard this opinion a lot but I remain unconvinced, it’s pretty obvious to me the CPC has a much much stronger grip on the country’s economy than your average western liberal party in charge. What do you say to the arguments presented in this article? https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

      • zephyreks [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s, to a large degree, who you’re responding to. You have to understand that many people on this platform are from the US and the US has enough issues that any alternative looks pretty good.

        I’d disagree on the premise that contrarian views are somehow more feasible in the US (in other liberal democracies, sure: see the Quebec referendum in Canada). Through a system of backdoors in social media platforms and control over American media’s sources, the US is able to make sure that dissent is basically unable to grow into a problem. While it’s a different approach than forbidding it entirely, it achieves the same goal because dissenters will always be considered fringe groups, thus defeating the point of it being a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy is not somehow part liberal and part democracy: it describes how the two halves are combined. A liberal democracy should not only allow for these fringe groups to exist, but for them to be heard and to have a chance to influence government policy. Otherwise, it’s no different than having a thought in your head that you can’t share.

        To a large degree, socialism has evolved within the confines of economic growth in a capitalist world. Agricultural collectivization isn’t as big of an issue because the rural population is shrinking rapidly and food is no longer the core concern of the population. At its core, socialism is the principle that the economic output of a country should benefit the citizens of that country as a whole, rather than specific subgroups within it. Socialism as it was described by Marx misses the realities of a globalized world and increasingly rapid technological progress.