this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2026
663 points (95.0% liked)
Memes
53980 readers
1012 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fuck it. Chips on the table, china taking over america would be a net positive at this point. I've never bought into the "country bad because ideology different" bullshit we're fed here in the us. As I can see from here, just about any other large nation assuming control would bring me everything I ask my government for as a default.
Please, president Xi, the Statesian public yearns for liberation
Maybe the Chinese proletariat can launch a concurrent revolution to overthrow Xi.
Why would they do that? Over 90% of Chinese citizens support their government.
I didn't seriously consider that they would just like I wouldn't seriously consider White Americans in the 1950's launching a revolution. China has high propaganda and they're at the part of both industrialization and capitalism where average people see benefit from both.
China isn't capitalist, nor is it an imperialist settler colony that gave 1950s white Statesians a better life. It's a socialist country, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and the working classes are in charge of the state. A revolution would be devastating for the Chinese working classes.
That's delusional
The party is in charge of the state. The working class have vanishingly little power.
That's what the Ruling Class in every country says. Can't let everyday people get too uppity
The CPC is a working class party, not a class in itself. In the PRC, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, private ownership is relegated to the small and medium firms, which are about half sole proprietorships anyways.
The idea that the party is a distinct class and the idea that an economy where public ownership is principle is somehow capitalist both are contradictory to Marx and common sense, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.
A revolution would result in bleak reaction and capitalists in charge of the state, this is the opposite of what the working class wants in China.
It's genuinely sad to see people who have been so traumatized by living in an epicenter of capitalist profiteering, gaslighting propaganda, and government violence that they can't imagine a society that doesn't work that way. You think this is a normal way for a government to be, and you think the smart thing to do is assume everyone is like the US.
Well I'm imagining a classless, borderless society where everyone's needs are met and it is fantastic.
Nothing about the US government is normal unless in the context of an Empire rapidly approaching the point of collapse.
I have enough knowledge to know that in both better and worse situations, other countries do things often very different and assume as much but try not to assume details. Luckily I'm well read.
China has not reached communism, which itself must be global. It's currently in the developing stages of socialism, which is the necesdary prerequisite to the society you're describing.
Trading late stage capitalism for mid stage capitalism and a pre-existing merger of state and corporate power doesn't sound like a permanent fix. Also, deposing a strongman in favor a system that has reestablished it's leadership as a strongman is not an improvement.
China is socialist, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the working class is in control of the state. They don't have a "strongman," just because Xi gets re-elected. Stability is good if public support is high.
They have a Strongman because Xi went to great efforts to sideline people or policies that served as a check to his power. Something that would have been unthinkable in China at any point after Mao and before Xi.
Do you have an example? The anti-corruption campaigns are immensely popular among the public in China, and they support the government.
Just years of reading. That you bring up the anti-corruption campaign means you're at least familiar with allegations that Xi unevenly applied the campaign against his political opponents. As a side not, I'll say the anti-corruption campaigns in China are definitely popular and also one clear situation where improvements in computer technology made a major advance in society and peoples quality of life. Corruption of low level officials was hard to root out when the people would be making complaints to other corrupt low level officials and risking retaliation in the process. Computer technology helped bypass that.
So I still don't see any evidence of Xi being a "strongman," but instead an extremely popular and influential leader.
You're whole persona is pushing the party line and pushing back against any dissent. I didn't expect you to see any evidence.
You didn't even try.
"Uhh well you're a commie, I don't need to present any evidence because you wouldn't listen anyway!"
Fantastically lazy copium, do better
No, Cowbee in particular. I get along quite nice with communist for the most part.
You gave me nothing to work with, though. What does it mean to be a "strongman," and how does that apply to Xi? How is it that my "thing" is "following the party line?" I do have opinions pretty typical to communists, and I support existing socialism, but I'm not a member of the CPC nor am I paid by them, and I do critique them. Just because I do not agree with all critique of the CPC does not mean I don't agree with any.
Just as long as they don't refute the red scare bullshit you're selling
You never gave any. I've done years of reading too, and have a different conclusion, so if you aren't going to offer any evidence then there's no reason for me to go along with what you're saying.
I think you underestimate the term "improvement". Lossing two fingers instead of three is an improvement. 8inches from the ledge is better than 4inches from the ledge even if either measure isn't even one whole step. If in never going to see best then I'll take any better I can get.
Yeah but any invasion probably pushes half of the country over the edge before the war would be over.
I wouldn't wanna risk death and destruction for a mere potential 4" further from the edge.
My dude, you're on a federated platform. You don't think you're going to dodge being lumped in with all the political dissidents and "terrorists" when they run out of trans kids to gas? It's literally a death risk either way, this way just means you get to watch tv until they get you.
I'm one of the trans ~~kids~~ adults, I'd be fucked anyways. Just wanted to illustrate that being invaded, if you welcome it or not, is usually a pretty rough affair.
War is brutal, I don't know if I would be willing to suffer through one, just for stuff to be slightly better afterwards, maybe. Provided I had the choice in the first place ofc.
A permanently better world is possible so why settle for a temporary better situation with little hope for further improvement? Why insist people have to lose fingers when no one losing fingers is achievable and not at all far fetched?
China is still making rapid progress and hasn't slowed down in that respect, though. It isn't that they are following a temporary solution, it's that they are developing towards that better world, and building that better world takes time and effort. There's no such thing as a static system.
"Unless you're creating an instant utopia you should not change to the status quo"
What part of creating a mixed capitalist society run by an authoritarian regime leads to an utopia on any time frame? Spell it out for me because history suggests it will end poorly.
China is a socialist market economy, not capitalist. It's also run by the working classes in democratic fashion. The large firms and key industries in China are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, and as the small and medium firms grow they are folded more into the public sphere of influence. The basis of communism is in large scale industry, not in small manufacturing, so it doesn't necessarily make the most sense to socialize small firms.
As time continues and the productive forces develop, these become economically compelled towards socialization, which is expedited by having a socialist economy where public ownership is principle. These are all basic Marxist observations about production and distribution.
Because they're moving there? No one said there should be no more progress?
That's like insinuating that I refuse to lose weight because I can't lose 60lbs today. I'm literally saying I will take any movement what so ever if it means movement.
It's more like offering someone a weight loss pill that will work for a couple months and make you gain more weight than you started with.
Sold. We just have to switch to a different pill before that two months is up. Literally 1% better is still better.
See here for a possible solution to turning a global China into a sustainable hybrid of communism and capitalism: https://philosophyofbalance.com/blog/new-monarchy/
China isn't turning into a "hybrid of communism and capitalism," it's socialist, ie transitioning between capitalism and communism. It isn't possible to sustain this transitional phase indefinitely, as production grows and develops so too does socialization, which forces higher stages of socialism.
Gross