u/Revnow2 - originally from r/GenZhou

u/LeftConnoisseur - originally from r/GenZhou

u/ouch_oof - originally from r/GenZhou
yk, the guy who kind of invented the whole cultural marxism crap and said that the soviets were subverting the united states. this guy is mostly loved by nazis and right-liberals. he claims to have worked for the KGB.

u/Lilyo - originally from r/GenZhou
Podcasts

The Real Story: When U.S. Empire Waged War vs. Socialism in Afghanistan: 1978-1990s

Is the U.S. Actually Leaving Afghanistan? Part 2 of our Afghanistan and U.S. Imperialism series

Why the Pentagon Lost in Afghanistan

Civilizations 36a: Islam & Imperialism pt3 – The First Anglo Afghan War aka the Invasion of Afghanistan

Civilizations 36b: Islam & Imperialism 3b – the rest of the Anglo-Afghan Wars

​

Videos

View from Iran: US Withdrawal From Afghanistan Reflects A Weakened Empire, w/ Mohammad Marandi

How The US Crushed Afghanistan's Future

Afghanistan War Exposed: An Imperial Conspiracy (Full Documentary)

CIA Stories: Death Squads in Afghanistan

Afghan Taliban Victory: A Pakistani Left Perspective

​

Articles

The Sickle and the Minaret: Communist Successor Parties in Yemen and Afghanistan after the Cold War

Afghan Tragedy: Still Relevant Today As it Was Analyzed 15 Years Ago

The history of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Afghanistan’s socialist years: The promising future killed off by U.S. imperialism

Timeline of Afghanistan (1919-1996)

Telephone Conversation Between Soviet Premier Alexei N. Kosygin and Afghan Premier Nur Mohammed Taraki - March 18, 1979

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski U.S. President Carter's National Security Adviser

An Afghan socialist talks occupation, war, and the future facing his country

The return of the Taliban 20 years later

The War Nerd: Was There a Plan in Afghanistan?

​

Books

Revolutionary Afghanistan by Beverley Male

Washington’s Secret War Against Afghanistan by Phillip Bonosky

​

Ive seen many widespread misinformation about the Saur Revolution on Reddit lately, so Ive written this summary.

The PDPA was a communist party that came into power in April 1978 during the Saur Revolution with popular support after overthrowing the Daud dictatorship, which itself came into power in a coup in 1973 and became widely unpopular due to widespread food shortages and hoarding by the ruling elites. The PDPA then undertook progressive economic and social reforms to break up the previous semi feudal system, redistribute land from the countryside warlords to the peasants, pass gender equality laws, and abolish religious fundamentalist laws. While these were popular among their constituency especially in the cities, it was hard to grow their membership in the countryside where conservative and reactionary forces made it hard to implement reforms and immediately started an insurrection against them, which the US swiftly backed starting in late 1978 in Operation Cyclone.

The Soviets only intervened at the request of the PDPA afterwards in December 1979 once it was clear the US was funding the counterrevolutionary and reactionary Mujahideen opposition in the countryside which was opposed to the progressive social and economic reforms the PDPA introduced, and after serious internal conflict and factionalism within the PDPA led to the assassination of their leader Taraki in September 1979 by one of his generals Amin, who had ties with the US and tried after couping Taraki to reverse foreign policy and restore relations with the US. Amin was part of the same faction as Taraki but was primarily a nationalist who did not agree with what the PDPA was doing and tried to unsuccessfully appease the Mujahideen while in power. The Soviets entered Afghanistan at the request of the couped government and overthrew Amin and put back into power Karmal of the more moderate wing of the PDPA that had been previously purged by Amin who had managed to plunge the party membership during his brief stay in power.

The PDPA then continued to try and reform the country and fight with Soviet support the insurgent US aided Mujahideen. This went on for 10 years with not a whole lot of success for the PDPA which never managed to defeat the insurgency or establish wide support in the rural countryside, though its important to note their many successes during the time in trying to create a progressive and modernized Afghanistan and made huge leaps in literacy, housing, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. The Soviets had all left by 1989 and the PDPA continued fighting the insurgents until 1992 when after the USSR collapsed the PDPA lost their economic support and everything unraveled from there. A new government was formed by the Mujahideen which also quickly unraveled due to infighting, which led to the uprising of the Taliban in 1994 formed from previous Mujahideen fighters who then seized power in 1996, and governed the country until 2001 when the US invaded.

The Soviets did not do what the Americans did in 2001, this much is clear, though they tried to sustain a government that just never managed to foment popular support among the rural constituency or overcome the reactionary elements of society, but its important to understand the USSR did not create this government, only assisted it, the PDPA came into power through its own struggle and revolution. This is one of the main misunderstandings ive seen.

u/roosterkun - originally from r/GenZhou
Hello all,

I recently watched Bay Area415's video that details SWCC and found it very informative - he makes very clear what China's goals are and how they're taking a scientific approach to achieve them.

One thing that I felt he glossed over, however, was the existence of Chinese billionaires. He addresses the topic, but his explanation of their existence boils down to, "they must adhere to the long term goals of the CPC".

He claims they are not capitalist, but I have trouble imagining how someone could possibly amass even a hundred million dollars, let alone a billion, without extracting surplus value from labor. I know some tech industries have a very high profit:labor ratio, which goes a long way to explaining the wealth of Jack Ma & Ma Huateng (Alibaba & Tencent, respectively). But what about Zhong Shanshan (pharmaceuticals) and Wang Wei (package delivery)? How is their net worth in the billions if workers are not being exploited?

u/KimochiiiNe - originally from r/GenZhou
POLITICAL TRENDS

According to Xi Jinping and the current party consensus, there are four broad political trends in China today:

1. "Ultra-left", which upholds the Mao era and Mao Zedong Thought but rejects the Deng Xiaoping era and the theoredical framework of Socialism with Chinese characteristics. This position must be "profoundly re-examined".
2. "Left", which upholds both the Mao and Deng eras, Mao Zedong Thought and SWCC. This position must be "strongly promoted".
3. "Right", which rejects Mao and Mao Zedong Thought but upholds Deng Xiaoping and SWCC. This position must also be "profoundly re-examined".
4. "Ultra-right", which rejects both the Mao and Deng eras, Mao Zedong Thought and SWCC. This position must be "firmly opposed".

Both Mao and Deng comitted leftist and rightist errors respectively. However, their overall contribution to Chinese socialism is immense and should be embraced. In line with this reality, critical tolerance must given to the Ultra-Leftist and the Rightist positions described above. But Ultra-Righists, seeking to "change allegiance" (capitalist restoration) are completely unnaceptable.

This position has been put into practice in party schools, common education, and party discipline. An example of this can be seen in the testimony of expelled former liberal-minded party members in this article of the Sydney Morning Herald:

Someone always loses in any political upheaval. In the rise of Xi, it’s the second-generation elite such as Cai and their families who have been either forced into silence, hiding or exile, leaving Xi unchallenged at the top of the CCP pyramid.

“These are people who have gone to Harvard or Yale, who speak excellent English, and they don’t like Xi.”

He says the combination of the Party as an ideological commitment and as a vehicle for professional promotion had left this group of potential Chinese leaders sidelined.

“These people are seeing their purpose torn up,” he says. “Xi Jinping doesn’t like that group of members, he likes true believers because he’s a true believer."

Essentially, Xi Jinping has focused on eliminating previously widespread graft and corruption as well as completely dismantling CIA networks within the party and state. He has also taken it upon himself to cleanse the party of liberalism, resumé hunters, historical nihilism towards party history, and western idolization; all of which were unfortunate conditions that developed during the Deng era, methastisyzing during the Jiang Zemin (and his Shanghai Clique), Hu Jintao administrations.

Nevertheless, in 2017 at the 19th CPC Congress, a third era in Chinese socialism was declared in accordance with the "Left" position presented above. The primary goals of this era are to assert party authority within the economy in order to carry out the technological, social, cultural and economic tasks necessary to completely lift China from a middle-income low complexity manufacturing export-dependent economy to a high-income, innovative and self-reliant/autarkik economy during the 2021-2035 period. In other words, China wants to be more like Germany or Japan with their large high-quality, high-tech and high-complexity manufacturing output instead of deindustrializing, financializing and outsourcing like the United States and Britain.

With China likely reaching the human development and gdp per capita levels of some southern european countries by 2035, and very possibly matching western/northern european countries in those terms by 2049, it has been confirmed that China will have thus completed the Primary Stage of Socialism and will ascend to the intermediate stage by 2049:

From the primary stage of socialism to the intermediate, and then the advanced stage, China is following a development process of constant evolution and constant strengthening. Currently in the “second half” of the primary stage of socialism, China has already developed important economic features that are usually found in an advanced economic entity, for example, innovation-driven growth, post-industrialization, green manufacturing and green energy; while also facing the challenges of an aging population and sub-replacement fertility. Furthermore, it has achieved modernization of the service industry, and informatization and digitization. These features reflect a situation in which development factors are becoming increasingly dominant, as underdevelopment factors decline.

as well as:

It now appears that we will achieve our goal to complete the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2021, the year the Communist Party of China celebrates its centenary. By the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the PRC [2049], we will have achieved our goal of building China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful.

After 2050, China will enter the intermediate stage of socialist development. The development theme will change from “common prosperity” to “common development,” with two main historical missions: (1) to turn China into a highly developed great modern socialist country (i.e. the third centenary goal) by 2078, the centenary of China’s reform and opening up; and (2) to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation by the end of the century.

China’s third centenary goal can be described as a shift from “achieving common development” to “becoming highly developed.” The overarching objective is to build China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful in all respects, so as to lay a solid foundation with higher standards to enable the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

STAGES OF SOCIALISM

The best way to summarize the stages according to the current theoredical line of the CPC and the interpretation of Professor Cheng Enfu:

0th Stage or Socialist Construction Period

• Founding of the PRC (1949) to the end of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the Boluan Fanzheng period (1977)
• Bloc of Four Classes, New Democracy
• People's Democratic Dictatorship with Proletarian Leadership
• Basic institutions of the PRC built
• Basic Industrialization, urbanization, and infrastructure development
• Eradication of severe deprivation, doubling of life expetancy and other achievements
• Officially, this period is part of the primary stage but it's generally talked about as being a separate era.

Primary Stage of Socialism

• Beginning of Reform and Opening Up (1978) until the 100th year of the founding of the PRC (2049)
  • Split into two sub-stages
    • 1978-2020 (Moderately Prosperous Society, eradication of absolute poverty)
    • 2021-2049 (Modern Prosperity, eradication of relative poverty and underdevelopment)
• Socialist Market Economy
  • Public Ownership in various forms primary; private ownership secondary.
  • Market-based distribution according to labor primary; according to capital secondary.
  • State-dominated Market Economy

Intermediate Stage of Socialism

• 100th year anniversary of the PRC until the 'end of the century'.
  • Split into two-sub-stages
    • 2050-2078 (Highly Developed, centenary of Reform and Opening Up)
    • 2079-2100* (Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation by the 'end of the century')
• Socialist Market Economy 2.0 (no official name yet)
  • Multiple forms of social ownership (state, coop, joint-stock); no private ownership
  • Multiple types of commodity distribution according to labor (similar to Stalin's elaboration)
  • State-dominated planned economy with secondary market adjustments
  • Although theorists have suggested leaping over the 'intermediate' stage and instead having a longer 'advanced stage' (theoredical developments are only set in stone once they have been voted on and approved in congresses and/or added to the party constitution)

Advanced/Final Stage of Socialism before Communism

• 2100*-???
  • No official speculation about the exact year but before the end of this century
• Fully Socialist Economy
  • Single Public Ownership by entire society
  • Product-based distribution according to labor (overcoming/abolition of the commodity form)
  • Completely Planned Economy

Communism

• Single public ownership by entire society
• Product-based distribution accoriding to need primary (distributon according to labor for new products in shorter supply)
• Completely Planned Economy

Hope this post helps clear up any doubts in regards to the current positions and theoredical discussions of the CPC.

u/Revnow2 - originally from r/GenZhou
When the USSR existed, western leftists complained that their stances on long hair, rock music, etc was evidence of their totailtarian, authoritarian nature, now that China has loosened up those restrictions and allowed for more individual expression, western leftists are calling China "state capitalism" What gives?

u/Bravo_Sierra232 - originally from r/GenZhou

u/RaPiiD38 - originally from r/GenZhou
I am so disillusioned with the absolute state of Western politics. I don't know where to begin, I feel like I'm living in 'They Live'. The constant hypocrisy, the constant slope towards AuthRight. Qanon bullshit everywhere, people becoming increasingly confident of increasingly stupid positions.

My entire family are in a completely different world.

I know I should try to fight for socialism in my own country but I really think the Western mind is beyond help at this point, I've felt this way for a long time actually. I'm ML/Dengist.

I'm thinking I want to save for the next 2 years and learn Chinese and find a job in China even if it's just a translation job, I also have 3D modelling skills, my job prospects here are pretty shit anyway.

Is this doable? How do Chinese people feel about this? Good idea? I would even join PLA if I could.

u/albanian-bolsheviki - originally from r/GenZhou

u/3corneredtreehopp3r - originally from r/GenZhou
A bit of an odd question, but something that keeps popping in my head that I can’t shake. Hoping to get some other opinions.

Before COVID, I had started a marxist reading group to try to work through Capital together. I didn’t know any marxists/communists at the time, so everyone that came was a total stranger responding to posters I had put up in a few places.

In general it was a great experience with a surprisingly good turnout, although after a few months attendance dropped off quite a bit. I think the text was a little dense for a beginner group, probably should have started with something easier. Honestly I made a lot of mistakes that I wouldn’t repeat if I were to do it again.

In any event, eventually it was just me and one other guy, who set off alarms for me after a while.

He was white and in his mid-thirties. Pretty easy conversationalist. He had an older copy of Capital V1 that he brought with him that looked like it had been read a lot. Like maybe 10-20 times. But he had a somewhat odd understanding of certain passages and would ask the group for their opinion on what x,y, or z thing meant. He would readily agree with whatever the consensus was, never really argued his points.

He claimed to be a member of PSL, and he might have actually been one, I’m not sure. But the nearest PSL organization is about a 2 hour drive or train ride away. He claimed he would make the trip every weekend, and spend time down there doing whatever just hanging out in the big city. Maybe that’s normal for some people, but I’ve never personally met anyone who does that unless they’re in a long-distance relationship. It didn’t sound like he went there to meet anyone, he claimed he just wandered around on his own.

But there’s another odd thing. He had a bunch of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition with him one day, and offered it to me saying he couldn’t use it. It was a whole grocery bag full of boxes of shells.. several hundred rounds. It felt like a very weird thing to offer someone out of the blue.

When it was just the two of us and nobody else was coming anymore, I was still trying to have a discussion to work through the book one or two chapters at a time. But then after a couple meetings of that he said he would rather just hang out, drink beer, and talk casually—and that it was going to take too long to get through the book. And then he said that he thought the key to Revolution was to try to get people to stop working at their jobs. Like start taking 3-day weekends, then 4-day weekends, etc. I told him that sounded like a utopian anarchist plan and that it didn’t really make sense to me.

That was the last time I talked to him because he just gave me the heebie jeebies and he obviously wasn’t going to be much help getting through the book.

But what do you think? On a scale of 90-100%, how likely is it that there’s a file on me in the Hoover building? And secondly, how are you supposed to organize and not be infiltrated?

u/Commie_Bastardo7 - originally from r/GenZhou

u/Ruanda1990 - originally from r/GenZhou
Hi, me again

I was looking into a thread about Israeli and US sottraction of the land of native population in the areas but one user pointed out Soviet era deportation of peoples, posting this article of Wikipedia and this other article

According to Wikipedia, soviet population transfers were "the forced transfer of various groups from the 1930s up to the 1950s ordered by Joseph Stalin". According to Wikipedia the "targets" were Kulaks, ethnic minorities and occupied territory citizens and were a form of "ethnic cleaning" and "genocide", which caused the death of approximately 800,000 to 1,500,000 people. The article starts mentioning the forced deportation of Kulaks (Dekulakization) and the deportation of soviet Koreans in 1937.

The article goes on talking about the deportation of the crimean Tatars, the deportation of Circassians, the deportations of Chechens and Ingush people, the deportation of Germans and Poles after WW2 and finally the deportation of Estonians and other baltic peoples after. Many of those supposed genocides are recognized by the EU and other post soviet states like Ukraine. On 26 April 1991 the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic, under its chairman Boris Yeltsin, passed the law On the Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples with Article 2 denouncing all mass deportations as "Stalin's policy of defamation and genocide."

What do you think of these articles? Do you recommend any good books on the subject from an ML perspective? Do you have anything to add to these claims? Thank you in advance and have a good day.

u/RedGuard8 - originally from r/GenZhou

A critique of Vaushism

Vaush is a popular and fairly well known media personality on the left, technically a communist or an anarcho-syndicalist Vaush attempts to spread his ideals online and debate those who would disagree.

There has been a major push back against Vaush lately, because of his remarks about marginalized groups, his lack of economic and political education and his mischaracterization of famous Communist and “quote-mining” without fully understanding the context of said remarks.

Another thing which especially ticks me off personally is the so called “Red fascist tankie” not only is this mischaracterization on purpose but it denounciates the meaning of the word fascist as well to anyone who would support a state with a leader is now “fascist”, this type of language is extremely dangerous because once you validate anti-communists into such language it won’t be long until that rabbit hole leads people to thinking actual fascism is an appropriate response to communism. Anyone who wants meaningful change in a system is now a fascist, planned economy ? fascist, no unemployment ? fascist, workers soviets participating in democratic centralism ? fascist. The meaning of the word disappears, ironically all communists even Vaushites who share more traits with liberals are now being called “tankies” by neocons and neoliberals. It truly shows how damaging Vaush is to the ideal of Communism, anyone who’s read some about the Russian revolution would remember that in the path to socialism the bolsheviks faced obstacles the entire way, the white cadets, the bourgeoisie press, landlords, the middle class, the green army, the black army the mensheviks and more. The reactionary develops with socialism as socialism develops in antagonism to capitalism.

Vaush and his followers are no different to reactionaries, he even had a stream where he went over the 14 traits of Ur-Fasicsm comparing them to the modern American right wing, yet he hasn’t compared this to the traits of the Soviet Union, why ? Because Socialism practiced does not resemble fascism in any way, it is purely reactionary politics to make an ideology which brings about the emancipation of the worker and compare it to be in league to the devil himself.

When Vaush “destroys the tankies” he also eats out of the palm of the CIA. He consumes media he calls “independent” after said media is “leaked” information against China from the CIA, and when the left correctly points out that western media is incredibly biased and akin to propaganda, Vaush then smugly turns around and says “look they question media just like Nazis do” even after the media he consumes is quite literally and documentably funded by the American government. If Vaush is truly an unbiased person who rightfully calls out human rights abuses whenever he sees them, ask yourself why you have not seen a 4 hour stream digging into France, Myanmar, India, America, Saudi Arabia and Israel ? There are 60 million slaves in the world, Has Vaush denounced the Nato attack on Libya ? Libya has seen a massive resurgence in actual slavery, Vuash could never go against the attack because he would then be defending a despot and “fascist”, a despot and “fascist” who made Libya the most prosperous country in Africa. A despot and “fascist” who wanted to make Africa a self sufficient continent free from IMF loans and exploitation.
Just to show how much of this anti-China media is directed by the US government, take it from the US government themselves. USAGM is troubled by the Chinese government’s latest move to restrict its citizens’ access to free and unbiased information. -US Agency for Global Media (global American propaganda)

PUBLIC LAW 111–202—JULY 13, 2010 124 STAT. 1373

Radio Free Asia; also funded by the American Government, has been increasing operations since 2010. “ Radio Free Asia provides a vital voice to people in Asia” RFA currently operates $40,00000 per year. It is intended to destabilize regions in Asia because China is now a new world power which offers much less exploitative and typically imperialist deals than the world bank and IMF would. China with it’s belt and road initiative is doing what America said they would, which is to increase prosperity and democracy around the world.

There is a clear effort to villainize China, this can be seen everywhere in the media, with false stories of mass Uyghur sterilization, to stories of taking Organs and a fall in birth rates and “forced labor” for cotton picking. Continuing to attack China no matter how much you disagree with their efforts of de-radicalization only further echoes fear and war mongering and has a direct correlation with anti asian hate crimes in America.

If you are truly doubtful of China’s intentions still and believe that America is right in calling out “human rights abuses” and a propaganda campaign then why did they not do the same thing 4 years prior ?

Begining in 2016 and still occurring to this day, as you read this, in Myannmar there has been an active actual genocide against the Rohingya muslims. The primarily Buddhist country in 2016 had over 1.4 million Rohingya muslims living in it. Over 1 million Rohingya Muslims have fled to nearby countries. At least 25,000 have been killed, 116,000 have been beaten, 18,000 girls have been raped, gang raped or sexually abused, 36,000 have been thrown into fires. Take these numbers with a grain of salt as well, in reality these estimates are conservative. People have been driven from their homes, the government has killed them, raped them and burned them, as a result the international community says they are “worried” . Where is the condemnation from every single country in the west ? Where is the mass propaganda campaign ? why has Myannmars military coup garnenered more attention from western media than an ethnic, religous and cultural genocide has ? We all know the answer, Myanmar doesn’t call themselves socialist and China does. Myanmar isn’t a threat to western hegemony over the entire world, Myanmar doesn’t rightfully call out the American human right’s abuses, Myanmar doesn’t attempt to institute a 5 year plan with the intent of making their industry free from American trade.

If you disagree with China’s decision to de-radicalize a population without having to kill them fine, you don’t have to, equally call out other countries who do far worse than China as well though. Thoughtfully think about the reasons to create a smear campaign, ask yourself why there is not a mass exodus of Muslims in China like there is in Myanmar, a country with a smaller muslims population compared to Chinas but almost the entire population has left, ask yourself why there are Uyghur soldiers, Uyghur commanders, Uyghur business people, Uyhur police if there is a Uyghur genocide ? Why is there a constant barrage of extremely questionable sources, from questionable funding with evidence that cannot be shown or proven, and sources that are always anonymous ? Is teaching children 2 languages cultural genocide ? Vaush has shown he only gobbles up American and western propaganda and has directly contributed to asian hate crimes and asian fear mongering.

Next I would like to look at Vaush’s ideas on policy and socialism. Vaush advocates for Market socialism, an ideology which believes that all business in society should become worker co-ops. How would we do this ? we would “strategically” use electoralism to get policies we want passed and become a social democratic state. When the exploited or “third world” rises up our military would not be able to suppress them and then these formerly exploited peoples would magically institute the ideals of Market Socialism eventually becoming a centrally planned economy and then moving to full on communism.

Now if you’ve been a leftist for sometime you can already notice the holes in this logic. Market Socialism still operates on many of the principles of Capitalism like the reserve army of labor, the employer-employee relation, the tendency for wealth to be acquired by a small amount of co-ops thus reinstating capitalism, the lack of market growth due to capitalism being gone so capital is not invested in the same way, the profit motive and co-ops also have issues with growth and expansion. For a more detailed explanation of the problems with Market Socialism I recommend everyone who reads this to watch Paul Cockshott, he gives a very good analysis.

Next I would like to direct everyone with the idea that for socialism to be achieved that the productive forces in a nation must be met, this is typically a universally agreed upon idea, people must be employed, and have good standard of living and must be able to eat and live before any notion of Communism can be achieved, otherwise social strife will still be an issue as observed through dialectical materialism. An abundance of resources must be achieved and be able to be produced, one of the problems with Vaush’s ideology is that the exploiting western world is reliant upon the productive forces of the exploited world. I very much doubt the same relation of exploiter and exploitee will exist when there is no longer a reliance of capital from the west, the productive forces in the west must be again developed because the factories and workshops moved south. The economy of the west could never be self reliant as it currently stands, there are 2 possible paths to fix this. Either a centrally planned economy must be instituted so the productive forces can develop or Capitalism with heavy restrictions similar to China must be developed, otherwise socio-economic factors could cause another capitalist revolution like the one in France and become a global threat to socialism once more. Capitalism in a socialist world would as well be hampered because of the lack of need to trade if you are self reliant so it would seem the dreaded red fascist tankie central planning is the only viable option in reaching the productive forces.

Next Vaush thinks this all can be achieved through electoralism, for anyone who needs a history lesson, electoralism never works. When capital sees the possibility of profit in an industry which has been nationalized like the NHS for example they strip it of funding and try to end it. When an industry is no longer profitable to companies they get the government to take care of it. Where is the lesson on electoralism here ? because companies will never get on board with something that goes against their profits they will never let the government change into a tool that hampers them overall. Historically “moderates” and the “middle guy” hi-jacks every attempt for radical change with “compromises” When leftists start going with bourgeois elections and elect bourgeois candidates all they’re doing is giving into their principles, contrary to what Vaush believes Karl Marx and Lenin did not agree with voting for bourgeoise candidates and elections because you can never win when you collaborate with your enemies.

You cannot “push” Biden and elites to the left, it is against their interests, they are the tool of the capitalists, intended to protect their ideology and profits, a strong vanguard party is needed to fight liberals, not elect them. The only successful form of revolution against capitalists we have seen is Marxist-Leninism, not to say our ancom comrades have not made achievements especially in the realm of workers rights which we applaud them for, but the only revolutionary form of socialism proven to beat fascists and capitalists is our approach, and it will be the same approach from the global south as well.

If you have read this far thanks for taking your time to read my critiques of the rad-lib Vaush. I was getting tired of seeing the same old criticisms against his character, not because those criticisms are not valid but because when the only argument against someone and their ideology is personal it re-affirms his viewers beliefs that his form of socialism is the only viable one.

-Some Prole

u/nottomat - originally from r/GenZhou
“What about in Hong Kong where they made it so that the leaders are no longer publicly elected? What about Tiannenmen Square were hundreds of people were killed for protesting the Dengist regime? What about how China’s internet is blocked by a firewall meaning you cannot search for various things the government doesn’t want you to search for? What about how journalists punish foreign journalists by removing their press credentials when they say something critical of the government’s policies? What about when in 2019 the All China Journalists Association updated its code of ethics saying that they have to take an exam proving that they are guided by Xi Jinping thought”

How would you counter these statements?

u/asdfguy17 - originally from r/GenZhou

u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
So, you’ll have run into leftcomms, ultras, and maybe even trots all saying shit that pisses you off, like ‘Vietnam is capitalist! China is imperialist!’ and other dumb shit like that.

Why? What the fuck is wrong with these people?

​

And they are not anarchists.

You can’t just tell them to read a fucking book. These clowns HAVE read books. Possibly more than you have. That’s kind of the problem.

​

Why are they like this? Did they read the wrong books? Are they idiots? Like, what the fuck?

​

No. Well, probably not.

No, the basic problem is that they are right.

OMG, did I just go left comm? Am I gonna grow an armchair out my butt right now?

Well, I am in a recliner typing this…

​

Naw. I’m doing that to get you to pay attention. They are right, and I’m gonna explain why you are too.

Here’s a bit Lenin quoted of Engels: “And from this follows a superstitious reverence for the state and everything connected with it, which takes root the more readily since people are accustomed from childhood to imagine that the affairs and interests common to the whole of society could not be looked after other than as they have been looked after in the past, that is, through the state and its lucratively positioned officials. And people think they have taken quite an extraordinary bold

step forward when they have rid themselves of belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic republic. In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy.”

​

So what is Engels/Lenin saying here?

Well that people are overly congratulating themselves on having gotten rid of monarchs [Good!] but then replaced them with something similar in all but name [democratic bourgeois republic.]

That the rulers change names and tactics, but not that they rule over the ‘lower’ classes.

This is [one of] the leftcomm points, and it’s taken up by other groups that we would call ultras.

What is the point swapping the monarch for the caps, and then swapping the caps for the state bureaucrat?

​

And that’s their whole point. The workers still have someone in charge of them.

And they are right.

If this relationship is maintained, then you can’t say that the workers have control over the state, and by that standard, it’s not socialism.

​

Same goes for the workplace. If there are standard capitalist relations of boss and worker, and then the state takes over, and you’re taking orders from a state boss, well, not a whole lot has changed. And this is what the like of Rick Wolff use as their measure of socialism.

And by that standard, China is only sorta socialist. Because they have all sorts of co-ops, but they also have regular capitalist enterprises, and also state run standard hierarchical orgs.

​

Omg! So China is not socialist! No. Calm down. That’s the wrong take. So what’s the right take?

​

Anything is right from its point of view, the question is: is that the right point of view, and how do you justify it?

So, if you want to keep it simple [and that’s an instinctive human thing] then you need to boil it down to a diagnostic criteria.

[If X+Y, then Z].

​

And so different groups boil it down in different ways.

​

• Is commodity production ended? If yes, socialism. If not, capitalism.
• Are there still hierarchical work relationships? If no, socialism. If yes, capitalism.
• Are the working class in control of the state? If yes, socialism. If not, capitalism.
• So, by any given standard, any past or existing socialist state can be socialist, or not.
• This is why there are so many disagreements about past and existing states.

So if you are a Wolffian type socialist, there have been no socialist states, given that they as a group ONLY consider the employer-employee relationship to be the measure of whether there is socialism or not, and no AES has been totally co-op and not containing any ‘small group of people in charge.’

Trots are similar, in that they consider any dictatorship of the proletariat, that also does not have complete control from the soviets, is not a ‘real’ worker’s state.

Which is bizarre, because that’s what China has, and they don’t consider China socialist.

Others will say that the measure of socialism is whether the economy is planned soviet style, or not.

Others will say that the measure of socialism is whether the economy is focussed on the needs of the working class. Are the people’s standards of living improving? Are they getting education, food, opportunities?

So, when a person says ‘X country is not really socialist,’ they are right.

From their point of view.

So in reality, the question is not ‘Is country X socialist or not?’ the real question is ‘What measure of socialism is most useful?’

Which point of view?

​

Well, here’s how I look at it:

Why are you a socialist?

What is the point of you being a socialist?

Is it because you really want a planned economy?

Why is a planned economy important?

Is it because you want worker democracy?

Why is worker control over the workplace important?

Is it democratic control of the government?

Why does that matter?

​

Well, here’s what I say:

Socialism is about building a better life, a better future for the working class.

Why them? Because they ARE society. The rich 1% are not part of it. They fly over it. That’s why they are ok with cutting social services. They don’t use them. So as far as they are concerned, these things are worthless.

So we focus on the working class.

A planned economy is a good thing, because it avoids the anarchy of production. It avoids waste, it avoids the boom/bust cycles that ruin worker’s lives, and concentrates power in the hands of the 1%.

Which is why we are against capitalism. Worker democracy is important, because it gives power to the workers who are affected by the policies that are decided. So those people should have input.

And political democracy is important for the same reason. And this is why China is socialist.

Why?

Because everything they do is to improve the lot of the working class.

That’s why they are controlling the capitalists, strengthening the state, rebuilding communal farms, building productive forces.

They are building socialism right now.

And for those who claim they are full of it, I point out: they keep making claims about building socialism. With dates on them.

And they hit or even beat those dates.

Yeah, China is socialist.

Maybe not the type of socialism YOU want.

But socialism it is, nonetheless.

And I maintain that my measure of socialism is the more useful measure than commodity form/co-ops/etc.

u/HappiCow69 - originally from r/GenZhou
Hello comrades!

 

As Amerikkka and global capitalism continue their backslide into inevitable self-destruction, the ruling classes of Western nations have sowed the seeds of a Second Cold War in a desperate attempt to keep their imperialist hegemony afloat against the rising tide of Chinese power. As Western leaders continue to escalate their rhetoric and actions, we have seen and will continue to see more frequent and more egregious allegations against China and other AES nations. The one that is getting the most attention now is the fabricated narrative around a supposed "genocide" occurring in China's Xinjiang region.

 

Instead of another debunk post, of which there are a plethora of excellent ones on the internet's commie-sphere (I have linked the most helpful and comprehensive ones here, here, here, here, here, here here, and here, ) this post will be an instructional guide on how best to disseminate in this information and combat false Western narratives on the increasingly common Reddit threads pertaining to the matter, or in another space on the internet. At the expense of sounding too LARP-y, the internet is an important battleground of information as the Western media machine steps up their consent manufacturing during this New Cold War, and with a lack of real media presence, Marxists should be using such a widely-accessed medium to counter the narratives people are bombarded with every day. Changing so much as one person's mind is an important step, as they become one more likely anti-war activist and media skeptic. This all comes from my, I will admit, extensive (but what the fuck else could anyone do during early lockdown?), experience in comment sections debating the Xinjiang accusations, and talking to people who's minds have been changed on the matter. The aim of the list below is to provide a comprehensive guide on how to most effectively debunk accusations against China in Xinjiang in internet comment sections, mainly on Reddit.

 

I'd also like to preface this with the disclaimer that the aim of this advice, and any comments made on the kinds of posts mentioned, should not be to turn the people commenting on the thread (or lurkers) into Marxists-Leninists. It should simply be to convince them of the invalidity of the subject at hand, and get them to see past the U$ Empire's lies. Any anti-New Cold War activist is a valuable asset in the fight against misinformation.

     

1. Sow skepticism; avoid taking an explicitly pro-China stance and do not reveal your ideological leaning.

This one is going to be controversial, so I will clarify. Most average Reddit shitlibs will immediately write you off with their incredible powers of cognitive dissonance (they're a Chinese bot, or a Wumao, etc) if you dive into the deep end and take an explicitly pro-China stance. Instead, focus on pointing out the discrepancies in the article/report within itself, or within other 'verified accounts' of supposedly genocidal action in Xinjiang. A comment pointing out that a report is authored by Adrian Zenz, and then a short paragraph about his history and views, is far more effective at sowing the seed of doubt in someone's mind than a blatant, combative paragraph about how the whole report is wrong and here's an explicitly communists essay on why. It is scientifically proven that when people arrive at a conclusion themselves (or believe they do) they hold that belief more strongly and are more likely to accept it. Our job should be to plant the seed in the reader's mind that something is very wrong with the information they are being spoonfed by the media, and allow them to arrive at the conclusion they are being lied to on their own.

 

For example, instead of commenting

"This report from [Generic billionaire owned think tank] is totally wrong because X, here's a Global Times or CGTN article debunking it"

A more effective comment at reaching non-Marxists would be

"Hm, isn't it odd that this report is from a think tank connected directly to US intelligence agencies and receives most of its funding from weapons contractors? And that it's main author is the widely-debunked 'academic' Adrian Zenz, known for his anti-Semitic and Sinophobic views with a history of calculations errors and shoddy reporting when it comes to China?"

 

Again, these are just examples, but the idea is there. The average Redditor will give more credence to a commenter they see as a well-meaning and unbiased skeptic than a raging communist spreading 'propaganda'. Which brings us to our next point.

   

2. Your goal should be to change the mind of the lurker, not OP or the people who will reply to your comment to try and debate you. Keep it civil and avoid shit-fligning or name-calling.

When commenting, type as if you are addressing a lurker, not OP or other commenters. Lurkers will be most swayed by any evidence, and are the least likely to be down the ideological rabbit hole of liberalism. They likely do not have the prior knowledge to chime in, and therefore are also the least likely to be pre-programmed with the same bullshit anti-communist talking points that others will throw at you. OP, and anyone who replies to your comment, will not be interested in a good faith discussion. They will likely resort to accusations that you're a bot, or biased, and become combative or defensive when their views are challenged. Make sure you maintain civility to make the other commenter look like an idiot.

 

For this reason, including sources is also vital too. I will go more in depth into this point on #3, but sources are key to changing the minds of lurkers. When faced with something that challenges an existing narrative, the natural reflex is to look it up on a search engine, which will likely only funnel them back to large Western media outlets. For large or important claims, always provide a source so they are more likely to look at yours than any garbage Google spits up at them.

   

3. Use sources, but avoid Chinese-government funded outlets and reports. Use Western media's own contradictions against it.

Like I stated in point 1, it is important for the reader to believe that you are simply a neutral, well-meaning skeptic and not an unpaid volunteer agent of the Chinese Communist Party (obvious /s). For this reason, it is imperative that you use sources that are familiar to Western readers; exposing the lies of sources they trust will further plant the seeds of doubt in their mind. While CPC-funded outlets like Global Times and CGTN do great work, as to anti-imperialist outlets like The GrayZone, the average Redditor will be turned off by sources they see as biased or sketchy. Instead, use the contradictions of Western media outlets in your favor: linking two articles from one Western outlet (The Guardian, NYT, WaPo, etc) that contradict each other will do far more to further a person's skepticism of the existing narrative on Xinjiang than an article from Chinese media will.

 

There are plenty of examples of this occurring. For example, this article from the World Bank stating that allegations of "genocide" in Xinjiang are unsubstantiated is sure to fry a few Western brains. So will this article from Foreign Policy on the fact that even the US State Department doesn't have enough evidence to call China's counter-terrorism program a "genocide". Bringing up the contradictions and lies of often Western-paid defectors is also good; the 'but muh defectors' point is always the one reactionaries will lob at you when they have no ammo left. Here are some good ones exposing the lies/changed stories of Sayragul Sautbay, and both stories from Tursunay Ziyawudun, two of the most prominent defectors.

 

Don't feel limited by the examples I linked above; any examples of contradiction within Western media and think tank's reporting will work, especially if it pertains specifically to the report or article in question.

   

Finally, make sure to fucking flood these posts. Do not brigade them, but as you see them on r/all, make sure to chime in even just a little bit. A lot of comments pointing out an article's contradictions or lies will really hammer home the point to readers. While these tips are tailored specifically to tackling the lie of the Uyghur "genocide", they can be more broadly applied to counter pretty much any Western narrative. And with that, you've finished your first step in becoming a CPC Propagandist! Congrats comrade, your Xi Bucks should be arriving in the mail within 6 to 9 business days.

[deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/2179542/chinese-marxist-student-leader-taken-away-police-125th

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/2173090/chinese-campus-crackdown-young-marxist-activists-expands-major

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/2167955/fears-young-marxist-activist-missing-after-police-raid-china

Did those students serve prison time? What were the charges?

Good faith I just want to know what happened. Thanks.

Edit:

OK I did some more research and I think I figured it out.

Here's some good primary sources:

• Xinhua story on Jasic: http://www.xinhuanet.com/local/2018-08/24/c_1123326003.htm
• Jasic Workers Support Group site: https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/
• Jasic Workers Support Group on Qiu Zhanxuan (Peking U. Marxist Society incident): https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/qzxxy/
• Statement by Qiu Zhanxuan: https://critiqueandtransformation.wordpress.com/2019/05/02/%E8%A6%81%E5%81%9A%E4%B8%80%E5%90%8D%E7%84%A1%E7%94%A2%E9%9A%8E%E7%B4%9A%E7%9A%84%E6%88%B0%E5%A3%AB%EF%BC%88%E9%82%B1%E5%8D%A0%E8%90%B1%EF%BC%89/
• Peking University Marxist Society forum post on what happened with Qiu Zhanxuan: https://bbs.pku.edu.cn/v2/post-read.php?bid=923&threadid=16907239

Qiu Zhanxuan Summary:

Qiu Zhanxuan was a strongly anti-revisionist Peking University student. She had a history of doxing/threatening University students and staff and called for overthrowing the government, according to her own statements. The last straw seems to be a protest she led which interrupted traffic, where she gave the Principal/Vice Principal a public letter. The Police met with her and offered to not press charges if she promised not to cause the University "further trouble" and she refused, so she was charged with picking quarrels and causing trouble.

Jasic Summary:

The Jasic incident seems to be a bit more legitimate. Some workers at Jasic complained of low pay and unpaid overtime and started attempting to strike and form a union. They were fired for repeated absence, so the former workers protested at Jasic, some were taken to the police station for questioning, then they started protesting at the police station. Xinhua and People's Daily both implied that some of the worker's complaints were legitimate and were being actively investigated, but at the same time a few workers/protesters had been involved with a Chinese front for a Western NGO that wanted to blow the incident out of proportion. The current "Jasic Workers Support Group" website calls for overthrowing the CCP and supports the Hong Kong rioters.

​

I'm still looking into the other Marxist student arrests. But so far, the answer looks like no, China does not arrest Marxists.

u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou

Why China is not imperialist:

​

First off, we need to establish what imperialism IS before we can decide if any country fits it or not.

To do this, I shall be using Lenin’s definition.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm

That Definition has 5 major components:

I. CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION AND MONOPOLIES

II. BANKS AND THEIR NEW ROLE

III. FINANCE CAPITAL AND THE FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY

IV. EXPORT OF CAPITAL

V. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG CAPITALIST ASSOCIATIONS

I. CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION AND MONOPOLIES

Why does this matter? What makes this imperialism?

Corruption. While the state having a monopoly might lead to negative consequences and issues, in a bourgeois state, it leads to specific sets of issues. Such as price fixing, price gouging, and a whole raft of activities that boil down to ‘The rich make all the money, and you can’t stop them.’

“But this is a circumstance which only accelerates concentration and the formation of monopolist manufacturers’ associations, cartels, syndicates, etc.” – Lenin.

Even higher levels of wealth flow into their hands. Even higher levels of power and influence over the government. That’s why it’s bad.

So why does this apply or not apply to China?

​

Simple: it’s not a bourgeoise state.

The rich do not control the government, there is no mechanism for lobbying, as there is in the west.

There is no control mechanism, short of outright bribery, and the CPC takes that shit real serious.

And, all major companies have a CPC cadre on board, to watchdog them.

The problem is not monopolies. It’s what monopolies can do, in a dictatorship of the bourgeoise, as Lenin points out.

For this to be an issue, a company would not only have to be powerful, it would have to have a monopoly, and for the local cadre to be idiots, or subverted, and for those checking on them to be likewise, and for the CPC also to be clueless, or corrupted, and for the people not to notice either.

None of this is happening, nor can anyone present any evidence to it occurring, save in occasional incidences, which ARE punished.

II. BANKS AND THEIR NEW ROLE

“As banking develops and becomes concentrated in a small number of establishments, the banks grow from modest middlemen into powerful monopolies having at their command almost the whole of the money capital of all the capitalists and small businessmen and also the larger part of the means of production and sources of raw materials in any one country and in a number of countries.” – Lenin

So this is more of the same. The banks do the corrupt, power grabbing monopoly thing, but by playing with finance, not production.

Not only do the above issues apply from [1], but in PRC, the banks are state owned.

This keeps the power of all that wealth, and possible leverage, in the hands of the people, via the state.

So there is even LESS opportunity for things to go wrong here.

II. FINANCE CAPITAL AND THE FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY

So, this is when finance capital rather than industrial capital has a leading role. When a company or bank makes money not by producing things, or by owning companies that produce things, but by playing in the stock markets, doing clever things with the money supply, and that sort of thing, rather than by making and selling more stuff.

And they become oligarchs when they use this power to control the government.

So it’s not just ‘rich people exist’ but more than that. It’s ‘rich people exist and have undue power and influence over the government, like they do in the USA.’

So, are they?

Well if they were, what would we expect?

Well, we see in the west that laws do not apply to oligarchs. That they get at best a slap on the wrist when they do something wrong, or demand and receive bailouts when they do something dumb.

Do we see this in China?

No.

The rich in China walk a fine line. They are not well liked. They have no influence over policy, beyond that which they can persuade.

If they try to use their power and influence, they get busted.

If they fuck up really badly, they get executed.

That’s not what happens to oligarchs.

Sure, they’re rich, and that inequality is a contradiction. Which the CPC is working on right now.

But that’s not an oligopoly.

No matter how rich they get, they only become oligarchs when they have undue power and influence over the local or state government.

And to assume that because they have money, they MUST have that undue influence, is to bring your western bourgeois baggage into the conversation.

III. EXPORT OF CAPITAL

“Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition held undivided sway, was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital.” – Lenin

What does this mean? This means that in addition to, or rather than exporting stuff and things, a country exports money.

Oh noes! China exports capital! Well that’s it. Case closed, better pack it up, and go home…

Unless, we read past the headlines, maybe?

“England became a capitalist country before any other, and by the middle of the nineteenth century, having adopted free trade, claimed to be the “workshop of the world”, the supplier of manufactured goods to all countries, which in exchange were to keep her provided with raw materials. But in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, this monopoly was already undermined; for other countries, sheltering themselves with “protective” tariffs, developed into independent capitalist states.” – Lenin.

Well that sure sounds like China right? OMG, it’s true!

No. Chill.

“The export of capital is made possible by a number of backward countries having already been drawn into world capitalist intercourse; main railways have either been or are being built in those countries, elementary conditions for industrial development have been created, etc. The need to export capital arises from the fact that in a few countries capitalism has become “overripe” and (owing to the backward state of agriculture and the poverty of the masses) capital cannot find a field for “profitable” investment.” - Lenin.

Chill ok?

All of this is true.

China IS exporting capital.

It IS building roads, ports, railways etc.

All of that is true.

​

But this is also true: “The principal spheres of investment of British capital are the British colonies, which are very large also in America (for example, Canada), not to mention Asia, etc. In this case, enormous exports of capital are bound up most closely with vast colonies, of tile importance of which for imperialism I shall speak later. In the case of France the situation is different. French capital exports are invested mainly in Europe, primarily in Russia (at least ten thousand million francs). This is mainly loan capital, government loans, and not capital invested in industrial undertakings. Unlike British colonial imperialism, French imperialism might be termed usury imperialism. In the case of Germany, we have a third type; colonies are inconsiderable, and German capital invested abroad is divided most evenly between Europe and America.”

Colonies.

“France, when granting loans to Russia, “squeezed” her in the commercial treaty of September 16, 1905, stipulating for certain concessions to run till 1917. She did the same in the commercial treaty with Japan of August 19, 1911.”

Squeezing.

That’s the difference.

It’s almost literally the difference between being stabbed by a knife, and a surgeon using a knife [scalpel] to operate on you, and fix you up. You get stabbed either way, but the intent AND result is quite different.

What Lenin is describing is the use of capital to extract and control. Even to cripple local industries. Why buy local, when the foreign stuff is cheaper/better/both?

China is not doing that.

Not only are their terms more friendly, and they routinely forgive debts when they cannot be paid, but the point and purpose of the capital expenditure is different.

Being ‘nice’ about it is not what makes them not imperialist, it’s WHAT THE MATERIAL RESULTS ARE, as well as the purpose of the capital export.

The material results are: that China’s capital exports build up the economies of the countries affected, and do NOT subvert, weaken or destroy those economies as western capital exports do.

This is because China is building up those countries to sell them stuff. Not to extract their mineral wealth, or whatever.

Because they are NOT capitalists.

That’s the big one. The headline says ‘Capital export’ but the meat of the section says WHAT HAPPENS when the capital is exported.

And those two things are very different.

Anyone making the argument that capital export OF ANY TYPE = Imperialism, has not read the fucking book.

​

IV. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG CAPITALIST ASSOCIATIONS

Ignoring that China is not capitalist, and not ruled by the bourgeoise, even if they were, they are NOT dividing the world into sections that they can rule or extract from. So they are no more imperialist than Eire is.

Beyond Lenin:

Military bases? Military bases are not imperialism. They are tools. And while they can be used to leverage military power in the service of imperialism, they are not used that way by non-imperialist states, or China for that matter.

When China uses its military base in Djibouti to 'persuade' the people there to give a crazy deal on oil/lithium/regime change, then yeah, maybe.

​

Beyond even Lenin’s specifications, there is the Poverty Alleviation campaign.

There are many people who are still poor, but Severe Poverty has been eradicated.

No bourgeois country could, or would do this.

There is no advantage in this for them.

Worse, China does not vote for their President or Chairman.

So Xi Jinping is not buying votes.

The only reason that they did this is because they are serious about socialism.

This shit was expensive.

​

This is not socialism.

But it is what socialism is FOR.

This is why we DO socialism.

And if this is not what YOUR socialism is for, i don't fucking want it, and i don't think China does, either.

Anyone claiming China is imperialist, is either simplistic in their thinking, lazy, desperate, or dishonest.

​

Some more articles:

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/05/06/russia-and-china-are-not-imperialist/

https://medium.com/@rainershea612/catagorically-debunking-the-claim-that-china-is-imperialist-a9ae7b280a44

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2020/06/09/chinas-debt-relief-for-africa-emerging-deliberations/

https://chinaafricaproject.com/2019/12/18/deborah-brautigam-debunks-the-chinese-debt-trap-theory-in-new-research-paper/

https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/09/19/china-debt-trap-ph-an-expert-in-bad-loans-locsin-says

https://reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21Y3KN?__twitter_impression=true

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/170319/news/hambantota-port-deal-two-major-clauses-to-appease-critics-233515.html

https://rainershea.com/f/china-isn%E2%80%99t-imperialist-it%E2%80%99s-the-great-ally-of-global-socialism

https://reader.chathamhouse.org/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy-jones-hameiri#

China/Africa:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oeo4OVLUlWDk2NZI3UO6rl6bzVdiSQOdJYRukPffJA4

https://medium.com/@leohezhao/china-africa-a-new-accord-e375a6ffe535

https://www.workers.org/2020/05/48572/

https://liberationschool.org/five-imperialist-myths-about-chinas-role-in-africa/

https://qz.com/africa/1379457/china-africa-summit-african-leaders-praise-relations-with-beijing/

https://qz.com/1391770/the-anxious-chorus-around-chinese-debt-trap-diplomacy-doesnt-reflect-african-realities

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObefKNUEtKg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03l3Ra4bL_A

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2020.1807318

​

The video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QejOE8WfVoU

u/Newtonshmooton - originally from r/GenZhou
Like what's up with that, it's really been hitting the news recently and because so much if it requires disputing speculation and rhetorical pieces such as this article https://www.wokeglobaltimes.com/c227d529f6f0469392edbe07980f9f70 It's becoming more and more taxing to have to engage with this stuff.