this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
162 points (76.3% liked)
Memes
52126 readers
297 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
Given that the CPC is overwhelmingly popular with the people of China in a way our own government could never imagine being here at home, i bet they do.
A handy chart:
Even just hypothetically, can you really trust a survey like this when it comes from a country with mass censorship and no freedom of speech?
Yes, you can, because this is data from western orgs, trying to understand why the PRC works. From a realpolitik perspective, it is in the interests of the west to figure out why the people of China support their government, so that can give them wedges to exploit by identifying cracks. The Ash Center even mentions this directly by stating that if the CPC fails to continue providing dramatic improvements in living standards, support will likely fall.
Further, the PRC isn't especially egregious when it comes to surveillance when compared with the west, and citizens do have freedom of speech. It's the speech of celebrities, capitalists, and private media that is controlled, because historically capital has used media to undermine socialist states like the USSR.
Even if its western organizations, if they're asking current citizens of the country who are residing in that country i would say their responses would still be limited by that country's freedom of speech.
Also, how exactly do they differentiate regular citizens from those other groups you mentioned? Do they have a strict line between "citizen" and "celebrity"? Because if I was an authoritarian and someone was saying something online that I didn't want spreading, as soon as they got any traction or platform online (so, the moment that speech starts to actually make a difference) I would label them a "celebrity" and take away their freedom of speech.
Not to mention the speech of regular citizens is absolutely controlled, with social media sites having blacklists on topics and words, for example.
I also doubt that there is any line between "private media" and "private media that is controlled," and I will always argue that a free press is an absolute necessity for freedom of speech because control over the information citizens receive is a form of control over their thoughts.
On a final note. I wonder if the chart above contained the opinions of any Uyghurs in western China? And would the rest of the country believe so thoroughly that the rights of all were protected if media was allowed to report on what's happening there?
You have an extremely simplistic and confused understanding of the PRC, and non-western politics in general. I'm not saying this to be mean, I mean this to be an encouragement to not simply buy the western viewpoint whole-cloth without doing your due dilligence.
There isn't a "celebrity detector." Put simply, if those with influence mouth off, they are usually punished, be they corrupt party members that are then purged, or wealthy capitalists like Jack Ma that wish to undermine the socialist system. State control of media is one of the demands listed right in the manifesto of the Communist Party as outlined by Marx and Engels, because if the state does not have control, then private capitalists have free reign. Non-state media is not "more free," just under control of capitalists.
Secondly, nobody is categorically an "authoritarian." Authority is a tool used by every state, what matters is which class the state is an extension of. In the west, that class is the capitalist class, in the PRC, it's the proletariat.
Thirdly, the CPC is not "controlling the thoughts" of Chinese citizens. VPNs are widespread, and Chinese citizens are not stupid. They support socialism because it works to dramatically uplift their lives, they've lived it.
Fourth, Chinese citizens know what's going on in Xinjiang. I suspect you don't, and suggest you read through Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation.
So, exactly as I thought, if someone "has influence" (read: their speech is reaching people) then their speech is limited. That sounds to me like speech is only free if it's fairly private, and as soon as it has any influence it can be shut down, which is not in any form actually free speech, sorry.
Also, to be clear about something - I am not against socialism. I am not the kind of American who thinks that China bad because they're communist/socialist. I am, however, a believer in democracy, a defender of free speech, and against the idea of a surveillance state regardless of whether its capitalist or socialist or whatever else.
Do you not see the blindingly obvious conflict of interest of reporting on allegations of genocide and human rights abuses from a media controlled by the state those allegations are levied against? Should I go ask the IDF what's happening in Gaza next, and just start spreading that around as what's "really happening?"
I'll still give it a read because I want to be well informed but I'm not going to put much faith in that article's ability to be truthful given its source. If you want to convince me, give me independent media.
Again, you're deeply confused. I gave you independent media, Qiao Collective is western independent media made up of those supportive to the PRC.
Secondly, again, you are merely gesturing at the possibility of overreach while erasing that the people of China support their system and are happy with the level at which speech of capitalists is curtailed. Influencial speech is absolutely allowed, and people are more politically engaged than in the US. You have this weird misconception of a dystopian society that just doesn't exist in reality, likely due to only consuming western media.
Apologies, I only saw the Qiao Collective described as a Chinese group, and thought that meant it was based in China, not just that it was made up of Chinese people. Still, they're very clearly a media organization made with the intention of supporting the PRC, and I've found claims they receive significant funding from the PRC, which I don't think makes them truly independent in the same way that the massive western media conglomerates are not truly independent because they must answer to their own capital interests. Point is, the conflict of interest is still very, very clear.
And no, I don't view china as a dystopia, I recognize that there's a lot going right there and that the people are, for the most part, doing fairly well. But conversely I don't view it as a communist utopia, it has genuine issues with surveillance, freedom of speech, and political persecution. And I haven't even mentioned its own imperialist tendencies with Taiwan, a country in which the opinion of reunification is in the overwhelming minority. And the country's massive participation in and influence from the global market makes me really doubt how free the country is of capital interests.
In my opinion, the idea that china is a utopia and the greatest country in the world is similarly naive to those who say the same about America.
It isn't a "conflict of interest," it is their interest. They are openly stating that Qiao Collective's goal is to combat western misinformation and connect Chinese political commentary and perspective with a western audience. You're the target demographic!
Secondly, nobody said China was a utopia. You're putting words in everyone's mouths with that one. I am defending the merits of the PRC and its socialist system, while stating that much of your criticism is ill-founded. That doesn't mean they are perfect, they have a long way to go.
Thirdly, you need to research Taiwan more. Qiao Collective also has a resource guide for it. China isn't imperialist.
Finally, again, you're claiming the people of China are oppressed with a lack of freedom of speech and political persecution, but what that translates to is you wish capitalists had free reign. I've already explained how the working class is in control, and their interests are supported.
Overall, you have a bunch of underlying assumptions and very little actual investigation. I am not trying to be rude or mean, I mean this purely as an attempt to get you to peak outside the western curtain.
Alright, I apologize for putting words in your mouth with the Chinese utopia thing, but you did the same to me, just to be clear.
As far as "conflict of interest" goes, I appreciate they are transparent in their interests, but what I mean by "conflict" is that if they have their interest is also to be fair and truthful (something I would hope is the case for any media) then they cant be fair and truthful about a conflict when their other interest is explicitly one side of that conflict. Again, I'm not dismissing the article as a whole but it's very clearly one-sided.
From the resource you provided on Taiwan:
I don't see how there is much conversation to be had beyond that. I don't care that the majority of its population is ethnically Chinese, they don't want to be part of the PRC. I recognize the American interests in keeping Taiwan independent and the problematic ties to the American military, but at the end of the day, if 92.4% of the population does not want to be a part of China then they should not be a part of China. And China, in wanting to control a foreign territory without the consent of its people, is imperialist in that regard. If the majority opinion of the people in Taiwan ever changes to be in favor of reunification, then I will change my mind on that matter.
Imperialism isn't just "annexing territory." China isn't trying to aggressively invade Tawian, they are waiting for when Taiwan wants to be reunited, and they have good reason to believe they will eventually.
Well, as I said, if the people of Taiwan are ever willing to unify with the PRC then I will support it. But they don't, they never have, and I see no reason to believe they ever will soon. China's insistence that Taiwan is currently and always has been a part of China does not seem to me like waiting for consent of the people.
It seems to me like, yet again, you haven't done the necessart research and are just parroting the US State Department narrative.
I couldn't care less about what the US government has to say on the matter. As I feel I've made abundantly clear, I do not believe Taiwan should be a part of the PRC because the people of Taiwan do not wish to be a part of the PRC. Any other factors are fairly insignificant compared to that. Even your pro-PRC article clearly states the statistics - that reunification is extremely unpopular to the people of Taiwan - so I really doubt that is western propaganda or the US narrative.
You don't care, you just stop any and all reading where it affirms your pre-existing bias, a bias formed largely by the State Department's influence over mass media. No situation is static, and if you ignore the forces at play you'll always be caught off-guard anytime change occurs.
As I said, if the opinion of the people of Taiwan change to be in favor of reunification then I will also support it, regardless of what western influences want. I understand the situation is complex but consent and self-determination are not.
Again, my stance on Taiwan is simple: because the people of Taiwan do not wish to be part of the PRC, I do not believe they should be. Do you disagree with me?
I believe you are deliberately ignoring the complexities of the situation, because reality challenges your preconceived notions.
If those complexities were significant enough, then the people of Taiwan would support reunification. Like you said yourself earlier, these people aren't stupid. If it was best for them to be a part of the PRC they would support that, but they overwhelmingly wouldn't. And, to be clear, this is not even close. Your own source said it was less than 8% of the population wanted reunification. That's one of the most overwhelmingly unpopular opinions I've ever seen in politics.
This conversation started with you arguing that the PRC was so great because the people of the PRC believed it to be. That the PRC should be the way it is because thats what the people want. And now here we are, talking about a people who overwhelmingly think they should not be a part of the PRC, and now suddenly "what the people want" isn't valid anymore? Why was that valid when it was in favor of the PRC but is invalid when it isn't? Maybe you're right that I have a bias and preconceived notions, but you clearly do too.
Again, nothing is static, and you assume long and protracted processes produce immediate results. Your deliberate refusal to read into anything that might challenge your pre-existing notions is not productive.
I know it's not static, thats why I said I would support reunification if the people of Taiwan did. You, however, are refusing to acknowledge your own biases and hypocrisy on this matter.
There are no hypocricies on my end. I am absolutely biased, and so are you. Everyone is biased. What's important is that I've done the research to support why I believe broad approval of the PRC will continue in China, whike you've refused to do the research on Taiwan's complexities. There is a large gap in knowledge, I don't simply believe that just because a single chart says China is democratic that it is, I believe it because it corroborates everything else I know to be true.
Mass censorship of the bourgeois. No freedom of speech for the bourgeois.
And I guess that's where we're just going to fundamentally disagree. The state should not have control over who does and doesn't get freedom of speech. If they do, there is not truly freedom of speech.
Then you're lacking class consciousness. Every state serves a class over another. In capitalist societies, it's the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. In a socialist society it's the opposite.
You can easily observe this in how basically all of western media is owned by a few companies that dictate what information gets to you.
Furthermore, not everyone deserves freedom of speech. Nazis should have 0 right to that.
In theory thats all well and good, but in practice there is no state which I would trust to decide who does and doesn't get free speech. If the bourgeosie don't get free speech, then the state can silence anyone they disagree with by labeling them as part of the bourgeoisie. And while I certainly wish we could just take freedom of speech from nazis - because they absolutely do not deserve it, you're right about that - in that case the state can silence anyone by labeling them a nazi. Which kinda is happening right now because some will try to silence people who are pro-palestinian by labeling them as anti-semetic and then comparing them to nazis. You also see that with people being labeled as terrorists, or gang affiliated, for example. (Same argument applies to due process, and to a greater extent, but thats not super relevant)
I totally get that distrust because I used to think like that too.
The problem with this line of thinking is that, in my case at least, it came from a misunderstanding of how governments/states actually work due to intense propaganda, specially by right winger politicians that keep pushing this type narrative. Different types of states function differently.
All these issues you list are deeply linked with whose class controls the state, it's not an issue with the state itself.
That would be extremely hard to do. Being part of the bourgeoisie is a material condition, so unless you tick all the boxes that makes you part of it, there's no conceivable way to simply label someone that in a socialist society just because. Furthermore, socialist societies have mechanisms of true popular democracy in place so people have a much bigger participation in politics, if such a problem would arise, people could do something about it, which goes in complete contrast to what happens in capitalist countries like the USA where, like you mentioned, you can simply be labeled an antisemite for protesting against the genocidal entity of Israel, can then be beat by the police for protesting the genocide and even sent to prison.
The thing here is that we need to look at how this is happening in real life right now. Are socialist states (Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam, DPRK) doing that? As far as I know, no. Are capitalist ones doing that? Yes. So that in itself already suggests something is different in these states.
In fact, the reason why in the west you get labeled antisemitic for protesting against the genocide is directly linked with the bourgeoisie since it is in their interest that Israel continue existing. Biden himself admitted back in 1986 that the existence of Israel furthers US's interests in the region. So showing solidarity with Palestine goes directly against the US's bourgeoisie interests. That's why you're attacked by the state for that.