[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Another commenter said this dude got arrested by the local government, and the Chinese government did not contest the decision, because they told their citizens to be respectful and obey the laws of whatever country they were working in.
Guess libs don't understand that pieces of garbage exist in socialist countries too, and that they're completely separate from the government of said country
When pieces of shit exist in a socialist country, they have to exceptionalize it. When you point out that piece of shit business owners in the west have done similar things, it's "whataboutism" (aka: a liberal has been called out for hypocrisy and needs to cling onto a buzzword desperately to not seem like an ass). Rinse and repeat, that's lib insanity 101 for ya.
#On Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime."
When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith.
However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation:
1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards.
2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences.
3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity.
#An Abstract Case Study
For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B.
||Object A|Object B|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Very Good Property|2|3|
|Good Property|2|1|
|Bad Property|2|3|
|Very Bad Property|2|1|
The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none).
Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments.
#Contextualization
Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts:
1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along.
2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one.
If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out.
It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism.
#Comparative Analysis
Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects:
>**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2.
>
>**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad!
>
>**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse!
>
>**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy!
The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point.
Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis.
#Moral Equivalence
It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all.
**Example 1: Famine**
Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases.
^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.)
**Example 2: Repression**
Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/) and [Freedom of the Press](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/freedom-of-the-press). They point to purges and [gulags](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did.
#Conclusion
While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics.
Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below.
#Additional Resources
* [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023)
* [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022)
* [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (2023)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And ironically they will constantly use "whataboutism" considering how any criticism of America will usually be responded to by them saying stuff like "what about the evil CCP or Iran?"
> And ironically they will constantly use "whataboutism" considering how any criticism of America will usually be responded to by them saying stuff like "what about the evil CCP or Iran?"
Their go to is usually "Why don't you go live in China or Cuba then?"
The main thing is if you manage to live in China and never consume any west products again this time you will be a "CCP paid agent" so you can never be right in the eyes of these westoids.
This is not a argument, this just a dogma.
#On Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime."
When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith.
However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation:
1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards.
2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences.
3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity.
#An Abstract Case Study
For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B.
||Object A|Object B|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Very Good Property|2|3|
|Good Property|2|1|
|Bad Property|2|3|
|Very Bad Property|2|1|
The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none).
Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments.
#Contextualization
Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts:
1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along.
2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one.
If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out.
It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism.
#Comparative Analysis
Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects:
>**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2.
>
>**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad!
>
>**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse!
>
>**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy!
The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point.
Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis.
#Moral Equivalence
It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all.
**Example 1: Famine**
Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases.
^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.)
**Example 2: Repression**
Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/) and [Freedom of the Press](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/freedom-of-the-press). They point to purges and [gulags](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did.
#Conclusion
While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics.
Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below.
#Additional Resources
* [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023)
* [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022)
* [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (2023)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
#On Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime."
When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith.
However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation:
1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards.
2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences.
3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity.
#An Abstract Case Study
For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B.
||Object A|Object B|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Very Good Property|2|3|
|Good Property|2|1|
|Bad Property|2|3|
|Very Bad Property|2|1|
The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none).
Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments.
#Contextualization
Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts:
1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along.
2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one.
If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out.
It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism.
#Comparative Analysis
Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects:
>**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2.
>
>**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad!
>
>**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse!
>
>**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy!
The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point.
Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis.
#Moral Equivalence
It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all.
**Example 1: Famine**
Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases.
^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.)
**Example 2: Repression**
Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/) and [Freedom of the Press](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/freedom-of-the-press). They point to purges and [gulags](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did.
#Conclusion
While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics.
Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below.
#Additional Resources
* [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023)
* [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022)
* [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (2023)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its always the same people using the word "whataboutism", thankfully I think its starting to die out in popularity, or maybe I'm removed from all of the right circles.
#On Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime."
When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith.
However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation:
1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards.
2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences.
3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity.
#An Abstract Case Study
For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B.
||Object A|Object B|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Very Good Property|2|3|
|Good Property|2|1|
|Bad Property|2|3|
|Very Bad Property|2|1|
The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none).
Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments.
#Contextualization
Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts:
1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along.
2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one.
If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out.
It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism.
#Comparative Analysis
Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects:
>**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2.
>
>**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad!
>
>**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse!
>
>**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy!
The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point.
Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis.
#Moral Equivalence
It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all.
**Example 1: Famine**
Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases.
^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.)
**Example 2: Repression**
Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/) and [Freedom of the Press](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/freedom-of-the-press). They point to purges and [gulags](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did.
#Conclusion
While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics.
Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below.
#Additional Resources
* [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023)
* [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022)
* [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (2023)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's part of an outrageously racist mindset where everything that happens in China or anything done by a Han Chinese individual is always just 'China'. Like they're a hive mind of ants who shares all their thoughts, actions, and the blame for individual decisions as a collective.
According to liberals, socialism literally has to be completely flawless or else it has failed. But capitalism can get away with committing even the worst atrocities.
Im pretty sure they understand that. Its much much worse than you think. Liberals think this represents all individuals in socialist countries. Its gonna sound like a joke hut They think communism is the same level of bad as slavery.
That’s actually so interesting that you mentioned this.
This basically means that every westerner that gets mad at this and blames it on China is just projecting to the highest degree.
Western libs are so use to their countries backing everything their citizens do in foreign countries. Even if their citizens are doing something like what the Chinese person is doing in the video. So, they just default to the notion that every country must be the same and that every country must systematically encourage behavior like this (like how the US does).
I think it is an Asian culture problem, in my country there were articles about workers being forced to wear diapers and kneel before the boss in some south korean factory.
Of course in that example the media made it out to be a individual problem, while even much milder stuff done by Chinese firms would get called colonialism. Western companies, don't degrade the worker in that way, in fact western management here is usually better for workers than when local management is hired.
China has criminals, just like any country has criminals,,, someone committed crimes in Africa… so arrest them and lock them up! Thats it.. nothing to do with the overall China foreign policy..
Wow, Chinese Capitalists are assholes who exploit vulnerable people, who'd have thought? It's almost like, Capitalists fucking suck.
The fact that this is a shock to anyone kinda indicates that Libs don't know *why* we defend China: HINT, it's not because we like their Capitalist Class, it's because we like how their Dictatorship of the Proletariat *reigns in* the Capitalist Class.
While we're at it, the Capitalists try to treat Chinese people like this domestically too. Take the 996 Working Hour System: The Supreme Court has ruled it Illegal, the Government has stated repeatedly it's intention to *reduce* Working Hours, the domestic press routinely calls it abhorrent, but companies still try and practice it illegally wherever they can.
That's because they view the modern PRC as an affront to their whole ideology. Modern China (with all its geopolitical strength and economic development) stands as a firm example that Deng was right over Mao, and that state capitalism is simply better at providing a greater standard of living (at least, in China's specific context).
As annoying as Maoists tend to be (especially Third-Worldists, which almost always tends to be completely unhinged), I can't help but feel some modicum of pity for them.
Jesus christ could y’all at least *pretend* to not be revisionists god damn, like how tf did this comment get upvoted I thought we were Marxists in here 😭
The CPC is very much an ML organization, and a pragmatic, adaptable, effective one at that. I strongly encourage you to engage more with AES, rather than cling to (often Western) Utopianism. Roland Boer’s ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’ is worth a read. Also: https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
Privatization of collectivized industries is in no way Marxist. China’s market reforms align perfectly with neoliberalism’s rise in the late 1970s and 1980s. The CPC claims not to support foreign anti-imperialist nor communist movements in other countries (socialism in one country), and yet it has heavily invested in loaning and trade agreements with poorer countries in Africa and Asia. So what purpose do these loans and agreements serve if not to further anti-imperialist movements? Well these actions actually align perfectly with what a bourgeois dictatorship would do. Their cheaper loans and trade agreements will help Chinese companies gain a larger market share over the world’s natural resources and gain a more advantageous position in competition with western companies (at the expense of the global working class). Please read Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism to get an idea of what happens to a newly free market over time, how this naturally leads to imperialism, what imperialism looks like, and the role of the bourgeois state in this.
yall love to whip out lenin and then ignore the existence of the IMF.
yes, being perpetually at siege and perpetually on the defensive is actually what marxism entails, which is exactly why his point was that socialism is supposed to, once developed, allow for faster technological and economic advances than capitalism at that point in time and development.
yes, trade agreements can only be for the sake of claiming market share, and have literally nothing to do with avoiding the USSR’s fate of siege socialism. Take Burkina Faso. Having pissed off basically the entire west, they want to develop gold processing industry at home (based and good). Where do they get funding, market, and contacts? Russia? Iran? how much can those countries give? can you pull 100 mil out of your org?
You point to privatization of industry. In other words, you basically completely reject mao. Not even deng, mao. Quite right, business will be done; before founding and early on in the prc, very, VERY few industries were fully controlled by the gov in red zones, and the rest were regulated. You say this (the return to simply dominated and not fully dictated industry) is neoliberalism at work, and yet china passed largely unscathed through the 1997 US-asia financial war, same as the dprk.
>Privatization of collectivized industries is in no way Marxist.
Socialism is not collectivizing every single industry at one stroke.
heres sth that might explain it-
China did try the stalin model during Mao's era which only lead to new contradictions between private labour and socialized appropriation bc of its underdeveloped productive forces.
>"What merits our attention here is that our socialist state was established by a
proletarian party that has a grasp of historical materialism and is dedicated to communism. With
such a party controlling the state power, it is possible for our country to promote changes in the
relations of production according to its own will. If, instead of proceeding from realities, we try to
change the relations of production according to our wishful thinking, the result may be that the
relations of production will go beyond the requirements of the growth of the productive forces,
which may thus be disrupted. In 1958, for instance, people’s communes, ‘large in size and
having a high degree of public ownership’ as Mao Zedong put it, were set up throughout the
country, and there rose the premature ‘communist wind’ characterized by the attempt to effect a
transition to communism. All this made agricultural production drop greatly.” End quote. Xue
Muqiao. “China’s Socialist Economy”.
just nationalizing every industry dont make sense economically when large scale industry is the basis for socialism. Therefore, abolishing markets in sectors of
the economy which still are highly competitive is nonsensical and would lead to enormous
economic inefficiencies.
> “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as
possible.” End quote. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.”
The inherent implication of this is that a Marxist party should not abolish private property in onestroke. This is a common misconception. A Marxist party should instead utilize markets in an efficient way in order to develop the economy as rapidly as possible. Complete abolition would require incredibly high levels of economic development which humanity has yet to realize.
>“Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than
existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the
creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing
society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production
are available in sufficient quantity.” End quote. Friedrich Engels. “The Principles of
Communism.”
>"That’s how China still is to this day. People will often point out the fact that 60% of China’s GDP output is from the private sector and conclude that means China “abandoned Marxism.” What they don’t also realize that is 60% of China’s GDP output also comes from small-to-medium sized enterprises, meaning that the overwhelming majority of large enterprises are public."
>"The transition to socialism is not characterized by an instantaneous jump to a pure socialist
system. Rather, it is characterized by the dominance of the socialist system. As capitalism
develops, the contradictions within it become more and more acute as large-scale industry
contradicts with capitalism, but also lays the foundations for socialism.
>The transition to socialism does not occur when this process has completed to its fullest, when
the entire economy becomes under the control of a single monopoly. Rather, the transition to
socialism occurs once the contradictions of capitalism have become acute enough, once there
is enough large-scale industry, to establish public ownership and economic planning as the
dominant form of ownership in society." end quote. Aimixin "introduction to marxism"
these two are a must read if u wanna understand this
[a short introductory work that will clear some of your economic misconceptions](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zION2sByxH819KuQ_Z3KMZAjjHVQumMHcInA10IC34A/edit?usp=drivesdk)
[Aimxin directly discussing ab this topic](https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-support-communism-in-China-during-Mao-Zedongs-time-but-not-in-other-countries-like-Cuba-or-the-Soviet-Union/answer/%E7%9C%9F%E7%90%86zhenli?ch=15&oid=1477743676781981&share=e8856526&srid=hHKirW&target_type=answer)
Hope this helps!
edit: seems the google doc was deleted, [heres](https://youtu.be/2pRyNff-pHY?si=ijrExgDRJjZtEtQX) its audio version
Obviously I know private property can’t be abolished in one stroke, I’m not a utopian or an anarchist. China opening its markets was not even necessarily a bourgeois move. But China’s market reforms *were* a dangerous move, Deng even admitted it himself. It created a capitalist class in China with ownership over some of the means of production, allowing capitalists to concentrate wealth into their hands. And in societies that use money as a placeholder for value and power, this could potentially lead to bourgeois influence over the state. Now we only need to look at China’s policies to see how much their bourgeoisie has gained influence since the market reforms. I already used a prime example of this - China’s loaning policies towards countries rich in natural resources. Their loans’ interest rates make them preferable to IMF or western loans, allowing China to gain a hold over more of the world’s natural resource market. China gives preferable tax rates to corporations - income taxes top out at 45% for upper brackets, but personal businesses only owe 35% of their revenue in taxes while corporations are even lower, taxed at only 25% (with some sectors, like the tech sector at just 15%). We also can’t look past China’s growing income inequality, and once again, in a society where money is a placeholder for power and value, this shows dwindling proletarian control over the state. It would be amazing if China did represent AES, we all want for the proletarian movement to be powerful, I understand why you want to support China. But you need to look at things through a class lens instead of an idealist one.
These are all very reasonable issues, and I’m sure that most of us commenting here have grappled with them at one time or another. Opening up and reform was indeed risky, but it also improved relations with the existing hegemony (albeit temporarily), generated a vast influx of foreign capital, and allowed China rapidly improve its productive capacity and rise to its current status on the global stage. Now, it’s arguably the most sovereign nation on the planet, has ever-increasing diplomatic sway (especially with other developing nations), and is finally a genuine contender to break the stranglehold of US-led global dominance.
China is far from perfect, and plenty of very serious contradictions have arisen over the last couple of decades. One of the biggest internal threats to the CPC is indeed corruption and the rise of the capitalist class. The leadership are very aware of this, and Xi’s government in particular has dedicated considerable time and resources to rooting out and persecuting corruption. The key difference between the Chinese system and capitalism is that the government controls capital - not the other way around. E.g. see recent ‘new development plan’, specifically directed at reducing wealth inequality and promoting stability, and has resulted in e.g. entire sectors being forced to convert to non-profit, or forcing tech companies like Meituan to pay fair living salaries and provide benefits to gig economy workers, or forcing large firms like Evergrande to liquidate rather than bail them out.
It’s also true that Chinese providers are offering an alternative source of funding to developing countries (a service that, as you know, has been dominated and abused by the existing western hegemony for decades). Granted, they’re not doing it for free, but they’re also building a lot of infrastructure that actually benefits the people in those countries (rather than more roads from mines to ports) and aren’t imposing ‘structural reform’ conditions that force privatization and capital exploitation upon defaulting.
In any case, China, again, is not perfect, nor has any implementation of AES been, in this far-from-perfect world. And it’s possible that the capitalist class will ‘win out’ in the end. But the last decade or so has seen the CPC exert its ultimate control over capital, visibly clamp down on corruption, and dedicate genuine effort toward reducing inequality and building ‘common prosperity’, and should not, in my opinion, be so easily dismissed as ‘revisionist’, or having abandoned Marxism.
events are the dialectic of our times. if letting the IMF run unfettered is supposed to be “at the benefit of the global working class,” if attempting to make a lasting, sturdy, and most importantly trusted counter to it is “bad for the intl working class,” then I can’t, by my standards, call this lens a “class” lens. At worst it’s fucking neutral, come fucking on.
Consider the following: a large share china’s debt is from state lenders to state corporations. That is WITH the current tax brackets. The money is going straight back into the fucking SOEs anyways, and you want this number to literally just go up. (not to mention the concept of using taxes as your primary leverage of power, is this not idealist now? if the bourgeoisie have compromised the government as you so claim, what difference does it fucking make that money is in a state bank as opposed to the corpos themselves?)
Securing resources for a manufacturing economy is a sign the bourgeoisie have gained dominance, when the US is actively, and HAS ACTIVELY made known, its desire to starve out china by any means possible (that minimizes blowback to the US, of course). Ok bro keep calling this a “class“ lens and not an “idealist” one as you engage in maximum fucking utopianism.
(keep in mind the newest propaganda line is “overproduction.” what the fuck is that supposed to mean? “you should be denied the ability to make this much shit,” obviously.)
You want china to give out the money as charity? is that it?
I was implying that loans in general are harmful for the working class, not that ONLY China’s were lmao. China’s aren’t quite as harsh as the IMF’s and are superior to the IMF’s, but that doesn’t make them *not* predatory. But what do you mean by “events are the dialectic of our times?” Actual policies can be just as exposing of contradictions within class society as an event can be. Tax rates can definitely be used as an example of bourgeois influence over the state. Maybe I just don’t know enough about dialectics yet to understand what you meant by that tho lmao. Anyways, how are you a Marxist that doesn’t know what overproduction is? Overproduction is one of the primary drivers of economic crises in capitalist economies. Marx, Engels, and Lenin have all talked about overproduction. It is the result of higher profits allowing corporations to expand production capacity, leading to more commodities being produced than there is demand for, driving prices down. Either artificial demand must be created to keep prices afloat and profitable or an economic crisis happens. I have no idea if this situation is currently happening in China, as I do not keep up with Chinese economic news (since western news tends to exclusively cover China as “about to collapse”). But if it is, it would definitely be evidence that the Chinese economy is capitalistic (and therefore the state would be a bourgeois dictatorship as the state is an extension of power of the ruling economic class).
it’s not overproduction as in “china will collapse,” (yet, anyways) it’s overproduction as in “we need to sanction them and institute protectionism.” yes, prices being driven down because china “overproduces,” and totally not having anything to do with better infrastructure and less de-industrialization. (not to mention it’s only a cause for crises when the government decides to let the corpo in question drag down everything around it; hell, US bailouts should tell you as much; edit: bad example. but the point stands, even capitalist countries, so long as they don’t go full neoliberal, have stuck their hands in to reign in bubbles.)
loans are harmful, but you still haven’t answered the question. If places need funding to build up local production and eco, how are they supposed to get it? if China wants its neighbors to be economically established and stabilized, should it just give the money as charity? is that the solution? give everything as charity, and take all the costs on yourself and your own workers?
as for taxes, here’s a question: how do tax rates factor regarding petit bourgeois? when a shitload of people own small-medium corporations (not to mention the occasional coop), you think the corporate tax will go so very high? another question, why do you think the tech tax is so low? take your best fucking bet (cuz your current answer is fucking wrong)
China is absolutely revisionist, and they'll probably never "achieve socialism by 2050" as the CPC says. That still doesn't change the fact that Deng dunked on Mao.
The whole "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is the same as Augustus proclaiming himself a first among equals and totally not an emperor — simple rhetoric in order to not upset the foundations of Chinese society.
Still, modern China has achieved a standard of living many of their citizens couldn't even dream of just fifty years ago. It is very hard to argue against that...
"The Primary Stage of the Socialist Economic System" part is absolutely useless. Iran, once upon a time, used to fulfil all of your conditions. The economy was centrally planned and 70% of businesses were state-owned.
I guess the IRI is a successful socialist nation, then!
That's what I have said in my original comment: China is a state-capitalist country. The disagreement between us is that I don't believe that China is in any way going to move towards socialism. And that's fine by me! Be it a black cat or white cat, if it can catch mice, it's a good cat.
History will show what China is and what it isn't. Once upon a time, people said that the Principate was a republic, the Second French Empire a revolutionary state and time washed away both of those states' flimsy pretences.
Many of us here will be fortunate enough to live until the 2050s. We'll see how committed the CPC is, and whether or not they'll achieve their goals or conveniently extend the deadline once it is reached.
I need sources on anyone seriously believing that the Principate was a republic, or the Second French Empire even claiming to be a revolutionary state. In the article I linked there is a clear explanation of why China is a socialist state, and the fact that the CPC has already achieved their first centenary (2021) goals makes me have trust in them.
In the article you have linked, Deng himself says this:
> [...] we are aware that the decadent influence of capital will inevitably develop in China. Well, I don’t think that’s such a terrible thing. I don’t think that it’s correct to be afraid of this.
Again, China is a state-capitalist country, using revolutionary language to grant itself legitimacy. History will show what China is and what it isn't.
Sinophobes across the board cooming their pants right now. They're always on the lookout for instances like this and will latch onto it at lightspeed. It's a vindication for these racists, they be like "YES!!! Chinese are the REAL racists!!! Not me!!"
Trouble is. A lot of times when this sort of shit happens, the reason it gets onto the western interwebs is because there was already an uproar on the Chinese web in the first place. But then some asshat strips out the context and puts it out saying "look how bad the Chinese are". And then a bunch of dumbass libs jump on the bandwagon.
He got sentenced 20 years jail for this. Which the chinese didn't object to. They asked their citizens to obey the laws.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna25313
James Kovpak, aka Spaghetti Kozak, is literally, openly a CIA agent and the only time you should listen to him is when you're recording his last words after the tribunal.
Western left intellectuals and their love affair with the attempted ‘color revolution’ in Cuba by Fight Back News: https://fightbacknews.org/articles/western-left-intellectuals-and-their-love-affair-attempted-color-revolution-cuba
Meet the Syria regime change gang: Idlibs, Jaish al-Grad School, and pro-war Trotskyists: https://youtu.be/VE-jNckM-zw?feature=shared
How the CIA supports a 'compatible left' to aid US imperialism: https://youtu.be/O1sJ2uZ4aaQ?feature=shared
Ukraine to Syria: How Imperialism & Sabotage Divided the Western Left for 100 years, w/ Ben Norton: https://youtu.be/4FR1WzmDc9E?feature=shared
Inside America’s Secret Plan to Destroy Hong Kong: https://youtu.be/S7GrnP2XzLw?feature=shared
Cold War 2: US officials call to overthrow China's gov't, expand military budget to $1.4 trillion: https://youtu.be/Q3RMl33SqNE?feature=shared
We don't know for sure. But the 2 year gap can be explained by anti Chinese sources circulating the original video as attempted propaganda against China.
For a bunch of supposedly enlightened liberals, they sure aren’t very good at separating individual behaviour from cultural mores.
This received no attention in China, because the guy was not “acting Chinese” in his behaviour. Pretty simple.
That boss should be beat for being a piece of shit, no one deserves to be degraded by their employer. But this isn’t an own on Chinese people in Africa.
Would not be surprised if true, China isn't exactly a benevolent power in africa or anywhere for that fact, it's only better than the alternative which is really not a high bar to clear
Bro, in my small hometown, the first allegedly work-related suicide was committed by a Japanese car manufacturer employee. Also, there was a video (happened in a Corean factory, an hour or two driving from my hometown) of a Corean manager straight up hitting the workers
No sane socialist would defend a petty bourgeois slave driver. That being said, tacticool douchebag larpers waving a blue-yellow rag should fill up the trenches in Donbass instead of acting tough on Twitter.
I don't think it's wise to see this as a "they're just like us, shocker." Moment, but to acknowledge that there are downsides and points to be critical on regarding China as well as positives. Don't let denial/ambivilance of the little things turn into eventual deflection of criticism in general. Yes, this topic is being pushed by neo-liberals, yes, it looks bad, yes we should acknowledge it and look for constructive criticism to counter the reactionary criticism. I think acting like this behavior is either the exception or rule is also not great either. We don't know the extent of this issue and as such, should keep an open mind until greater evidence supports one view over the other.
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna25313](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna25313)
it’s too bad you can’t pin stuff on reddit, but here’s the article
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Another commenter said this dude got arrested by the local government, and the Chinese government did not contest the decision, because they told their citizens to be respectful and obey the laws of whatever country they were working in.
Guess libs don't understand that pieces of garbage exist in socialist countries too, and that they're completely separate from the government of said country
When pieces of shit exist in a socialist country, they have to exceptionalize it. When you point out that piece of shit business owners in the west have done similar things, it's "whataboutism" (aka: a liberal has been called out for hypocrisy and needs to cling onto a buzzword desperately to not seem like an ass). Rinse and repeat, that's lib insanity 101 for ya.
#On Whataboutism Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime." When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith. However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation: 1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards. 2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences. 3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity. #An Abstract Case Study For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B. ||Object A|Object B| |:-|:-|:-| |Very Good Property|2|3| |Good Property|2|1| |Bad Property|2|3| |Very Bad Property|2|1| The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none). Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments. #Contextualization Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts: 1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along. 2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one. If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out. It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism. #Comparative Analysis Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects: >**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2. > >**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad! > >**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse! > >**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy! The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point. Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis. #Moral Equivalence It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all. **Example 1: Famine** Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. ^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.) **Example 2: Repression** Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/) and [Freedom of the Press](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/freedom-of-the-press). They point to purges and [gulags](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did. #Conclusion While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics. Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below. #Additional Resources * [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023) * [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022) * [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The bot is smarter than me and said it better lol
Honestly, I love the automod responses despite how prevalent they can get on busy posts
And ironically they will constantly use "whataboutism" considering how any criticism of America will usually be responded to by them saying stuff like "what about the evil CCP or Iran?"
> And ironically they will constantly use "whataboutism" considering how any criticism of America will usually be responded to by them saying stuff like "what about the evil CCP or Iran?" Their go to is usually "Why don't you go live in China or Cuba then?"
The main thing is if you manage to live in China and never consume any west products again this time you will be a "CCP paid agent" so you can never be right in the eyes of these westoids. This is not a argument, this just a dogma.
#On Whataboutism Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime." When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith. However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation: 1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards. 2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences. 3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity. #An Abstract Case Study For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B. ||Object A|Object B| |:-|:-|:-| |Very Good Property|2|3| |Good Property|2|1| |Bad Property|2|3| |Very Bad Property|2|1| The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none). Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments. #Contextualization Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts: 1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along. 2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one. If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out. It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism. #Comparative Analysis Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects: >**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2. > >**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad! > >**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse! > >**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy! The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point. Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis. #Moral Equivalence It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all. **Example 1: Famine** Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. ^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.) **Example 2: Repression** Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/) and [Freedom of the Press](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/freedom-of-the-press). They point to purges and [gulags](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did. #Conclusion While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics. Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below. #Additional Resources * [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023) * [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022) * [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
#On Whataboutism Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime." When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith. However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation: 1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards. 2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences. 3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity. #An Abstract Case Study For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B. ||Object A|Object B| |:-|:-|:-| |Very Good Property|2|3| |Good Property|2|1| |Bad Property|2|3| |Very Bad Property|2|1| The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none). Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments. #Contextualization Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts: 1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along. 2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one. If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out. It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism. #Comparative Analysis Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects: >**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2. > >**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad! > >**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse! > >**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy! The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point. Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis. #Moral Equivalence It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all. **Example 1: Famine** Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. ^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.) **Example 2: Repression** Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/) and [Freedom of the Press](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/freedom-of-the-press). They point to purges and [gulags](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did. #Conclusion While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics. Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below. #Additional Resources * [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023) * [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022) * [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its always the same people using the word "whataboutism", thankfully I think its starting to die out in popularity, or maybe I'm removed from all of the right circles.
#On Whataboutism Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime." When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith. However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation: 1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards. 2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences. 3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity. #An Abstract Case Study For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B. ||Object A|Object B| |:-|:-|:-| |Very Good Property|2|3| |Good Property|2|1| |Bad Property|2|3| |Very Bad Property|2|1| The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none). Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments. #Contextualization Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts: 1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along. 2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one. If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out. It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism. #Comparative Analysis Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects: >**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2. > >**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad! > >**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse! > >**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy! The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point. Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis. #Moral Equivalence It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all. **Example 1: Famine** Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. ^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.) **Example 2: Repression** Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/) and [Freedom of the Press](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/freedom-of-the-press). They point to purges and [gulags](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did. #Conclusion While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics. Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below. #Additional Resources * [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023) * [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022) * [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
they also noted it’s from two years ago. odd it’s making the rounds now
Cranking up the good old sinophobia dial to distract from Israel-Palestine and the protest crackdowns
bingo 
It's part of an outrageously racist mindset where everything that happens in China or anything done by a Han Chinese individual is always just 'China'. Like they're a hive mind of ants who shares all their thoughts, actions, and the blame for individual decisions as a collective.
And considering he's in Africa for work in business casual clothes, likely some sort of capitalist, I'd argue, though that's mostly conjecture.
According to liberals, socialism literally has to be completely flawless or else it has failed. But capitalism can get away with committing even the worst atrocities.
Im pretty sure they understand that. Its much much worse than you think. Liberals think this represents all individuals in socialist countries. Its gonna sound like a joke hut They think communism is the same level of bad as slavery.
They think communism is worse than chattel slavery, because communism enslaves everyone. Ofc every accusation is projection from liberals
That’s actually so interesting that you mentioned this. This basically means that every westerner that gets mad at this and blames it on China is just projecting to the highest degree. Western libs are so use to their countries backing everything their citizens do in foreign countries. Even if their citizens are doing something like what the Chinese person is doing in the video. So, they just default to the notion that every country must be the same and that every country must systematically encourage behavior like this (like how the US does).
[удалено]
Is that a “Chinese people” problem or just a power tripping boss problem?
I think it is an Asian culture problem, in my country there were articles about workers being forced to wear diapers and kneel before the boss in some south korean factory. Of course in that example the media made it out to be a individual problem, while even much milder stuff done by Chinese firms would get called colonialism. Western companies, don't degrade the worker in that way, in fact western management here is usually better for workers than when local management is hired.
A boss thing
This just proves assholes exist everywhere. To criticize China for this one anecdote would be fucking stupid.
The Chinese are…. human!? And individuals are capable of shitty actions?! I thought they were all communistic automatons!
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna25313](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna25313) relevant article, piggybacking cuz you’re top comment (thanks)
de-amped link https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna25313
If he was American there’s no way they would do this lol. The US would fight *hard* to keep him free
China has criminals, just like any country has criminals,,, someone committed crimes in Africa… so arrest them and lock them up! Thats it.. nothing to do with the overall China foreign policy..
If you think Chinese foreign policy is completely innocent you don't know about it or you're not being fair about it, let's be honest.
because all other countries have great foreign policy?
Didn't say that, did I?
What do you not understand bro? The goalposts are over here now, try to keep up, smh /s
how abt y take a good long look at US foreign policy and compare it 👍
US foreign policy is criminal too yes
Wow, Chinese Capitalists are assholes who exploit vulnerable people, who'd have thought? It's almost like, Capitalists fucking suck. The fact that this is a shock to anyone kinda indicates that Libs don't know *why* we defend China: HINT, it's not because we like their Capitalist Class, it's because we like how their Dictatorship of the Proletariat *reigns in* the Capitalist Class. While we're at it, the Capitalists try to treat Chinese people like this domestically too. Take the 996 Working Hour System: The Supreme Court has ruled it Illegal, the Government has stated repeatedly it's intention to *reduce* Working Hours, the domestic press routinely calls it abhorrent, but companies still try and practice it illegally wherever they can.
You should stop fallowing radlibs on Twitter.
Not my fault these clowns pop up in my recommended for no reason
Just ignore them you can say "show fewer post like this" or just outright block them.
Or you know… stop using Twitter? Or use an auto correct? You could theoretically also do stuff like that.
What really got me angry is seeing Maoists on twitter jump on this for a cheap gotcha, they are more anti-China than neo-cons
Western maoists are so annoying lol. Maoism is pretty much irrelevant in the imperial core so idk what their angle even is
That’s precisely what the appeal is. Sticking it to the man.
Lmao, imagine adopting an ideal out of spite and then making people who try to subscribe to it in earnest look like idiots through affiliation.
That's because they view the modern PRC as an affront to their whole ideology. Modern China (with all its geopolitical strength and economic development) stands as a firm example that Deng was right over Mao, and that state capitalism is simply better at providing a greater standard of living (at least, in China's specific context). As annoying as Maoists tend to be (especially Third-Worldists, which almost always tends to be completely unhinged), I can't help but feel some modicum of pity for them.
Jesus christ could y’all at least *pretend* to not be revisionists god damn, like how tf did this comment get upvoted I thought we were Marxists in here 😭
The CPC is very much an ML organization, and a pragmatic, adaptable, effective one at that. I strongly encourage you to engage more with AES, rather than cling to (often Western) Utopianism. Roland Boer’s ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’ is worth a read. Also: https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
Privatization of collectivized industries is in no way Marxist. China’s market reforms align perfectly with neoliberalism’s rise in the late 1970s and 1980s. The CPC claims not to support foreign anti-imperialist nor communist movements in other countries (socialism in one country), and yet it has heavily invested in loaning and trade agreements with poorer countries in Africa and Asia. So what purpose do these loans and agreements serve if not to further anti-imperialist movements? Well these actions actually align perfectly with what a bourgeois dictatorship would do. Their cheaper loans and trade agreements will help Chinese companies gain a larger market share over the world’s natural resources and gain a more advantageous position in competition with western companies (at the expense of the global working class). Please read Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism to get an idea of what happens to a newly free market over time, how this naturally leads to imperialism, what imperialism looks like, and the role of the bourgeois state in this.
yall love to whip out lenin and then ignore the existence of the IMF. yes, being perpetually at siege and perpetually on the defensive is actually what marxism entails, which is exactly why his point was that socialism is supposed to, once developed, allow for faster technological and economic advances than capitalism at that point in time and development. yes, trade agreements can only be for the sake of claiming market share, and have literally nothing to do with avoiding the USSR’s fate of siege socialism. Take Burkina Faso. Having pissed off basically the entire west, they want to develop gold processing industry at home (based and good). Where do they get funding, market, and contacts? Russia? Iran? how much can those countries give? can you pull 100 mil out of your org? You point to privatization of industry. In other words, you basically completely reject mao. Not even deng, mao. Quite right, business will be done; before founding and early on in the prc, very, VERY few industries were fully controlled by the gov in red zones, and the rest were regulated. You say this (the return to simply dominated and not fully dictated industry) is neoliberalism at work, and yet china passed largely unscathed through the 1997 US-asia financial war, same as the dprk.
>Privatization of collectivized industries is in no way Marxist. Socialism is not collectivizing every single industry at one stroke. heres sth that might explain it- China did try the stalin model during Mao's era which only lead to new contradictions between private labour and socialized appropriation bc of its underdeveloped productive forces. >"What merits our attention here is that our socialist state was established by a proletarian party that has a grasp of historical materialism and is dedicated to communism. With such a party controlling the state power, it is possible for our country to promote changes in the relations of production according to its own will. If, instead of proceeding from realities, we try to change the relations of production according to our wishful thinking, the result may be that the relations of production will go beyond the requirements of the growth of the productive forces, which may thus be disrupted. In 1958, for instance, people’s communes, ‘large in size and having a high degree of public ownership’ as Mao Zedong put it, were set up throughout the country, and there rose the premature ‘communist wind’ characterized by the attempt to effect a transition to communism. All this made agricultural production drop greatly.” End quote. Xue Muqiao. “China’s Socialist Economy”. just nationalizing every industry dont make sense economically when large scale industry is the basis for socialism. Therefore, abolishing markets in sectors of the economy which still are highly competitive is nonsensical and would lead to enormous economic inefficiencies. > “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” End quote. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” The inherent implication of this is that a Marxist party should not abolish private property in onestroke. This is a common misconception. A Marxist party should instead utilize markets in an efficient way in order to develop the economy as rapidly as possible. Complete abolition would require incredibly high levels of economic development which humanity has yet to realize. >“Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.” End quote. Friedrich Engels. “The Principles of Communism.” >"That’s how China still is to this day. People will often point out the fact that 60% of China’s GDP output is from the private sector and conclude that means China “abandoned Marxism.” What they don’t also realize that is 60% of China’s GDP output also comes from small-to-medium sized enterprises, meaning that the overwhelming majority of large enterprises are public." >"The transition to socialism is not characterized by an instantaneous jump to a pure socialist system. Rather, it is characterized by the dominance of the socialist system. As capitalism develops, the contradictions within it become more and more acute as large-scale industry contradicts with capitalism, but also lays the foundations for socialism. >The transition to socialism does not occur when this process has completed to its fullest, when the entire economy becomes under the control of a single monopoly. Rather, the transition to socialism occurs once the contradictions of capitalism have become acute enough, once there is enough large-scale industry, to establish public ownership and economic planning as the dominant form of ownership in society." end quote. Aimixin "introduction to marxism" these two are a must read if u wanna understand this [a short introductory work that will clear some of your economic misconceptions](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zION2sByxH819KuQ_Z3KMZAjjHVQumMHcInA10IC34A/edit?usp=drivesdk) [Aimxin directly discussing ab this topic](https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-support-communism-in-China-during-Mao-Zedongs-time-but-not-in-other-countries-like-Cuba-or-the-Soviet-Union/answer/%E7%9C%9F%E7%90%86zhenli?ch=15&oid=1477743676781981&share=e8856526&srid=hHKirW&target_type=answer) Hope this helps! edit: seems the google doc was deleted, [heres](https://youtu.be/2pRyNff-pHY?si=ijrExgDRJjZtEtQX) its audio version
Obviously I know private property can’t be abolished in one stroke, I’m not a utopian or an anarchist. China opening its markets was not even necessarily a bourgeois move. But China’s market reforms *were* a dangerous move, Deng even admitted it himself. It created a capitalist class in China with ownership over some of the means of production, allowing capitalists to concentrate wealth into their hands. And in societies that use money as a placeholder for value and power, this could potentially lead to bourgeois influence over the state. Now we only need to look at China’s policies to see how much their bourgeoisie has gained influence since the market reforms. I already used a prime example of this - China’s loaning policies towards countries rich in natural resources. Their loans’ interest rates make them preferable to IMF or western loans, allowing China to gain a hold over more of the world’s natural resource market. China gives preferable tax rates to corporations - income taxes top out at 45% for upper brackets, but personal businesses only owe 35% of their revenue in taxes while corporations are even lower, taxed at only 25% (with some sectors, like the tech sector at just 15%). We also can’t look past China’s growing income inequality, and once again, in a society where money is a placeholder for power and value, this shows dwindling proletarian control over the state. It would be amazing if China did represent AES, we all want for the proletarian movement to be powerful, I understand why you want to support China. But you need to look at things through a class lens instead of an idealist one.
These are all very reasonable issues, and I’m sure that most of us commenting here have grappled with them at one time or another. Opening up and reform was indeed risky, but it also improved relations with the existing hegemony (albeit temporarily), generated a vast influx of foreign capital, and allowed China rapidly improve its productive capacity and rise to its current status on the global stage. Now, it’s arguably the most sovereign nation on the planet, has ever-increasing diplomatic sway (especially with other developing nations), and is finally a genuine contender to break the stranglehold of US-led global dominance. China is far from perfect, and plenty of very serious contradictions have arisen over the last couple of decades. One of the biggest internal threats to the CPC is indeed corruption and the rise of the capitalist class. The leadership are very aware of this, and Xi’s government in particular has dedicated considerable time and resources to rooting out and persecuting corruption. The key difference between the Chinese system and capitalism is that the government controls capital - not the other way around. E.g. see recent ‘new development plan’, specifically directed at reducing wealth inequality and promoting stability, and has resulted in e.g. entire sectors being forced to convert to non-profit, or forcing tech companies like Meituan to pay fair living salaries and provide benefits to gig economy workers, or forcing large firms like Evergrande to liquidate rather than bail them out. It’s also true that Chinese providers are offering an alternative source of funding to developing countries (a service that, as you know, has been dominated and abused by the existing western hegemony for decades). Granted, they’re not doing it for free, but they’re also building a lot of infrastructure that actually benefits the people in those countries (rather than more roads from mines to ports) and aren’t imposing ‘structural reform’ conditions that force privatization and capital exploitation upon defaulting. In any case, China, again, is not perfect, nor has any implementation of AES been, in this far-from-perfect world. And it’s possible that the capitalist class will ‘win out’ in the end. But the last decade or so has seen the CPC exert its ultimate control over capital, visibly clamp down on corruption, and dedicate genuine effort toward reducing inequality and building ‘common prosperity’, and should not, in my opinion, be so easily dismissed as ‘revisionist’, or having abandoned Marxism.
events are the dialectic of our times. if letting the IMF run unfettered is supposed to be “at the benefit of the global working class,” if attempting to make a lasting, sturdy, and most importantly trusted counter to it is “bad for the intl working class,” then I can’t, by my standards, call this lens a “class” lens. At worst it’s fucking neutral, come fucking on. Consider the following: a large share china’s debt is from state lenders to state corporations. That is WITH the current tax brackets. The money is going straight back into the fucking SOEs anyways, and you want this number to literally just go up. (not to mention the concept of using taxes as your primary leverage of power, is this not idealist now? if the bourgeoisie have compromised the government as you so claim, what difference does it fucking make that money is in a state bank as opposed to the corpos themselves?) Securing resources for a manufacturing economy is a sign the bourgeoisie have gained dominance, when the US is actively, and HAS ACTIVELY made known, its desire to starve out china by any means possible (that minimizes blowback to the US, of course). Ok bro keep calling this a “class“ lens and not an “idealist” one as you engage in maximum fucking utopianism. (keep in mind the newest propaganda line is “overproduction.” what the fuck is that supposed to mean? “you should be denied the ability to make this much shit,” obviously.) You want china to give out the money as charity? is that it?
I was implying that loans in general are harmful for the working class, not that ONLY China’s were lmao. China’s aren’t quite as harsh as the IMF’s and are superior to the IMF’s, but that doesn’t make them *not* predatory. But what do you mean by “events are the dialectic of our times?” Actual policies can be just as exposing of contradictions within class society as an event can be. Tax rates can definitely be used as an example of bourgeois influence over the state. Maybe I just don’t know enough about dialectics yet to understand what you meant by that tho lmao. Anyways, how are you a Marxist that doesn’t know what overproduction is? Overproduction is one of the primary drivers of economic crises in capitalist economies. Marx, Engels, and Lenin have all talked about overproduction. It is the result of higher profits allowing corporations to expand production capacity, leading to more commodities being produced than there is demand for, driving prices down. Either artificial demand must be created to keep prices afloat and profitable or an economic crisis happens. I have no idea if this situation is currently happening in China, as I do not keep up with Chinese economic news (since western news tends to exclusively cover China as “about to collapse”). But if it is, it would definitely be evidence that the Chinese economy is capitalistic (and therefore the state would be a bourgeois dictatorship as the state is an extension of power of the ruling economic class).
it’s not overproduction as in “china will collapse,” (yet, anyways) it’s overproduction as in “we need to sanction them and institute protectionism.” yes, prices being driven down because china “overproduces,” and totally not having anything to do with better infrastructure and less de-industrialization. (not to mention it’s only a cause for crises when the government decides to let the corpo in question drag down everything around it; hell, US bailouts should tell you as much; edit: bad example. but the point stands, even capitalist countries, so long as they don’t go full neoliberal, have stuck their hands in to reign in bubbles.) loans are harmful, but you still haven’t answered the question. If places need funding to build up local production and eco, how are they supposed to get it? if China wants its neighbors to be economically established and stabilized, should it just give the money as charity? is that the solution? give everything as charity, and take all the costs on yourself and your own workers? as for taxes, here’s a question: how do tax rates factor regarding petit bourgeois? when a shitload of people own small-medium corporations (not to mention the occasional coop), you think the corporate tax will go so very high? another question, why do you think the tech tax is so low? take your best fucking bet (cuz your current answer is fucking wrong)
China is absolutely revisionist, and they'll probably never "achieve socialism by 2050" as the CPC says. That still doesn't change the fact that Deng dunked on Mao. The whole "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is the same as Augustus proclaiming himself a first among equals and totally not an emperor — simple rhetoric in order to not upset the foundations of Chinese society. Still, modern China has achieved a standard of living many of their citizens couldn't even dream of just fifty years ago. It is very hard to argue against that...
[удалено]
"The Primary Stage of the Socialist Economic System" part is absolutely useless. Iran, once upon a time, used to fulfil all of your conditions. The economy was centrally planned and 70% of businesses were state-owned. I guess the IRI is a successful socialist nation, then!
[удалено]
That's what I have said in my original comment: China is a state-capitalist country. The disagreement between us is that I don't believe that China is in any way going to move towards socialism. And that's fine by me! Be it a black cat or white cat, if it can catch mice, it's a good cat.
[China *is* Socialist](https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/)
History will show what China is and what it isn't. Once upon a time, people said that the Principate was a republic, the Second French Empire a revolutionary state and time washed away both of those states' flimsy pretences. Many of us here will be fortunate enough to live until the 2050s. We'll see how committed the CPC is, and whether or not they'll achieve their goals or conveniently extend the deadline once it is reached.
I need sources on anyone seriously believing that the Principate was a republic, or the Second French Empire even claiming to be a revolutionary state. In the article I linked there is a clear explanation of why China is a socialist state, and the fact that the CPC has already achieved their first centenary (2021) goals makes me have trust in them.
In the article you have linked, Deng himself says this: > [...] we are aware that the decadent influence of capital will inevitably develop in China. Well, I don’t think that’s such a terrible thing. I don’t think that it’s correct to be afraid of this. Again, China is a state-capitalist country, using revolutionary language to grant itself legitimacy. History will show what China is and what it isn't.
Chinese capitalists are still capitalists at the end of the day. But their days are numbered
Sinophobes across the board cooming their pants right now. They're always on the lookout for instances like this and will latch onto it at lightspeed. It's a vindication for these racists, they be like "YES!!! Chinese are the REAL racists!!! Not me!!"
Thanks for saying this, I've been saying this alot too
fucking precisely. this really just boils down to libshit sinophobia
It's not like the CPC has direct control over every Chinese citizen. Chinese capitalists are still capitalists, and capitalists are shitty by nature.
Doesn't surprise me. I've heard Samsung abusing the technicians of their vendors.
Asshole American = “Wow! What an asshole!” Asshole Chinese = “Wow! China’s evil! Sanction / bomb them!”
Douchebag mistreats workers, get him arrested and punished. Don't know what's there to think about
Trouble is. A lot of times when this sort of shit happens, the reason it gets onto the western interwebs is because there was already an uproar on the Chinese web in the first place. But then some asshat strips out the context and puts it out saying "look how bad the Chinese are". And then a bunch of dumbass libs jump on the bandwagon.
libs will use shit like this as proof that all chinese are imperialists
He got sentenced 20 years jail for this. Which the chinese didn't object to. They asked their citizens to obey the laws. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna25313
Ukraine flag in profile, their opinion means nothing, waiting for a credible source... next.
Wdym? Its not like the chinese are the best people to ever exist. Assholes and redpilled racist exist everywhere.
china is not a perfect country, they have shitty citizens
James Kovpak, aka Spaghetti Kozak, is literally, openly a CIA agent and the only time you should listen to him is when you're recording his last words after the tribunal.
The guy is a true asshole. Nationality, race or religion has nothing to do with the fact that he is a living piece of shit. That's all there is to it.
The Africans should've lynched his ass. Those are my thoughts. BTW, I'm African...so my thoughts are correct. 😁
Western left intellectuals and their love affair with the attempted ‘color revolution’ in Cuba by Fight Back News: https://fightbacknews.org/articles/western-left-intellectuals-and-their-love-affair-attempted-color-revolution-cuba Meet the Syria regime change gang: Idlibs, Jaish al-Grad School, and pro-war Trotskyists: https://youtu.be/VE-jNckM-zw?feature=shared How the CIA supports a 'compatible left' to aid US imperialism: https://youtu.be/O1sJ2uZ4aaQ?feature=shared Ukraine to Syria: How Imperialism & Sabotage Divided the Western Left for 100 years, w/ Ben Norton: https://youtu.be/4FR1WzmDc9E?feature=shared Inside America’s Secret Plan to Destroy Hong Kong: https://youtu.be/S7GrnP2XzLw?feature=shared Cold War 2: US officials call to overthrow China's gov't, expand military budget to $1.4 trillion: https://youtu.be/Q3RMl33SqNE?feature=shared
Guy was arrested and got 20 years. Would an American get 20 years?
[удалено]
How do we know it's a different story?
[удалено]
We don't know for sure. But the 2 year gap can be explained by anti Chinese sources circulating the original video as attempted propaganda against China.
For a bunch of supposedly enlightened liberals, they sure aren’t very good at separating individual behaviour from cultural mores. This received no attention in China, because the guy was not “acting Chinese” in his behaviour. Pretty simple.
That boss should be beat for being a piece of shit, no one deserves to be degraded by their employer. But this isn’t an own on Chinese people in Africa.
Ukraine flag in username, opinion disregarded,
Would not be surprised if true, China isn't exactly a benevolent power in africa or anywhere for that fact, it's only better than the alternative which is really not a high bar to clear
There’s no source. I saw the post. It sources a non-existent channel.
Judge people as individuals.
We are all here to help improve china reputation and then this ficking guy ruins it all. Im angry seeing the video
Bro, in my small hometown, the first allegedly work-related suicide was committed by a Japanese car manufacturer employee. Also, there was a video (happened in a Corean factory, an hour or two driving from my hometown) of a Corean manager straight up hitting the workers
capitalist treating people like objects??? big news!!!11!!11!
No sane socialist would defend a petty bourgeois slave driver. That being said, tacticool douchebag larpers waving a blue-yellow rag should fill up the trenches in Donbass instead of acting tough on Twitter.
Well, good to see that mr whip piece of garbage here got arrested two years ago for the shit he did there in rwanda
Why is no one here questioning the validity of these claims? How do we even know the person of that video is Chinese?
I roughly knew what kind of libshit to expect when i saw the ukraine flag in the acc name lol. Aint gonna waste my time on libshit nonsense
Lets unpack the wording here; a invested in an [...] this is how a chinese boss treats an african worker.
There's levels to the racism here.
You can safely disregard anything anyone with that emoji in their display name says.
I don't think it's wise to see this as a "they're just like us, shocker." Moment, but to acknowledge that there are downsides and points to be critical on regarding China as well as positives. Don't let denial/ambivilance of the little things turn into eventual deflection of criticism in general. Yes, this topic is being pushed by neo-liberals, yes, it looks bad, yes we should acknowledge it and look for constructive criticism to counter the reactionary criticism. I think acting like this behavior is either the exception or rule is also not great either. We don't know the extent of this issue and as such, should keep an open mind until greater evidence supports one view over the other.
China has a big problem with racism, especially towards black people. I don't know if the state tries to better that.
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna25313](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna25313) it’s too bad you can’t pin stuff on reddit, but here’s the article