• 0 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle




  • No communist thinks that Russia is still communist. The critical support for Russia among some communists (me included) has to do with them fighting western imperial expansion/domination, and that Russia winning (or rather: not losing) would weaken the US empire and give breathing room to socialist and anti-colonial movements worldwide, since the US empire is the no. 1 threat to those movements. If US/EU supremacy on the international stage were broken, the US would have a much harder time isolating, toppling, or sanctioning socialist or anti-imperialist governments. If Russia loses and gets broken up or economically ruined, that would be proof of imperial power and scare other countries into caving to western demands. These countries would also lose Russia as a potential ally and trade partner.

    The other major interpretation among Marxists (and there’s been a lot of debate about this) is that both sides are imperialist, and the correct stance in this conflict is revolutionary defeatism (as Lenin preached in Czarist Russia, or Rosa Luxembourg did in Germany during WW1). In this logic everybody need to fight and overthrow their own bourgeois governments and stop the war (i.e. Russian workers should undermine the Russian government, while Americans need to fight the US government), since the working classes of those countries shouldn’t fight each other, but rather fight the capitalists in their own countries. Slogan: No war but class war.









  • There’s plenty of evidence of China trying to improve the living conditions for Uyghurs in Xinjiang and in the rest of China (poverty alleviation, affirmative action programs for university students, the crackdown against hate speech on social media, …). So imprisoning some people based on some vague “extremism score” and then seemingly releasing them after some months doesn’t show intent to impose living conditions in order to destroy a group. It shows intent on crushing separatism.

    Preventing births is true for everybody in China, how does that show an intent to destroy a particular group? It doesn’t.

    So we’re left with “serious bodily or mental harm”, which can be explained just as well by an intent to suppress separatism and religious extremism. Literally every war causes some nationality “serious bodily or mental harm” far worse than what China is doing, and we don’t call every war a genocide, do we?





  • Yeah but have you seen what they used to write?

    There’s this passage:

    Uyghur activists abroad accuse the Chinese government of genocide, pointing to plunging birthrates and the mass detentions. The authorities say their goal is not to eliminate Uyghurs but to integrate them, and that harsh measures are necessary to curb extremism.

    Regardless of intent […]

    They’re actually doing the false balance thing. When was the last time the western press was fence sitting this much about this issue?

    China eased up on their crackdown, which is good, but the western press went so far above what they could prove, they’re now walking back. Actually more like dropping the story: When was the last time you saw a new article about Xinjiang and not some social media echo?