Communist Party of China

but at what cost?

Laws are enforced by making some legal entity either comply to them, or be punished (via fines for example).

There’s a limited extent to which laws can still be enforced on a service that’s hosted outside of the countries with those laws, but the point of open source and decentralized alternatives to Discord is that they’re harder for governments to force into enforcing these kinds of laws.

I’m saying that the meme is correct insofar as Western oligarchs can commit crimes and participate in extremely large criminal conspiracies, as proven by the Epstein files. No such scandal has been proven of China.

I would conjecture that the political system of the PRC is more resilient to the kind of corruption and abuses that need to exist for decades for a conspiracy of that scale to develop. I don’t really have hard proof of that but it’s at least inarguable that comparing the West to China, China is 1 - 0 in terms of not being exposed for having a giant ring of pedophiles that control everything.

Is your assumption that an equivalent conspiracy exists, despite no evidence? And to the extent that there are abusers and evildoers in the CPC: why aren’t they in the Epstein files? There’s people from almost every other country on the planet on there, why no one from the second largest country on Earth and the main trade partner of the US, where most of the people involved are based?

And yet where are the high ranking members of the CPC in the Epstein files?

But Xi’s support for mixing private and public ownership structures was purely pragmatic. It had value, he said in another forum, because it would “improve the socialist market economic structure.” Xi’s assessment is echoed by Michael Collins, one of the CIA’s most senior officials for Asia. “The fundamental end of the Communist party of China under Xi Jinping is all the more to control that society politically and economically,” Collins argued earlier this year. “The economy is being viewed, affected and controlled to achieve a political end.”
…
The party’s overarching aim, though, has remained consistent: to ensure that the private sector, and individual entrepreneurs, do not become rival players in the political system. The party wants economic growth, but not at the expense of tolerating any organised alternative centres of power.
…
“[Capitalists] act as if they are being chased by a bear,” wrote Zhang Lin, a Beijing political commentator, in response to these comments. “They are powerless to control the bear, so they are competing to outrun each other to escape the animal.”

source
quoted from China Has Billionaires

China’s known for handing out the death penalty to high profile white collar criminals. This article is from 2013 but AFAIK it’s continued to happen since then, maybe Western media has caught on that people actually love this stuff so they haven’t reported on it as much more recently.

Can you elaborate on why you think that?

Okay.

The situation is most definitely not the same. If it was the same then corporate media wouldn’t spend much time criticizing China, they’d be happy with having yet another country to freely exploit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78nrx309kzo

This kind of thing never receives serious consequences in the US anymore. Hell, do enough white collar crimes and pedophilia and they make you president.

If he reads this thread before replying, I’m gonna give him a secret hint: don’t just assume that because Chairman Mao was Chinese that means Maoists are pro-China! It was actually a trick question! To answer this one halfway correctly, you might have to do at least 2 minutes of reading. To answer it very correctly, it may be necessary to get way more educated on political subjects before running one’s mouth online. I recommend reading Parenti and starting at Blackshirts and Reds! I believe in you!

Yeah, maybe, but I think what he meant by that was that I kept insisting he’s a tankie but he believes tankie = genocide supporter.

Anyway, I do think his thing of specifying that tankies are defined by our defense of China’s genocide specifically is interesting. I already pointed out that that excludes Maoists which I can’t wait to see his reply to.

I read it as “you’re right that I support Hamas but I’m not a tankie because I oppose all genocides, not just the one in Gaza” which I admit is also a non-sequitur but not as much of a non-sequitur as also calling Hamas genocidal. But we’re definitely reading tea leaves here.

Hold on, another point here: so are Maoists and communists that strictly take the Soviet side of the Sino-Soviet split not tankies?

Honestly I don’t think this person is saying Hamas is genocidal. I think he’s very confused and is really insistent that tankies love genocide, so he was trying to like, pre-move me. But as far as I can tell the implied genocidal regime he’s opposed to is China, not Hamas. Obviously that opens a whole other can of worms but he won’t reply to my last comment.

did you know that 23% of American adults 18-39 think the Shoah was fabricated or exaggerated?

That’s horrifying.

Indeed, why did you say that leftists say it’s good for Iran to shoot protesters in the face and that Russia has a god given right to invade Ukraine?

Okay, you said “tankies are defined by their defense of genocide” but then say that there was a massacre in Tiananmen Square.

For one, that’s false. No massacre has ever taken place in Tiananmen Square, and if you could find me a source that says otherwise I’d welcome it.

But also, massacre is not the same as genocide. There must be something else you’re talking about.

You should know, the origin of the term “tankie” is related to Khruschev sending in tanks to squash a fascist movement in Hungary in 1956, way before the 1989 protests in Beijing.

There was a genocide in Tiananmen Square?

What are you talking about?