Purely for curiosity’s sake, I don’t think Israel’s populace should be destroyed. Does that make me zionist?

Move the German instance out of Germany?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to limit antisemitism while still allowing antizionism?

But that relies entirely on the authority deciding to act against itself. You’re turning a workers’ union into a bureaucratic, administrative process. You’re removing the workers’ collective bargaining power and independence and turning it into an administrative grievance channel, that’s consultative, not a sharing of power.

If what you describe is actually the pathway, there wouldn’t be the need for these strikes and arrests.

It is a cyclical argument we’re having, yes.

That’s why it’s important to have some introspection. What pathway exists for workers to collectively oppose a state decision that harms them?

Like, look at these examples of China and the ACFTU oppressing and dissolving independent unions, arresting striking workers and arresting labour rights activists.

• Workers in the JASIC factory formed a union with the assistance of left-wing students and Maoist, feminist and socialist activists. The Chinese government responded with mass arrests, raids and censorship.

• Coal Miners protested against the Longmei Group, a state-owned enterprise (meaning the Chinese government owns it), for not paying wages. The organisers were arrested in their homes, and wanted photos were released of the striking miners.

• Members of the Guangdong Panyu Migrant Worker Centre, which is an organisation that advocates for labour rights for workers, both migrant and domestic, were all arrested and had their houses raided.

But there’s no opposition here, there isn’t allowed to be.

That’s why independent unions are important, so they can represent the diverse interests of workers.

If independent unions are a threat, then the state doesn’t fully represent workers.

If workers control the state, why must workers be prevented from organising independently?

My argument is that if you’re saying that what defines socialism is the working class holding power, then Western nations, such as European or Commonwealth nations, are advancing your definition of socialism more than China.

So you should be advocating for Europe and Commonwealth nations over China if advancing socialism is your priority.

Consider this: China has one overarching union, the ACFTU, which is controlled by the state, which is the Chinese government. Independent unions, separate from the government, are considered to be illegal in China. Workers cannot unionise without explicit permission from the Government, and can only do so through the ACFTU.

Compare that to Western Nations, where worker unions are legal and largely separate from the government.

Out of these two, which more aligns with your definition of socialism being the working class holding power?

But China is state capitalist, dude, it’s not socialist. Hell, even in your argument for not propping up property prices, China still has extensive private property. That’s contradictive of socialism!

So what exactly is your stance? Since China doesn’t meet your definition of socialist. Are you advocating for state capitalism instead?

Like you’ve got some wires crossed somewhere here. I think you’re conflating socialism and capitalism with imperialism.

That’s nice that China is improving, but if you’re arguing on a purely worker basis, then Western, especially European and Commonwealth nations, have China beat, and by your definition, are more socialist.

Due to central planning covering the major industries, everything is cheap in China, when you can get a good meal for 30 cents-2USD, and rent is 300USD, 1500USD/mo goes pretty far.

This is true, but so too are their standards of living. I am curious though as to their minimum wage and how that compares to other nations.

Private property has been a useful tool to develop the means of production. The capitalist class however, remains subordinated to the interests of the working class, as such we occasionally see one take a trip to a farm upstate when they step outside their lane. By 2050, Xi said it will no longer be necessary, so we should expect further reductions in the capitalists independence.

So it’s state capitalist then? And you take the word of the rich when they colour themselves as the government? Even when they’re a foreign nation? So bizarre to me to be arguing for a nation you’re not a part of.

If you agree that Western nations have better worker rights and more freedom than workers in China, then wouldn’t it make more sense to support socialism in the West instead of a state capitalist foreign nation? And I want to specify, by the West, I mean democratic and liberal nations, such as those in the Commonwealth or Europe.

If that’s the case, then why do workers have more rights and power in Western nations than those in Russia and China and in these other “Actual Existing Socialist” countries?

Why do you think most products are made in China? Because it’s cheap, including the labour.

I also figured that one of socialism’s core values is the eradication of private ownership, such as private property, which China still has.

Ah, okay.

Now, I’m curious. What is socialism to you?

Open source doesn’t equal socialist lol

Otherwise, you’d have to argue that OpenAI is part-socialist since they have open source releases.

They’re not commies, they’re tankies.

Tankies are far removed from communism, they don’t care for communist ideals or communist values, they only care for authoritarianism.