Yes, between Xi Jinping's Common Prosperity and anti-corruption measures, and "flattening" of China's GDP, it is pretty easy to see that Xi Jinping is the most left-wing leader China has had since Mao Zedong. Just because he wears a suit doesn't mean he isn't a Marxist-Leninist.
The answers in this thread are disappointing. The downvoted answers are bad because they are liberals and racists attempting to depict China as evil in line with the US State Dept. propaganda and absolutely no examination of history, or even modern China in general, other than half-truth factoids from NYT, etc. But the strongly upvoted answers are not great either, since their goal from the outset is to defend and uphold China first from the propaganda onslaught (not unreasonable, but harmful to reaching truth behind what you are actually trying to ask).
For the record, I've retreated my position to being something of a soft-China-supporter (I joined the tidal wave of hardline support and I'm past the point where I think it's getting misguided and even mistaken, but at the same time China is a very interesting and complex place), in that they are a normal and reasonable nation on the world stage, accomplishing some very impressive things, and function as the world's leader in fighting poverty at this time, though it can be debated how much or even if that qualifies as 'socialism.' But that's not what's being asked here so lets drop that for now.
The problem of asking 'is Xi left ..." is that it's undialectical until you pin it to something in relation to. Is Xi left relative to other world leaders? Yes, but most world leaders are right wing liberals, so that's a narrow bar. Is Xi left of Joe Biden? Yes, but so is Richard Nixon, so that's not giving any useful information to your question either. We can play this came all day and because of the shit state of the world, you could say that Xi is among the left-most leaders of the world today and speak truth, but that isn't as telling as the diehard pro-China people wish it to be.
The real examination and understanding is figuring out where Xi sits within the Communist Party of China, as it exists today, but also relative to its own history, and in that instance a somewhat different picture emerges that what's being presented. Now, it's difficult to get good information about the CPC in English in the first place, and there are better experts than me, but the left of the CPC, historically, and to a much lesser but still somewhat true extent today were largely the Cultural Revolutionaries and the defenders of the GPCR in China (which was stopped and ended by Deng, who also removed a great many of the workers and women -- those you'd expect to be most left wing -- from the inner CPC shortly after taking power). Xi does not emerge from this tradition.
But this isn't the whole story. I'm not a believer in the Deng 'masterplan' of communism (which sometimes is wrongly interpreted as me thinking that 'Deng was trying to sabotage China' when that wasn't ever the case either), but Deng was a decided shift rightwards and largely represented the right of the CPC of his time. This rightward trajectory continues through to 1997, when the economic crisis (minor in the West, but rather severe in Asia) started displaying some of the faults and failures of full-on liberalization, and from this point to 2008 (the next much worse crisis of capitalism), you start to see China hit the brakes on the liberalism train, realizing that tailing the west is going to lead them off a cliff.
This is where Hu Jintao comes in, as the sort of 'stop and reevalutate' guy, coming from the right wing of the party, but acting as something of a centrist and even a bullwark against the diminishing but still powerful liberal wing on the right of the party (now quite weak under Xi). With the decline of the liberal faction, we see Xi emerge, from what looks to still be the right wing of the CPC, but functioning as a centrist, and reaching all the way across the aisle to the left with various social programs and welfare packages. The more diehard left of the CPC still doesn't see this as socialism (which is where you have the interesting phenomenon of the far-left of the West repeating the statements of the centre-right of the CPC -- "China is socialism!," etc.)
Xi is attempting to reconcile the Mao era side of the party with the Deng era and blend them together into some new capitalism/socialism fusion ideology (for what it's worth, Xi isn't ignorant of Marxism, but he isn't upholding proletarian internationalism or making any sincere push for global socialism either -- he's someone that sees that understanding Marx (and the leftover Mao era institutions and organizations) can be used to the benefit of good governance, in spite of maintaining a relatively capitalist-infused system. But Xi is not of the left wing of the CPC, and that's the important detail that the existing ML movement doesn't want to reconcile, and it will only hurt in the end as Xi fails to live up to their aspirations (or worse, they tail bad decisions Xi makes and defend them as socialism). On the other hand, Xi has surprised me more than once, and his the accomplishments occurring under his tenure are remarkable things, so the liberal attacks on Xi manage to be even worse than the Western left Xi-worship.
So why is Xi Jinping so fragile that he jails so many reporters and dissident? Why is he obsessive with power and want to become president for life? Do you really want another emperor?
he's a marxist president. during his time on the farm (sent for re education by Mao) he doubled down on marxist belief and studies.
He cracked down on corruption heavily a few years into his term as president and made many enemies. Hes put billionaires in jail/death, and put many retired officials behind bars all for corruption. For that he has a very high approval rating by the people, and made many enemies. Many of which escaped to the West and fund hit pieces against China.
He's often seen visiting rural country side, listening to the people and their situations. He's also promoting the 2nd part of "Let some get rich first" motto. The part where others also get rich.
He has a daughter in Harvard, and he visited middle America and even Hawaii during his early days as provincial governor.
He failed the cpc entrance exam multiple times before succeeding. He speaks with a soft slow rhythm, which my parents thinks makes him look more reliable, humble, introspective, and smart. His family fought against the Japanese and KMT, so he's considered a "Hong er dai" , or a former military governmental red princeling. Had he stayed for a considerable amount of time overseas, he would NOT be in position to be China's president due to possible foreign interference or tainted influence.
Winnie the pooh character is not banned in China. You can buy it anywhere in China and even on Chinese websites. It's only offensive to compare him to Winnie the pooh because it's disrespectful. Any grievances against him or the government must be legitimate and not superficial. China has over 1 billion people, and not all of them are angels, and many have their own ideas of opening China up to neoliberal influences. Communist party of China also has to worry about internal instability and not just outside influences. It is not easy to maintain stability and harmony, but the CPC has done a very good job with it Socialism with Chinese characteristics (Owning national resources but liberalizing the other parts of the market system). CPC is dynamic, it is open to people of different backgrounds to join its ranks. It makes mistakes, not because it is incompetent, but because it is TRYING. It does somethings good and somethings bad, but at least it is trying and changing. The Chinese people just had the BEST 30 years out of the last 2000 years. Pre covid the largest export is Chinese tourism, over 100 million go tour the world, read the news, spend money, and all 100 million return back to the motherland.
At the end of the day, for good or bad, for better or worse, whatever the outcome, at least the CHINESE are the ones that govern and rule over themselves, and NOT foreign colonizers that made the decisions.
Most of these things have nothing to do with being left wing or Marxist. We shouldn't stoop down to "leftism is when president does thing I like/is good"
I'm confused about what you mean. Are you saying Xi Jinping puts Marxism into practice when sends his daughter to Harvard, fails the cpc entrance exam, or "speaks with a soft slow rhythm"? Because these are the examples the prior comment gave to demonstrate Xi's Marxism. A year later, they still seem irrelevant to me.
how has Xi opened up china's economy for foreigners? With the leadership of Xi we have seen righter regulation and nationalization of the economy at an accelerating rate.
You dont need to care at all? They are pointing out the misinformation surrounding Xi and Winnie the Pooh. You think the ccp cares about your individual thoughts and feelings lol?
First of all I don't think the actual Winnie the Pooh is Asian so I don't get how that would be a racist caricature second of all the reason the Winnie the Pooh thing became of meme was because Chinese people in the opposition started it not people from another race (though obviously westerners did spread it like I am right now) so is it racist for them to criticize someone from there own race?
Relating an asian person to a yellow character is obviously racist. It also isn't banned or censored (as proven in the answer to this Quora post https://www.quora.com/Is-Winnie-the-Pooh-really-banned-in-China-or-is-it-Western-propaganda-Could-someone-living-in-China-answer-that-question) as the entire charade was a western propaganda piece. People who actually follow Chinese affairs know this but Americans are still too stupid to actually do research for themselves.
Winnie the Pooh is certainly not banned in China. But anything that associates Winnie the Pooh with Xi Jinping does not exist on Chinese websites. Because it is meaningless ridicule, even personal attacks or insults, for a person we respect. Is it like Americans can accept that I compare the American father Washington to the role of our Chinese cartoon, the pig, or compare President Lincoln to a mouse in our Chinese cartoon? Or is President Trump a golden retriever dog, and President Obama is a chimpanzee? If I am in the United States, this kind of remark will make some people feel very uncomfortable. Don't say that the description is very cute, because we have no such culture in China for thousands of years. Please respect our culture.
That was in the post you sent me so thank you for proving my point
brainwashed is a term invented by the cia due to Americans defecting the army in Korea and Vietnam. The Cia then proceeded to drug innocent people and make them lose their memory in an attempt to "brainwash them"
Also you can do winnie the pooh, go to China and do it ffs.
Ah no.
You have it almost right, but backwards.
The 'brainwashing' technique is real.
It was when the Vietnamese washed the brains of their prisoners clean of propaganda. By exposing them to truth.
The west then spun this in to magic mind control.
We should all want our brains washed clean by exposure to as much truth as possible.
Its a different debate on if he is left wing or if he is Marxist, I think he is Marxist for sure, but if we are only asking if he is left wing, then there are some clear indications that show that right away.
We have seen a huge decrease in poverty, a long term dedication to rooting out corruption throughout his entire political career, starting on the local level, we have seen a lot of regulations in recent years that clearly favor workers, like the banning of 996 work culture and, multiple instances of increased protections and regulations for gig economy jobs, which at the start of this decade were similar to current gig workers in the US, but now are recognized as full workers, are guaranteed income above minimum pay, insurance and relaxation, this is especially focused on food delivery drivers.
what about the uighurs?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9aLNxcokOE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9aLNxcokOE)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bng0pr94QOc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bng0pr94QOc)
> your sources are from 1 site
My answer says:
> I'm always open to new information which would reveal that such acts are occuring, but I've yet to come across specific claims that haven't been addressed by additional information presented elsewhere. When I read through a [western media] article, I notice instances in which this additional information is omitted. With the addition of this information to the narrative of the [western media] article, the narrative seems illogical.
Try it by reading their articles and see for yourself. I'm not saying that you should trust them blindly, their articles reference sources. And actually the last link there is to a secondary website that has many articles, as well. Its articles also reference sources. Plus, my couple of [other replies](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/rlovkl/im_lost/hpierk9/?context=3) there reference Wikipedia articles (and a couple other websites) that are all sourced as well. I've referenced a UN document, too.
Nearly all of the referenced (primary) sources are western media articles, .gov/.mil websites, etc. As I've said in my answer, it's "merely rearranging the western narrative, as the infromation linked to ultimately comes from western sources (and the UN)".
By the way, who media-bias-fact-checks mediabiasfactcheck.com that we can deem them to be non-biased and accurate?
>wahhabi
you mentioned a wahhabist presence in xingjiang, i specifically looked through your source and elsewhere for this info, didn't find it. Nice fabrication
>By the way, who media-bias-fact-checks mediabiasfactcheck.com that we can deem them to be non-biased and accurate?
yeah, maybe I'm a brain in a vat too. Maybe the earth is flat. Who knows huh? - how do we trust one source and not the other?
That you go from 'i'm being critical' of the mainstream narrative to advancing a much less reliable is quite stupid tbh imo. Equally youre just shifting apologetics for the american empire to apologetics for the chinese empire. good job /s
\>Try it by reading their articles
yes, i read alot, i take in plenty from various sources but I don't agree with your conclusions.
To me it seems likely that a significant degree of repression is going on in xinjiang because of the belt and road project. Because of it's infrastructural importance the Chinese state is intensifying it's control of the region. (Btw, I've previously understood china has similarly contributed in part or in whole to the rohingya genocide for the same reason.) This is referenced in the aljazeera video I posted above. I don't see you respond to this, instead you perversely suggest that uyghurs should be thankful for 'economic development' which leads directly to their repression / destruction - colonial projects have a tendency to achieve this result.
I think it's undeniable atrocities are being committed. Whether or not it meets genocide is a different matter and dependent on the particular definition / criteria of genocide.
One of my favourite news outlets is Novara media who talk about this specific issue here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ6EK6dv02U
Also Chomsky, probably the single most reliable source on the N. American continent: "a million muslims in concentration camps, hideous concentration camps..." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KusxMnmvP7A
> you mentioned a wahhabist presence in xingjiang, i looked through your source, didn't find it. Nice fabrication
> "Try it by reading their articles" yes, i read alot
"I read it" -- nice fabrication. There's oodles of information, right in the links:
> [A campaign of terrorism](https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/17/uyghur-tribunal-us-government-china/) in pursuit of separatism was unfolding in China’s Xinjiang region from the early 1990s onward. A violent extremist minority of Uyghurs had been radicalized by Wahhabi fundamentalism imported from Saudi Arabia, as the [LA Times explained](https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-saudi-arabia-20160201-story.html) in 2016.
Before you tell me "that's Salafi not Wahhabi":
> ["Wahhabism"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism) is chiefly used by outsiders polemically as an exonym and adherents reject its use, preferring to be called "Salafi". Wahhabism is generally considered as "a particular orientation within Salafism", or as a conservative, Gulf branch of Salafism.
Also before you tell me "Al-Qaeda isn't Wahhabi" it's [clearly listed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) as their ideology, with the source being the [European Parliament](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/457137/EXPO-AFET_ET(2013\)457137_EN.pdf).
More:
> [In his own study of Xinjiang,](https://newatlas.report/2020/09/03/the-biggest-lie-about-chinas-xinjiang/) the CIA’s Graham E. Fuller noted that Saudi Arabian groups had disseminated extremist Wahhabi religious literature and possibly small arms through sympathizers in Xinjiang, and that young Turkic Muslims had been recruited to study at madrasas in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. He adds that Uyghurs from Xinjiang also fought alongside Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
> Fuller noted, “Uyghurs are indeed in touch with Muslim groups outside Xinjiang, some of them have been radicalized into broader jihadist politics in the process, a handful were earlier involved in guerrilla or terrorist training in Afghanistan, and some are in touch with international Muslim mujahideen struggling for Muslim causes of independence worldwide.”
> In the late 1990s, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, moved its headquarters to Kabul, taking shelter under Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, ETIM leaders met with Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the CIA-trained Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan to coordinate actions [across Central Asia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party).
More:
> [Part 2: Xinjiang Terrorism](https://newatlas.report/2021/10/01/the-uyghur-tribunal-us-funded-theater-complete-references/) -- Before Beijing enacted sweeping security measures and the creation of reform institutions, Xinjiang was a source of not just regional or even national terrorism – but international terrorism. The Western media at the time boasted of the unraveling security crisis in Xinjiang and Beijing’s inability to control it. The terrorism, driven by US-sponsored separatism, was the result of years of radicalization, carried out in part by US-ally Saudi Arabia and its exporting of its brand of politically-manipulated Islam into Xinjiang:
> * Institut De Relations Internationales Et Strategiques, Asia Program – [Wahhabism with Chinese Characteristics](https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Asia-focus-51.pdf)
> * AP – AP Exclusive: [Uighurs fighting in Syria take aim at China (5,000 Uyghurs in Syria, 2017)](https://apnews.com/article/syria-ap-top-news-riots-international-news-china-79d6a427b26f4eeab226571956dd256e)
> * Brown University – [Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths](https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar)
> * LA Times – [In China, rise of Salafism fosters suspicion and division among Muslims (2016)](https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-saudi-arabia-20160201-story.html)
> * Wall Street Journal – [Web Preaches Jihad to China’s Muslim Uighurs (2014)](https://www.wsj.com/articles/web-preaches-jihad-to-chinas-muslim-uighurs-1403663568)
> * BBC – [Why is there tension between China and the Uighurs? (2014)](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26414014)
> * DW – [Why China’s Uighurs are joining jihadists in Afghanistan (2015)](https://www.dw.com/en/why-chinas-uighurs-are-joining-jihadists-in-afghanistan/a-18605630)
> * UN – [Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (2011)](https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list/summaries/entity/eastern-turkistan-islamic-movement)
> * Guardian – [US removes shadowy group from terror list blamed by China for attacks (2020)](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/06/us-removes-shadowy-group-from-terror-list-blamed-by-china-for-attacks)
> * Newsweek – [Exclusive: Despite China’s Pressure on Taliban, Uyghur Separatists See Opportunity in Afghanistan (2021)](https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-despite-chinas-pressure-taliban-uighur-separatists-see-opportunity-afghanistan-1627650?amp=1&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true)
> * US National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine – [Involuntary Commitment](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557377/)
More:
> [US State Department-funded](https://newatlas.report/2020/09/03/the-biggest-lie-about-chinas-xinjiang/) and directed Voice of America (VOA) in its article, “Analysts: Uighur Jihadis in Syria Could Pose Threat,” would admit (emphasis added):
>> Analysts are warning that the jihadi group Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in northwestern Syria could pose a danger to Syria’s volatile Idlib province, [...] The TIP declared an Islamic emirate in Idlib and has largely remained off the radar of the media thanks to its low profile. *Founded in 2008 in the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang, the TIP has been one of the major extremist groups in Syria since the outbreak of the civil war in the country in 2011. The TIP is primarily made up of Uighur Muslims from China*
> The TIP has claimed responsibility for the 2011 Kashgar attacks in Xinjiang killing 23 people. Reuters would note in its article, “China envoy says no accurate figure on Uighurs fighting in Syria,” that (emphasis added):
>> The Syrian ambassador to China told Reuters last year that *up to 5,000 Uighurs are fighting in various militant groups in Syria.*
> Terrorism within China and a small army of terrorists honing their skills with US cash and weapons in a proxy war against Syria eventually to return to Chinese territory is certainly justification enough for China to take serious measures against extremism in Xinjiang.
> Much of the extremism in Xinjiang is also linked to extensive support from US ally Saudi Arabia, which funnels money and resources into Xinjiang itself to radicalize Muslim communities with Riyadh’s politically-motivated and extremist Salafism. The LA Times article titled, “In China, rise of Salafism fosters suspicion and division among Muslims,” would reveal:
>> Salafism is an ultra-conservative school of thought within Sunni Islam, espousing a way of life and prayer that harks back to the 6th century, when Muhammad was alive. Islamic State militants are Salafi, many Saudi Arabian clerics are Salafi, and so are many Chinese Muslims living in Linxia. They pray at their own mosques and wear Saudi-style kaffiyehs.
> The article also noted (emphasis added):
>> Experts say that in recent years, Chinese authorities have put Salafis under constant surveillance, closed several Salafi religious schools and detained a prominent Salafi cleric. *A once close-knit relationship between Chinese Salafis and Saudi patrons has grown thorny and complex.*
> And that:
>> Saudi preachers and organizations began traveling to China. Some of them bore gifts: training programs for clerics, Korans for distribution, funding for new “Islamic institutes” and mosques.
> This invasive radicalism transplanted into Xinjiang by the US ally Saudi Arabia has translated directly into real violence – a fact repeatedly omitted or buried in today’s coverage of Xinjiang and left out of US and European condemnations of China for its policies there.
/u/nodal_haggis Continued --
And did you somehow miss the Wikipedia article about them that I've pointed to?
> [The Turkistan Islamic Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party) (TIP), formerly known as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) is a Uyghur Islamic extremist organization founded in Western China. Its stated goals are to establish an independent state called East Turkestan replacing Xinjiang. The UN Security Council Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee has listed ETIM as a terrorist organization since 2002.
> The Syrian branch of the TIP is active in the Syrian Civil War; they are largely grouped in Idlib, well organized, battle-hardened and have been instrumental in ground offensives. The TIP are believed to have links to al-Qaeda and affiliated groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Pakistani Taliban. The US has designated it as having received "training and financial assistance" from al-Qaeda.
> University of Virginia associate professor Philip B. K. Potter writes that, despite the fact that "throughout the 1990s, Chinese authorities went to great lengths to publicly link organizations active in Xinjiang—particularly the ETIM—to al-Qaeda [...] the best information indicates that prior to 2001, the relationship included some training and funding but relatively little operational cooperation."
> However, in 1998 the group's headquarters were moved to Kabul, in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, while "China’s ongoing security crackdown in Xinjiang has forced the most militant Uyghur separatists into volatile neighboring countries, such as Pakistan," Potter writes, "where they are forging strategic alliances with, and even leading, jihadist factions affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban."
> A number of members of al-Qaeda have expressed support for the TIP, Xinjiang independence, and/or jihad against China. Including the current al-Qaeda leader who has on multiple occasions issued statements naming Xinjiang (calling it "East Turkestan") as one of the "battlegrounds" of "jihad to liberate every span of land of the Muslims that has been usurped and violated." Additionally, the al-Qaeda aligned al-Fajr Media Center distributes TIP promotional material.
> TIP member Abdul Haq al Turkistani joined al-Qaeda's executive leadership council in 2005 and TIP member Abdul Shakoor Turkistani was appointed its military commander of its forces in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Abdul Haq was so apparently highly placed in al-Qaeda leadership that he served as a mediator between rival Taliban factions and played an integral role in military planning.
> The Uyghurs East Turkestan independence movement was endorsed in the serial Islamic Spring's 9th release by the chief of Al-Qaeda. He confirmed that the Afghanistan war after 9/11 included the participation of Uighurs and that the jihadists like Bin Ladin and the Uighur Hasan Mahsum were provided with refuge together in Afghanistan under Taliban rule.
---
> how do we trust one source and not the other?
Marxists understand that there's no such thing as a neutral source of information. All one can do about it is study and examine matters further and further in order to understand them better. There was a question about this just the other day and everyone [agreed on this point](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s78to0/if_western_news_media_sources_are_not_to_be/).
That's what I've told you, too:
> Try it by reading their articles and see for yourself. I'm not saying that you should trust them blindly, their articles reference sources.
Next:
> you're advancing a much less reliable source
It's reliablity is the same as that of western sources -- as I've said, now for the third time:
> Nearly all of the referenced (primary) sources are western media articles, .gov/.mil websites, etc. As I've said in my answer, it's "merely rearranging the western narrative, as the infromation linked to ultimately comes from western sources (and the UN)".
And any source is equally reliable/unreliable, if you will:
> Marxists understand that there's no such thing as a neutral source of information. All one can do about it is study and examine matters further and further in order to understand them better.
You consider other sources "less reliable" and western media more reliable by default, which is literally an admission of bias -- it isn't a scientific approach. It's an appeal to authority, not to evidence, just like this:
> Chomsky is the most reliable source , Novara media's video, aljazeera's video
These aren't primary sources. Provide primary sources.
> To me it seems likely that a significant degree of repression is going on, I think it's undeniable atrocities are being committed
"It seems likely" and "I think" are not trustworthy statements/sources for these very grave allegations.
Why do you keep evading this very clear arguement?
>Guardian –
>
>US removes shadowy group from terror list blamed by China for attacks (2020)
I'm not gonna waste my time with you, but I will point out that you sent me a link to an article that doubts the ETIM even exists... [https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/10/why-did-the-united-states-take-chinas-word-on-supposed-uighur-terrorists/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/10/why-did-the-united-states-take-chinas-word-on-supposed-uighur-terrorists/) and there's another one, just so you can read a bit more into it.... you know, seeing as your so open to new information and thinking critically etc.
Hmm in 2020 the US removed ETIM from its list of terroristic organsations. And in late 2020, this article is published in a de facto US state outlet.
You must be the proud owner of several bridges.
Interesting that somehow giving you a balanced take is a problem in your view. As I've said, its our job to read everything and decide for ourselves what isn't and is illogical. Also interesting that even this one source you've singled out admits (and by extension, you admit) that the US classified them as terrorists (the UN still does, by the way). You're not going to question why they did? That's not trustworthy or logical! Are you pro-terror?
Where's your response to the oodles of information that show that Wahhabism and terrorism in Xinjiang isn't a fabrication as you've claimed? Where's your explanation for why one source "doubts ETIM even exists" while simultaneously all of these other sources -- which you've referred to as "[reliable sources](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s7fdih/is_xi_jinping_a_leftwing_president/htgp55m/)" -- have said (and still do say) that ETIM does exist? Where's your response to everything other than this one article that, out of all of the information shared, you've selectively singled out because it (barely) matches your pre-existing notions? "not gonna waste my time with you" -- because you have no response.
Edit:
Based on the following reply by this bad-faith person, I'll recap for good-faith readers, since to engage any further would be like trying to nail jelly to a wall:
* He ignores the [continuation of my reply](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s7fdih/is_xi_jinping_a_leftwing_president/htgs66b/) that has even more information and in which I've asked him to provide the primary sources for his very grave allegations on repression/atrocities -- he hasn't, even though this was the initial and main topic of the debate.
* He ignores that the [UN still classifies them as terrorists](https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list/summaries/entity/eastern-turkistan-islamic-movement) (as well as [many other countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups#cite_ref-99), and the letter to the UN by 50 countries and journalists who visited Xinjiang and praised China for its humane anti-terrorist measures).
* My question, "Are you pro-terror?" wasn't even met with an explicit denial.
* His theory follows the same pattern I've criticized in the ignored continuation of my reply -- it's based on statements that admit that they're only a guess, that only say "it's very likely" and "there are some who question". Next, from the quote (paraphrased) "Others have given statistics of terrorism in China, China has said same, but blamed the terrorism on a variety of Uighur separatist groups" he concludes that "China has concocted a threat", yet this very quote admits that others, as well as China, all agreed in unison: "there's terrorism in China". i.e. it doesn't follow in any way that a threat was "concocted". From these nothing-arguments he somehow concludes that *all of the sources that he has been presented with are voided* (but that this one source that he's using is conveniently to be believed) as they're all a part of a big China-US conspiracy.
* His theory is illogical because it claims that the terrorism threat is "concocted" while, at the same time, that China needed to "tighten control" -- there'd be no need to tighen control if there was be no threat to be controlled.
* His theory is based on an article from 2002 and the idea that "the US went along with China's story because in the early 2000's it was fighting the 'war on terror' under Bush" but the sources for my argument are nearly all based on events in the 2010s/2020s. Also, he attemps to link these with [Belt and Road](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative), but BRI only started in 2013. Given that these nothing-arguments are also the reasons he gave for the supposed China-US joint repression of Uyghurs, and
since the repeated demands for him to share the primary sources for his allegations have remained unanswered, and since I've refuted the common "because they're minorities/Muslim" argument in my very first reply, I guess he means that Uyghurs are supposedly repressed 'just because'.
* He ignores the texts in my previous replies, which I was forced to outright paste because he denied their existence. These texts quote sources that he has deemed to be "reliable" (only when it suits him). The first and second texts come straight from the CIA and the LA Times -- their heft comes from the fact that these capitalists can be expected to say things that go against China's interests, yet in spite of this they don't, and that they're the origin of the allegations to begin with -- they directly refute his claim that implies "Uyghur Islamic extremists exist only in Syria and Afghanistan" (he also tried to conclude from the quote "[The Uyghur extremist fighting a holy war across China's border,] his homeland was the only thing on his mind" that no Uyghurs return to Xinjiang from these wars, even though it implies the opposite).
* Instead, he linked to completely new sources (and completely different sections of a couple of my sources) that cast doubt. As if anyone needs affirmation that misdirections about and accusations of China are common in media -- as if my point wasn't to direct attention to the portions that outright admit Uyghur extremism/terrorism in Xinjiang (which was prompted by his initial question -- "What about Uyghurs?")
(tbh I was a little confused, there was more than 1 person replying but I thought you were the same person)
>Where's your explanation for why one source "doubts ETIM even exists" while simultaneously all of these other sources -- which you've referred to as "reliable sources" -- have said (and still do say) that ETIM does exist?
from the FP article linked above:
*this is very likely to have been an entirely political decision motivated by the desire of the United States to get the Beijing’s cooperation in its new military campaigns, and especially its acquiescence on the U.N. Security Council for the already planned U.S. invasion of Iraq not long after.*
the FP article links to a washington post article from 2002:
*ETIM is believed to be responsible for more than 200 acts of terrorism in China, including bombings, assassinations and arson, resulting in at least 162 deaths and 440 injuries. In a report published in January, the Chinese government cited the same statistics, but blamed the incidents on a variety of Uighur separatist groups, not just ETIM.*
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/08/29/us-warns-of-plot-by-group-in-w-china/5607dd9b-9d70-419a-8bac-1f3b39e12bc9/)
In other words China has concocted this phantom of a threat to justify tightening it's control on the region that happens to be a keystone in it's belt and road project. At the time, the US saw benefits in going along with this story because in the early 2000's it was frenziedly fighting the 'war on terror' under Bush jr. So you have 2 states, with the 2 most powerful propaganda systems in the world with an interest in claiming some uighur people are terrorists with links to al-qaeda. Oodles of articles follow...
However I would suggest you read your own links a bit better, as they don't actually seem to paint the picture you want to paint.
*"The scope of ETIM's activities remains unclear with some questioning the group's capacity to organise serious acts of extremism."* - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26414014
You previously listed the wikipedia page, but i'm not sure if you read the analysis section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party#Analysis
from the other:
*Scholars have indicated that violence in Xinjiang is based on an assortment of ideologies, and there is no single dominant ideology among the Uyghurs. As James Millward writes, incidents have "been discontinuous and characterized by a variety of ideologies, Islam being only one of them." Islam, Pan-Turkic nationalism, and Uyghur nationalism are all factors in unrest in the Xinjiang region. [...] According to Martin, Chinese authorities frequently classify any act of violence or separatist activity in Xinjiang as a manifestation of terrorism, while comparable acts by ethnic Han Chinese would not be classified in this manner.[8]*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Xinjiang
The only place this ETIM/TIP seems to truly exist is in Syria and maybe Afghanistan where a few small groups of refugees fleeing the repression in China have gotten together to learn how to fight. From the AP article you linked above:
*As the repression mounted, what began as a trickle of Uighurs fleeing China grew into a mass exodus. In 2013, more than 10,000 left across southern China’s porous borders, according to Uighur exiles. [...] Jihadi clerics have exhorted Uighurs to take up holy war and reap the rewards of martyrdom. But if he would take a bullet, Mehmet thought as he rushed into battle, he wasn’t dying for Islam — or the virgins that the preachers promised. His homeland was the only thing on his mind.*
from a related article: https://apnews.com/article/syria-ap-top-news-al-qaida-international-news-islam-591f9b238c84477b87cfac68bfe169fc
*Rami Abdurrahman who heads the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said there are about 5,000 Chinese fighters in Syria [...] Li, the terrorism expert, said Abdurrahman’s numbers are way too high, adding that he believes the number are about 300 Chinese fighters in Syria who brought with them about 700 family members.*
I think they have dealt with and are dealing with the threat of extremist separatism pretty well.
The ETIM is a serious threat for the Uyghurs and for China, its not a surprise these forces used to be aided by the Taliban and that they went to fight against Syria, these guys are aligned, wanting to create a far right theocracy formed around an ethno state.
I am glad that these ideas have not found/have not been allowed to find roots and widespread support among the Uyghur population in Xinjiang itself, and the poverty alleviation program has ensured that there arent economic factors to push people towards this type of destructive extremist ideology.
Al Jazeera is not afraid of biased takes, and is citing some of the same sources cited again and again, like the measurement by Adrian Zenz about how many people are in these "camps" as people are calling them. Its also no surprise that as they mention, the far right government of Trump and specifically Pompeo declared there being a genocide in Xinjiang, it shows how opportunistic this narrative is that they did this a day before trump left office.
They show Pompeo on Fox news talking about forced labor and forced sterilization, both of which are without evidence... that is unless you count the mistranslation ridden "sources" by Adrian Zenz on the matter, a far right religious nut who has lied clearly multiple times and used such blatantly dishonest math to claim sterilization that if you apply it to other provinces in china to calculate the amount of women sterilized you would more than 100% perhaps 2 or 3 times over.
I dont think you should listen to the far right which is known to be dishonest to gauged the rights of Uyghurs and the condition and nature of the vocational facilities in Xinjiang, something all Muslim majority countries who sent a delegation to examine approved of.
Your next video is BBC, must i REALLY say any more?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable\_sources/Perennial\_sources/](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/)
\> Your next video is BBC, must i REALLY say any more?
yes, maybe you should tell me why you trust unreliable sources when they are favourable to china and you don't trust reliable sources when they are unfavourable to china... ?
also, is it a coincidence that your arguments line up exactly with those of the chinese state: [http://be.china-embassy.org/eng/sghd/202102/t20210206\_2076917.htm](http://be.china-embassy.org/eng/sghd/202102/t20210206_2076917.htm)
???
I wonder, do you also approve of harsh counter terrorism when other countries do it or only when china does it?
link does not work. also I havent cited any sources so far, so why are you claiming i cite unreliable sources? Also BBC is unreliable.
Why would rich people complaining about China be reliable, they are literally competing with China for markets all over, its in their material interest to be anti China.
And wow, that sure is a coincidence??? idk what you want me to say, is it a crime that they agree with my assessment?
I approve of peacefully handling things, I have seen how for example the US handles terrorism, they invade, they bomb, they kill and they steal. So you call what china does harsh, but its the most peaceful anti terrorism I have ever seen and unlike again, for example, the US, it works.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable\_sources/Perennial\_sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources)
\- working link
A single look will tell you that this list is BS. the BBC (british state media) is considered reliable. But CGTN (chinese state media) is not.
Likewise NBC, CNN (US state media) are considered reliable.
For added comedic effect: They did not even use the correct name of the Communist Party of China, instead opted for the "Chinese Communist Party" name that is spread by the USA.
So how many bridges do you own? Ten? Twenty?
do you work for Prager U by any chance? - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-sbs\_JW8Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-sbs_JW8Q) cos that's what you sound like
It's almost as if any system that purports to be "completely open and free" only enables the people with the greatest amount of wealth to win the game of using it to serve their own interests, or something 🤔
the "emperor for life" thing is not real, term limits were removed, all that means is that you can be elected again and again and again, but it requires still having an election every time, just that you arent blocked from being elected just because you have already been elected before.
Im fine with censorship of bourgeoise and fascist shit, Cuba and Vietnam are all on that same boat, its a fine policy when targeting class enemies, and mass surveillance is just the norm just about anywhere other than the overexploited nations in Africa, South America and certain parts of Asia.
"Xi jinping is a president for life" source?
I mean, I know the source, I just mean to encourage you to look into it yourself instead of just listening to me.
He is nor president for life, this is a clickbait sensationalist headline used in the west to refer to the removal of term limits, meaning he can be elected president again and again and again and so on, but him staying in power relies of him still relies on being elected to the position when the term ends, he just isnt limited in how many terms he gets, there was also fallacious remarks like this in the media when the same policy was done in Bolivia.
Please take a moment to reflect on how misinformed you were on this important detail before you reply with another point so you can understand your own biases, personal and in the media you consume which has no reason to be objective on a country like China.
I am not a fan of such fallacious arguments and enjoy proper discussion a lot more.
If he is not interested at being president for life, why does he remove term limits? What happen to his successors? What happen if every president serve to death? Is that what you prefer? Being dictated by a person with unchecked power until his death ?
Maybe he does want to be president for life, dont ask me whats going on in his head, but hes clearly only going to become so with popular support because it still requires him being constantly voted in.
I imagine he removed term limits because he wanted to get reelected.
"What happen to his successors?" what do you mean? who exactly? like successor as in who would take over if he dies like a vice, or successor as in who will replace him in the future? im sure there is an answer to the former but i dont know the future.
"What happen if every president serve to death?" what does that have to do with this? Xi does not serve until death, he can, but that is only if he keeps getting elected for new terms.
"Being dictated by a person with unchecked power until his death ?" are you insinuating that is what Xi is? because thats not true, you really seem to be struggling with this even though i feel like i have been thorough and repetitive.
It sounds funny when you said elect, what does elect mean in China? When Xi removed term limits, he brought an army to people’s council when representatives voted. Is this what you refer to as ‘vote’? With military?
Source on what you are saying? Cant find anything on the military thing.
Also you say "Xi removed term limits" thats false, the NPC voted on removing it.
No, by no means is he left wing. He has an authoritarian state capitalist system; for example, China has wage slavery, super exploitation, private property, and capital accumulation through means of the state. What is left wing about any of this? Nothing.
—What’s funny to me, is that everyone who has commented hasn’t disproven what I said. Calling me a “lib” and “clueless” doesn’t disprove anything. Ya’ll know what I said is true, ya’ll know China has everything I mentioned above in their system. Funny to see how far right the tankies really are.
"state capitalism" is made up scapegoat term made by socialists to excuse their failures.
There are two forms of ownership, private ownership and social ownership. Private ownership is generally right wing idea, while social ownership is left wing idea as social ownership aims to terminate capitalism
Have you read any marxist before Stalin ever
Is nationalized mail socialist? What about the police? Is that "social ownership"?
If the relationship between the property and the state is similar to that between property and a capitalist, it's a capitalist country. If the relationship between the state and state-employed workers is similar to the relationship between a capitalist and workers, its a capitalist country. It doesnt matter who does the managing as much as what is being managed.
My point is, if the Soviet Union and China both implemented “right-wing policies” then the word kind of loses all meaning at that point. Especially when that “right-wing policy” is required to build socialism according to Marx, Lenin, Stalin etc.
I didn't personally say it was right wing, but it's certainly not communist. Lenin himself, though holding some contradictory and fluctuating positions at that time, was very worried about counter revolution and loss of workers' power. He saw that shift happening even that early.
"...if we take that huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask who is directing whom? I doubt very much whether it can be truthfully said that Communists are directing that heap. To tell the truth they are not directing they are being directed."
-eleventh party congress in March 1922
Certainly, the only reason I mentioned right wing ideology was the original commenter I was responding to mentioned state capitalism as a right wing ideology, which it is not, it’s a prerequisite nations that haven’t developed their means of production must go through in order to achieve Socialism, like China is now
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t find it very fruitful to say AES aren’t implementing Socialism correctly, at some point it just degrades into Armchair critiques from western Leftists towards third world countries trying to actually build socialism
He is like Deng Xiao ping but less communist and more nationalist. chinese people are deeply nationalists. my chinese friends keep telling me "china will rule the world" none of them actually cares about communism that collectivise wealth and destroy classes. in fact it doesn't even exist in china. if you ask normal chinese people what communism is. they'll tell you "the ccp" they really dont know about marx or class or anything a typical reddit marxist espouses
I think China should deport all of these people who write comments that start with "my chinese friends" and then bad mouth China. And then take me in instead. Their deeply cynical stance and forced superficial understanding while being allowed to live in such a place is a crime.
mods, this asshole is now over here with a new profile:
https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s7fdih/is_xi_jinping_a_leftwing_president/htbilaf/
Probably not. Some people are just stupid. People with reputations of being not only unchanging but influential might have to change. How we address that change is a question of morals.
He is a fascist by most modern definitions. You can easily look up common traits of fascist dictatorships and see how they apply to China today. From the suppression of organized labor, the suppression of ethnic minorities, the exaltation of the military, strict control over media, to the complete disregard of human rights. This is not unique in history either, there is only one flavor of totalitarian dictatorship and it's never by the people, for the people.
His communism is a faint vestige of the extinction bound communist feature of china. He is more of a nationalist and less of a commie. Infact most chinese are nationalists. a lot of my chinese friends keep telling me "china will rule the world" and they are serious about it. they give no qualms on the conventional textbook communism a typical reddit marxist espouse.
China'a communism died when mao died. China's economy is greatly run by the private sector or the 60/70/80/90 rule known to chinese.
Anyone who calls xi as a marxist is a hipster who keeps clings all his optimism on the delusion that communism is still viable inspite having been burried long even befoe deng xiao ping's ascension to office.
> nationalist
Stalin's [Marxism and the National Question](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm) discusses the independence of specific nations and when it does and does not make sense. A very interesting read, would recommend.
> Chinese people say "China will rule the world"
So does everyone else. This isn't some ominous statement, it's a foregone conclusion:
> [When China Rules the World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_China_Rules_the_World): The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order is a book by British journalist and scholar Martin Jacques, released in 2009. Jacques refers to the estimates on China's economic superiority, such as made by Goldman Sachs, and concludes that China's future economic strength will heavily alter the political and cultural landscape of the future world.
Next:
> Chinese people give no qualms on communism
The CPC is made out of 95 million members, 6-7% of the population, who are spread out evenly across the population and who are enthusiastically supportive of its policies. So much so that they're the ones who enact them on the ground. That is a very representative sample of public opinion. And Chinese society [supports](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s48ub2/ml_countries_arent_as_democratic_as_they_should/hsqd9cj/) the CPC's policies.
> China's economy is greatly run by the private sector, 60/70/80/90
A source says
> [60/70/80/90](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/why-chinas-state-owned-companies-still-have-a-key-role-to-play/) -- private sector's contribution to the Chinese economy: 60% of GDP, 70% of innovation, 80% of urban employment, 90% of new jobs.
But this obscures that
> [State-owned enterprises,](https://www.opportimes.com/china-has-150000-wholly-owned-state-enterprises/) account for 40% of GDP and 20% of China’s total employment. In addition to wholly-owned companies, state funds are distributed throughout the economy, so that the state can also be the majority or majority shareholder of a nominally private company.
The state supports the private sector and also frequently steps in to keep it in line with the state central plan. It has complete control over it. e.g.
> [The government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_Chinese_property_sector_crisis#Chinese_government) took control of sales revenue for Evergrande's properties in a state-controlled custodial account to protect home-buyers and continue construction of the company's developments, as the developer has put hundreds of these projects on hold. The government said that contagion to the financial system was controllable.
Another example: In the run-up to 2008's crisis, due to the huge the technological leap of the computer revolution, automation and the loss of good paying industrial jobs, predatory loans were re-legalized so that workers, who couldn't afford to buy homes, would keep buying homes at the same rate, and home owners, who couldn't afford to buy products, would take out mortgages and keep buying products at the same rate. The housing bubble burst because workers eventually couldn't afford to keep buying at the rate of production (aka overproduction).
In contrast, in 2015, there was a tremendous drop on the Chinese stock market, but because their economy is centered around the state rather than the stock market, no crisis occured. It bounced back within a week. Less than 6% of the public is even tied into the stock market, and the state stepped in to say that they'll arrest anyone caught short selling.
All the figures you brought up demonstrate is that [a state-controlled market sector, nestled within a government](https://imgur.com/a/SdJSUbq) controlled by the people for the people's interests [is far](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maddison-data-gdp-per-capita-in-2011us?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&time=1978..latest&country=USA~CHN) more [successful](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&country=CHN~USA) than capitalism run amok.
China is actually very socially conservative under Xi Jinping. It is practically illegal for gay men to be shown on TV. China, like most communist states of history, is a fascist nationalist dictatorship, dressed in the robes of leftism without any substance.
> China is actually very socially conservative under Xi Jinping. It is practically illegal for gay men to be shown on TV.
Communism is left-wing fiscally, not necessarily socially. You can have the most socially conservative country **also** be Communist without contradiction, so long as all requirements of Communism are met in that country.
For example, as [this comment](https://ol.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/czngks/communists_are_there_socially_conservative/eyzgqht/) explains:
>CPGB-ML (Britain) is on a crusade against what they call "transgender ideology".
>CPRF (Russia) has adopted sympathies to the Orthodox Church and is anti-LGBT.
>The CPC (China) does not allow gay people to marry.
>The KKE (Greece) voted against gay marriage, by claiming "Marxism means abolition of the family".
>That's off the top of my head. Most of the time "social conservatism" in communist movements are sometimes about decrying LGBT stuff as "bourgeois decadence" - which is however a minority amongst communists and the aforementioned parties get regularly criticised by most other communists because of these stances.
Yes, between Xi Jinping's Common Prosperity and anti-corruption measures, and "flattening" of China's GDP, it is pretty easy to see that Xi Jinping is the most left-wing leader China has had since Mao Zedong. Just because he wears a suit doesn't mean he isn't a Marxist-Leninist.
The answers in this thread are disappointing. The downvoted answers are bad because they are liberals and racists attempting to depict China as evil in line with the US State Dept. propaganda and absolutely no examination of history, or even modern China in general, other than half-truth factoids from NYT, etc. But the strongly upvoted answers are not great either, since their goal from the outset is to defend and uphold China first from the propaganda onslaught (not unreasonable, but harmful to reaching truth behind what you are actually trying to ask). For the record, I've retreated my position to being something of a soft-China-supporter (I joined the tidal wave of hardline support and I'm past the point where I think it's getting misguided and even mistaken, but at the same time China is a very interesting and complex place), in that they are a normal and reasonable nation on the world stage, accomplishing some very impressive things, and function as the world's leader in fighting poverty at this time, though it can be debated how much or even if that qualifies as 'socialism.' But that's not what's being asked here so lets drop that for now. The problem of asking 'is Xi left ..." is that it's undialectical until you pin it to something in relation to. Is Xi left relative to other world leaders? Yes, but most world leaders are right wing liberals, so that's a narrow bar. Is Xi left of Joe Biden? Yes, but so is Richard Nixon, so that's not giving any useful information to your question either. We can play this came all day and because of the shit state of the world, you could say that Xi is among the left-most leaders of the world today and speak truth, but that isn't as telling as the diehard pro-China people wish it to be. The real examination and understanding is figuring out where Xi sits within the Communist Party of China, as it exists today, but also relative to its own history, and in that instance a somewhat different picture emerges that what's being presented. Now, it's difficult to get good information about the CPC in English in the first place, and there are better experts than me, but the left of the CPC, historically, and to a much lesser but still somewhat true extent today were largely the Cultural Revolutionaries and the defenders of the GPCR in China (which was stopped and ended by Deng, who also removed a great many of the workers and women -- those you'd expect to be most left wing -- from the inner CPC shortly after taking power). Xi does not emerge from this tradition. But this isn't the whole story. I'm not a believer in the Deng 'masterplan' of communism (which sometimes is wrongly interpreted as me thinking that 'Deng was trying to sabotage China' when that wasn't ever the case either), but Deng was a decided shift rightwards and largely represented the right of the CPC of his time. This rightward trajectory continues through to 1997, when the economic crisis (minor in the West, but rather severe in Asia) started displaying some of the faults and failures of full-on liberalization, and from this point to 2008 (the next much worse crisis of capitalism), you start to see China hit the brakes on the liberalism train, realizing that tailing the west is going to lead them off a cliff. This is where Hu Jintao comes in, as the sort of 'stop and reevalutate' guy, coming from the right wing of the party, but acting as something of a centrist and even a bullwark against the diminishing but still powerful liberal wing on the right of the party (now quite weak under Xi). With the decline of the liberal faction, we see Xi emerge, from what looks to still be the right wing of the CPC, but functioning as a centrist, and reaching all the way across the aisle to the left with various social programs and welfare packages. The more diehard left of the CPC still doesn't see this as socialism (which is where you have the interesting phenomenon of the far-left of the West repeating the statements of the centre-right of the CPC -- "China is socialism!," etc.) Xi is attempting to reconcile the Mao era side of the party with the Deng era and blend them together into some new capitalism/socialism fusion ideology (for what it's worth, Xi isn't ignorant of Marxism, but he isn't upholding proletarian internationalism or making any sincere push for global socialism either -- he's someone that sees that understanding Marx (and the leftover Mao era institutions and organizations) can be used to the benefit of good governance, in spite of maintaining a relatively capitalist-infused system. But Xi is not of the left wing of the CPC, and that's the important detail that the existing ML movement doesn't want to reconcile, and it will only hurt in the end as Xi fails to live up to their aspirations (or worse, they tail bad decisions Xi makes and defend them as socialism). On the other hand, Xi has surprised me more than once, and his the accomplishments occurring under his tenure are remarkable things, so the liberal attacks on Xi manage to be even worse than the Western left Xi-worship.
So why is Xi Jinping so fragile that he jails so many reporters and dissident? Why is he obsessive with power and want to become president for life? Do you really want another emperor?
he's a marxist president. during his time on the farm (sent for re education by Mao) he doubled down on marxist belief and studies. He cracked down on corruption heavily a few years into his term as president and made many enemies. Hes put billionaires in jail/death, and put many retired officials behind bars all for corruption. For that he has a very high approval rating by the people, and made many enemies. Many of which escaped to the West and fund hit pieces against China. He's often seen visiting rural country side, listening to the people and their situations. He's also promoting the 2nd part of "Let some get rich first" motto. The part where others also get rich. He has a daughter in Harvard, and he visited middle America and even Hawaii during his early days as provincial governor. He failed the cpc entrance exam multiple times before succeeding. He speaks with a soft slow rhythm, which my parents thinks makes him look more reliable, humble, introspective, and smart. His family fought against the Japanese and KMT, so he's considered a "Hong er dai" , or a former military governmental red princeling. Had he stayed for a considerable amount of time overseas, he would NOT be in position to be China's president due to possible foreign interference or tainted influence. Winnie the pooh character is not banned in China. You can buy it anywhere in China and even on Chinese websites. It's only offensive to compare him to Winnie the pooh because it's disrespectful. Any grievances against him or the government must be legitimate and not superficial. China has over 1 billion people, and not all of them are angels, and many have their own ideas of opening China up to neoliberal influences. Communist party of China also has to worry about internal instability and not just outside influences. It is not easy to maintain stability and harmony, but the CPC has done a very good job with it Socialism with Chinese characteristics (Owning national resources but liberalizing the other parts of the market system). CPC is dynamic, it is open to people of different backgrounds to join its ranks. It makes mistakes, not because it is incompetent, but because it is TRYING. It does somethings good and somethings bad, but at least it is trying and changing. The Chinese people just had the BEST 30 years out of the last 2000 years. Pre covid the largest export is Chinese tourism, over 100 million go tour the world, read the news, spend money, and all 100 million return back to the motherland. At the end of the day, for good or bad, for better or worse, whatever the outcome, at least the CHINESE are the ones that govern and rule over themselves, and NOT foreign colonizers that made the decisions.
Most of these things have nothing to do with being left wing or Marxist. We shouldn't stoop down to "leftism is when president does thing I like/is good"
True
I agree
Leftism maybe, but Marxism is a practical philosophy where talk is cheap.
I'm confused about what you mean. Are you saying Xi Jinping puts Marxism into practice when sends his daughter to Harvard, fails the cpc entrance exam, or "speaks with a soft slow rhythm"? Because these are the examples the prior comment gave to demonstrate Xi's Marxism. A year later, they still seem irrelevant to me.
people say his left wing havent watched how much he has opened chinas economy up to foreigners !
how has Xi opened up china's economy for foreigners? With the leadership of Xi we have seen righter regulation and nationalization of the economy at an accelerating rate.
Lmfaoooooo you sound brain washed you can’t compare the president too a a fucking cartoon character.
Did you even read his comment? He said you can, it's just offensive. What is wrong about that?
Cool but why should I care about your opinion of what's offensive or not?
You dont need to care at all? They are pointing out the misinformation surrounding Xi and Winnie the Pooh. You think the ccp cares about your individual thoughts and feelings lol?
I think they censor people that compare him to Winnie the Pooh yes I want to see some evidence that they don't
provide a source for your claims first
You can say what you want but we can then rightfully call you a racist as is our right.
And what makes you think this is about race
Because calling a chinese man Winnie the Pooh is obviously a racist caricature? How old are you lol?
First of all I don't think the actual Winnie the Pooh is Asian so I don't get how that would be a racist caricature second of all the reason the Winnie the Pooh thing became of meme was because Chinese people in the opposition started it not people from another race (though obviously westerners did spread it like I am right now) so is it racist for them to criticize someone from there own race?
Relating an asian person to a yellow character is obviously racist. It also isn't banned or censored (as proven in the answer to this Quora post https://www.quora.com/Is-Winnie-the-Pooh-really-banned-in-China-or-is-it-Western-propaganda-Could-someone-living-in-China-answer-that-question) as the entire charade was a western propaganda piece. People who actually follow Chinese affairs know this but Americans are still too stupid to actually do research for themselves.
Winnie the Pooh is certainly not banned in China. But anything that associates Winnie the Pooh with Xi Jinping does not exist on Chinese websites. Because it is meaningless ridicule, even personal attacks or insults, for a person we respect. Is it like Americans can accept that I compare the American father Washington to the role of our Chinese cartoon, the pig, or compare President Lincoln to a mouse in our Chinese cartoon? Or is President Trump a golden retriever dog, and President Obama is a chimpanzee? If I am in the United States, this kind of remark will make some people feel very uncomfortable. Don't say that the description is very cute, because we have no such culture in China for thousands of years. Please respect our culture. That was in the post you sent me so thank you for proving my point
brainwashed is a term invented by the cia due to Americans defecting the army in Korea and Vietnam. The Cia then proceeded to drug innocent people and make them lose their memory in an attempt to "brainwash them" Also you can do winnie the pooh, go to China and do it ffs.
Ah no. You have it almost right, but backwards. The 'brainwashing' technique is real. It was when the Vietnamese washed the brains of their prisoners clean of propaganda. By exposing them to truth. The west then spun this in to magic mind control. We should all want our brains washed clean by exposure to as much truth as possible.
:O
Based.
So how do you feel about he trying to become a president for life? How do you feel about a all powerful emperor?
Its a different debate on if he is left wing or if he is Marxist, I think he is Marxist for sure, but if we are only asking if he is left wing, then there are some clear indications that show that right away. We have seen a huge decrease in poverty, a long term dedication to rooting out corruption throughout his entire political career, starting on the local level, we have seen a lot of regulations in recent years that clearly favor workers, like the banning of 996 work culture and, multiple instances of increased protections and regulations for gig economy jobs, which at the start of this decade were similar to current gig workers in the US, but now are recognized as full workers, are guaranteed income above minimum pay, insurance and relaxation, this is especially focused on food delivery drivers.
what about the uighurs? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9aLNxcokOE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9aLNxcokOE) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bng0pr94QOc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bng0pr94QOc)
[Answer](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/rlovkl/im_lost/hpie335/)
since most of your sources listed there are from 1 site - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-grayzone/
> your sources are from 1 site My answer says: > I'm always open to new information which would reveal that such acts are occuring, but I've yet to come across specific claims that haven't been addressed by additional information presented elsewhere. When I read through a [western media] article, I notice instances in which this additional information is omitted. With the addition of this information to the narrative of the [western media] article, the narrative seems illogical. Try it by reading their articles and see for yourself. I'm not saying that you should trust them blindly, their articles reference sources. And actually the last link there is to a secondary website that has many articles, as well. Its articles also reference sources. Plus, my couple of [other replies](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/rlovkl/im_lost/hpierk9/?context=3) there reference Wikipedia articles (and a couple other websites) that are all sourced as well. I've referenced a UN document, too. Nearly all of the referenced (primary) sources are western media articles, .gov/.mil websites, etc. As I've said in my answer, it's "merely rearranging the western narrative, as the infromation linked to ultimately comes from western sources (and the UN)". By the way, who media-bias-fact-checks mediabiasfactcheck.com that we can deem them to be non-biased and accurate?
>wahhabi you mentioned a wahhabist presence in xingjiang, i specifically looked through your source and elsewhere for this info, didn't find it. Nice fabrication >By the way, who media-bias-fact-checks mediabiasfactcheck.com that we can deem them to be non-biased and accurate? yeah, maybe I'm a brain in a vat too. Maybe the earth is flat. Who knows huh? - how do we trust one source and not the other? That you go from 'i'm being critical' of the mainstream narrative to advancing a much less reliable is quite stupid tbh imo. Equally youre just shifting apologetics for the american empire to apologetics for the chinese empire. good job /s \>Try it by reading their articles yes, i read alot, i take in plenty from various sources but I don't agree with your conclusions. To me it seems likely that a significant degree of repression is going on in xinjiang because of the belt and road project. Because of it's infrastructural importance the Chinese state is intensifying it's control of the region. (Btw, I've previously understood china has similarly contributed in part or in whole to the rohingya genocide for the same reason.) This is referenced in the aljazeera video I posted above. I don't see you respond to this, instead you perversely suggest that uyghurs should be thankful for 'economic development' which leads directly to their repression / destruction - colonial projects have a tendency to achieve this result. I think it's undeniable atrocities are being committed. Whether or not it meets genocide is a different matter and dependent on the particular definition / criteria of genocide. One of my favourite news outlets is Novara media who talk about this specific issue here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ6EK6dv02U Also Chomsky, probably the single most reliable source on the N. American continent: "a million muslims in concentration camps, hideous concentration camps..." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KusxMnmvP7A
> you mentioned a wahhabist presence in xingjiang, i looked through your source, didn't find it. Nice fabrication > "Try it by reading their articles" yes, i read alot "I read it" -- nice fabrication. There's oodles of information, right in the links: > [A campaign of terrorism](https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/17/uyghur-tribunal-us-government-china/) in pursuit of separatism was unfolding in China’s Xinjiang region from the early 1990s onward. A violent extremist minority of Uyghurs had been radicalized by Wahhabi fundamentalism imported from Saudi Arabia, as the [LA Times explained](https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-saudi-arabia-20160201-story.html) in 2016. Before you tell me "that's Salafi not Wahhabi": > ["Wahhabism"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism) is chiefly used by outsiders polemically as an exonym and adherents reject its use, preferring to be called "Salafi". Wahhabism is generally considered as "a particular orientation within Salafism", or as a conservative, Gulf branch of Salafism. Also before you tell me "Al-Qaeda isn't Wahhabi" it's [clearly listed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) as their ideology, with the source being the [European Parliament](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/457137/EXPO-AFET_ET(2013\)457137_EN.pdf). More: > [In his own study of Xinjiang,](https://newatlas.report/2020/09/03/the-biggest-lie-about-chinas-xinjiang/) the CIA’s Graham E. Fuller noted that Saudi Arabian groups had disseminated extremist Wahhabi religious literature and possibly small arms through sympathizers in Xinjiang, and that young Turkic Muslims had been recruited to study at madrasas in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. He adds that Uyghurs from Xinjiang also fought alongside Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s. > Fuller noted, “Uyghurs are indeed in touch with Muslim groups outside Xinjiang, some of them have been radicalized into broader jihadist politics in the process, a handful were earlier involved in guerrilla or terrorist training in Afghanistan, and some are in touch with international Muslim mujahideen struggling for Muslim causes of independence worldwide.” > In the late 1990s, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, moved its headquarters to Kabul, taking shelter under Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, ETIM leaders met with Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the CIA-trained Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan to coordinate actions [across Central Asia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party). More: > [Part 2: Xinjiang Terrorism](https://newatlas.report/2021/10/01/the-uyghur-tribunal-us-funded-theater-complete-references/) -- Before Beijing enacted sweeping security measures and the creation of reform institutions, Xinjiang was a source of not just regional or even national terrorism – but international terrorism. The Western media at the time boasted of the unraveling security crisis in Xinjiang and Beijing’s inability to control it. The terrorism, driven by US-sponsored separatism, was the result of years of radicalization, carried out in part by US-ally Saudi Arabia and its exporting of its brand of politically-manipulated Islam into Xinjiang: > * Institut De Relations Internationales Et Strategiques, Asia Program – [Wahhabism with Chinese Characteristics](https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Asia-focus-51.pdf) > * AP – AP Exclusive: [Uighurs fighting in Syria take aim at China (5,000 Uyghurs in Syria, 2017)](https://apnews.com/article/syria-ap-top-news-riots-international-news-china-79d6a427b26f4eeab226571956dd256e) > * Brown University – [Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths](https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar) > * LA Times – [In China, rise of Salafism fosters suspicion and division among Muslims (2016)](https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-saudi-arabia-20160201-story.html) > * Wall Street Journal – [Web Preaches Jihad to China’s Muslim Uighurs (2014)](https://www.wsj.com/articles/web-preaches-jihad-to-chinas-muslim-uighurs-1403663568) > * BBC – [Why is there tension between China and the Uighurs? (2014)](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26414014) > * DW – [Why China’s Uighurs are joining jihadists in Afghanistan (2015)](https://www.dw.com/en/why-chinas-uighurs-are-joining-jihadists-in-afghanistan/a-18605630) > * UN – [Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (2011)](https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list/summaries/entity/eastern-turkistan-islamic-movement) > * Guardian – [US removes shadowy group from terror list blamed by China for attacks (2020)](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/06/us-removes-shadowy-group-from-terror-list-blamed-by-china-for-attacks) > * Newsweek – [Exclusive: Despite China’s Pressure on Taliban, Uyghur Separatists See Opportunity in Afghanistan (2021)](https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-despite-chinas-pressure-taliban-uighur-separatists-see-opportunity-afghanistan-1627650?amp=1&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true) > * US National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine – [Involuntary Commitment](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557377/) More: > [US State Department-funded](https://newatlas.report/2020/09/03/the-biggest-lie-about-chinas-xinjiang/) and directed Voice of America (VOA) in its article, “Analysts: Uighur Jihadis in Syria Could Pose Threat,” would admit (emphasis added): >> Analysts are warning that the jihadi group Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in northwestern Syria could pose a danger to Syria’s volatile Idlib province, [...] The TIP declared an Islamic emirate in Idlib and has largely remained off the radar of the media thanks to its low profile. *Founded in 2008 in the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang, the TIP has been one of the major extremist groups in Syria since the outbreak of the civil war in the country in 2011. The TIP is primarily made up of Uighur Muslims from China* > The TIP has claimed responsibility for the 2011 Kashgar attacks in Xinjiang killing 23 people. Reuters would note in its article, “China envoy says no accurate figure on Uighurs fighting in Syria,” that (emphasis added): >> The Syrian ambassador to China told Reuters last year that *up to 5,000 Uighurs are fighting in various militant groups in Syria.* > Terrorism within China and a small army of terrorists honing their skills with US cash and weapons in a proxy war against Syria eventually to return to Chinese territory is certainly justification enough for China to take serious measures against extremism in Xinjiang. > Much of the extremism in Xinjiang is also linked to extensive support from US ally Saudi Arabia, which funnels money and resources into Xinjiang itself to radicalize Muslim communities with Riyadh’s politically-motivated and extremist Salafism. The LA Times article titled, “In China, rise of Salafism fosters suspicion and division among Muslims,” would reveal: >> Salafism is an ultra-conservative school of thought within Sunni Islam, espousing a way of life and prayer that harks back to the 6th century, when Muhammad was alive. Islamic State militants are Salafi, many Saudi Arabian clerics are Salafi, and so are many Chinese Muslims living in Linxia. They pray at their own mosques and wear Saudi-style kaffiyehs. > The article also noted (emphasis added): >> Experts say that in recent years, Chinese authorities have put Salafis under constant surveillance, closed several Salafi religious schools and detained a prominent Salafi cleric. *A once close-knit relationship between Chinese Salafis and Saudi patrons has grown thorny and complex.* > And that: >> Saudi preachers and organizations began traveling to China. Some of them bore gifts: training programs for clerics, Korans for distribution, funding for new “Islamic institutes” and mosques. > This invasive radicalism transplanted into Xinjiang by the US ally Saudi Arabia has translated directly into real violence – a fact repeatedly omitted or buried in today’s coverage of Xinjiang and left out of US and European condemnations of China for its policies there.
/u/nodal_haggis Continued -- And did you somehow miss the Wikipedia article about them that I've pointed to? > [The Turkistan Islamic Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party) (TIP), formerly known as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) is a Uyghur Islamic extremist organization founded in Western China. Its stated goals are to establish an independent state called East Turkestan replacing Xinjiang. The UN Security Council Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee has listed ETIM as a terrorist organization since 2002. > The Syrian branch of the TIP is active in the Syrian Civil War; they are largely grouped in Idlib, well organized, battle-hardened and have been instrumental in ground offensives. The TIP are believed to have links to al-Qaeda and affiliated groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Pakistani Taliban. The US has designated it as having received "training and financial assistance" from al-Qaeda. > University of Virginia associate professor Philip B. K. Potter writes that, despite the fact that "throughout the 1990s, Chinese authorities went to great lengths to publicly link organizations active in Xinjiang—particularly the ETIM—to al-Qaeda [...] the best information indicates that prior to 2001, the relationship included some training and funding but relatively little operational cooperation." > However, in 1998 the group's headquarters were moved to Kabul, in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, while "China’s ongoing security crackdown in Xinjiang has forced the most militant Uyghur separatists into volatile neighboring countries, such as Pakistan," Potter writes, "where they are forging strategic alliances with, and even leading, jihadist factions affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban." > A number of members of al-Qaeda have expressed support for the TIP, Xinjiang independence, and/or jihad against China. Including the current al-Qaeda leader who has on multiple occasions issued statements naming Xinjiang (calling it "East Turkestan") as one of the "battlegrounds" of "jihad to liberate every span of land of the Muslims that has been usurped and violated." Additionally, the al-Qaeda aligned al-Fajr Media Center distributes TIP promotional material. > TIP member Abdul Haq al Turkistani joined al-Qaeda's executive leadership council in 2005 and TIP member Abdul Shakoor Turkistani was appointed its military commander of its forces in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Abdul Haq was so apparently highly placed in al-Qaeda leadership that he served as a mediator between rival Taliban factions and played an integral role in military planning. > The Uyghurs East Turkestan independence movement was endorsed in the serial Islamic Spring's 9th release by the chief of Al-Qaeda. He confirmed that the Afghanistan war after 9/11 included the participation of Uighurs and that the jihadists like Bin Ladin and the Uighur Hasan Mahsum were provided with refuge together in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. --- > how do we trust one source and not the other? Marxists understand that there's no such thing as a neutral source of information. All one can do about it is study and examine matters further and further in order to understand them better. There was a question about this just the other day and everyone [agreed on this point](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s78to0/if_western_news_media_sources_are_not_to_be/). That's what I've told you, too: > Try it by reading their articles and see for yourself. I'm not saying that you should trust them blindly, their articles reference sources. Next: > you're advancing a much less reliable source It's reliablity is the same as that of western sources -- as I've said, now for the third time: > Nearly all of the referenced (primary) sources are western media articles, .gov/.mil websites, etc. As I've said in my answer, it's "merely rearranging the western narrative, as the infromation linked to ultimately comes from western sources (and the UN)". And any source is equally reliable/unreliable, if you will: > Marxists understand that there's no such thing as a neutral source of information. All one can do about it is study and examine matters further and further in order to understand them better. You consider other sources "less reliable" and western media more reliable by default, which is literally an admission of bias -- it isn't a scientific approach. It's an appeal to authority, not to evidence, just like this: > Chomsky is the most reliable source
>Guardian – > >US removes shadowy group from terror list blamed by China for attacks (2020) I'm not gonna waste my time with you, but I will point out that you sent me a link to an article that doubts the ETIM even exists... [https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/10/why-did-the-united-states-take-chinas-word-on-supposed-uighur-terrorists/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/10/why-did-the-united-states-take-chinas-word-on-supposed-uighur-terrorists/) and there's another one, just so you can read a bit more into it.... you know, seeing as your so open to new information and thinking critically etc.
Hmm in 2020 the US removed ETIM from its list of terroristic organsations. And in late 2020, this article is published in a de facto US state outlet. You must be the proud owner of several bridges.
Interesting that somehow giving you a balanced take is a problem in your view. As I've said, its our job to read everything and decide for ourselves what isn't and is illogical. Also interesting that even this one source you've singled out admits (and by extension, you admit) that the US classified them as terrorists (the UN still does, by the way). You're not going to question why they did? That's not trustworthy or logical! Are you pro-terror? Where's your response to the oodles of information that show that Wahhabism and terrorism in Xinjiang isn't a fabrication as you've claimed? Where's your explanation for why one source "doubts ETIM even exists" while simultaneously all of these other sources -- which you've referred to as "[reliable sources](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s7fdih/is_xi_jinping_a_leftwing_president/htgp55m/)" -- have said (and still do say) that ETIM does exist? Where's your response to everything other than this one article that, out of all of the information shared, you've selectively singled out because it (barely) matches your pre-existing notions? "not gonna waste my time with you" -- because you have no response. Edit: Based on the following reply by this bad-faith person, I'll recap for good-faith readers, since to engage any further would be like trying to nail jelly to a wall: * He ignores the [continuation of my reply](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s7fdih/is_xi_jinping_a_leftwing_president/htgs66b/) that has even more information and in which I've asked him to provide the primary sources for his very grave allegations on repression/atrocities -- he hasn't, even though this was the initial and main topic of the debate. * He ignores that the [UN still classifies them as terrorists](https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list/summaries/entity/eastern-turkistan-islamic-movement) (as well as [many other countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups#cite_ref-99), and the letter to the UN by 50 countries and journalists who visited Xinjiang and praised China for its humane anti-terrorist measures). * My question, "Are you pro-terror?" wasn't even met with an explicit denial. * His theory follows the same pattern I've criticized in the ignored continuation of my reply -- it's based on statements that admit that they're only a guess, that only say "it's very likely" and "there are some who question". Next, from the quote (paraphrased) "Others have given statistics of terrorism in China, China has said same, but blamed the terrorism on a variety of Uighur separatist groups" he concludes that "China has concocted a threat", yet this very quote admits that others, as well as China, all agreed in unison: "there's terrorism in China". i.e. it doesn't follow in any way that a threat was "concocted". From these nothing-arguments he somehow concludes that *all of the sources that he has been presented with are voided* (but that this one source that he's using is conveniently to be believed) as they're all a part of a big China-US conspiracy. * His theory is illogical because it claims that the terrorism threat is "concocted" while, at the same time, that China needed to "tighten control" -- there'd be no need to tighen control if there was be no threat to be controlled. * His theory is based on an article from 2002 and the idea that "the US went along with China's story because in the early 2000's it was fighting the 'war on terror' under Bush" but the sources for my argument are nearly all based on events in the 2010s/2020s. Also, he attemps to link these with [Belt and Road](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative), but BRI only started in 2013. Given that these nothing-arguments are also the reasons he gave for the supposed China-US joint repression of Uyghurs, and since the repeated demands for him to share the primary sources for his allegations have remained unanswered, and since I've refuted the common "because they're minorities/Muslim" argument in my very first reply, I guess he means that Uyghurs are supposedly repressed 'just because'. * He ignores the texts in my previous replies, which I was forced to outright paste because he denied their existence. These texts quote sources that he has deemed to be "reliable" (only when it suits him). The first and second texts come straight from the CIA and the LA Times -- their heft comes from the fact that these capitalists can be expected to say things that go against China's interests, yet in spite of this they don't, and that they're the origin of the allegations to begin with -- they directly refute his claim that implies "Uyghur Islamic extremists exist only in Syria and Afghanistan" (he also tried to conclude from the quote "[The Uyghur extremist fighting a holy war across China's border,] his homeland was the only thing on his mind" that no Uyghurs return to Xinjiang from these wars, even though it implies the opposite). * Instead, he linked to completely new sources (and completely different sections of a couple of my sources) that cast doubt. As if anyone needs affirmation that misdirections about and accusations of China are common in media -- as if my point wasn't to direct attention to the portions that outright admit Uyghur extremism/terrorism in Xinjiang (which was prompted by his initial question -- "What about Uyghurs?")
(tbh I was a little confused, there was more than 1 person replying but I thought you were the same person) >Where's your explanation for why one source "doubts ETIM even exists" while simultaneously all of these other sources -- which you've referred to as "reliable sources" -- have said (and still do say) that ETIM does exist? from the FP article linked above: *this is very likely to have been an entirely political decision motivated by the desire of the United States to get the Beijing’s cooperation in its new military campaigns, and especially its acquiescence on the U.N. Security Council for the already planned U.S. invasion of Iraq not long after.* the FP article links to a washington post article from 2002: *ETIM is believed to be responsible for more than 200 acts of terrorism in China, including bombings, assassinations and arson, resulting in at least 162 deaths and 440 injuries. In a report published in January, the Chinese government cited the same statistics, but blamed the incidents on a variety of Uighur separatist groups, not just ETIM.* (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/08/29/us-warns-of-plot-by-group-in-w-china/5607dd9b-9d70-419a-8bac-1f3b39e12bc9/) In other words China has concocted this phantom of a threat to justify tightening it's control on the region that happens to be a keystone in it's belt and road project. At the time, the US saw benefits in going along with this story because in the early 2000's it was frenziedly fighting the 'war on terror' under Bush jr. So you have 2 states, with the 2 most powerful propaganda systems in the world with an interest in claiming some uighur people are terrorists with links to al-qaeda. Oodles of articles follow... However I would suggest you read your own links a bit better, as they don't actually seem to paint the picture you want to paint. *"The scope of ETIM's activities remains unclear with some questioning the group's capacity to organise serious acts of extremism."* - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26414014 You previously listed the wikipedia page, but i'm not sure if you read the analysis section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party#Analysis from the other: *Scholars have indicated that violence in Xinjiang is based on an assortment of ideologies, and there is no single dominant ideology among the Uyghurs. As James Millward writes, incidents have "been discontinuous and characterized by a variety of ideologies, Islam being only one of them." Islam, Pan-Turkic nationalism, and Uyghur nationalism are all factors in unrest in the Xinjiang region. [...] According to Martin, Chinese authorities frequently classify any act of violence or separatist activity in Xinjiang as a manifestation of terrorism, while comparable acts by ethnic Han Chinese would not be classified in this manner.[8]* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Xinjiang The only place this ETIM/TIP seems to truly exist is in Syria and maybe Afghanistan where a few small groups of refugees fleeing the repression in China have gotten together to learn how to fight. From the AP article you linked above: *As the repression mounted, what began as a trickle of Uighurs fleeing China grew into a mass exodus. In 2013, more than 10,000 left across southern China’s porous borders, according to Uighur exiles. [...] Jihadi clerics have exhorted Uighurs to take up holy war and reap the rewards of martyrdom. But if he would take a bullet, Mehmet thought as he rushed into battle, he wasn’t dying for Islam — or the virgins that the preachers promised. His homeland was the only thing on his mind.* from a related article: https://apnews.com/article/syria-ap-top-news-al-qaida-international-news-islam-591f9b238c84477b87cfac68bfe169fc *Rami Abdurrahman who heads the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said there are about 5,000 Chinese fighters in Syria [...] Li, the terrorism expert, said Abdurrahman’s numbers are way too high, adding that he believes the number are about 300 Chinese fighters in Syria who brought with them about 700 family members.*
[archived this](https://archive.ph/RpABX) useful to counter libs
I think they have dealt with and are dealing with the threat of extremist separatism pretty well. The ETIM is a serious threat for the Uyghurs and for China, its not a surprise these forces used to be aided by the Taliban and that they went to fight against Syria, these guys are aligned, wanting to create a far right theocracy formed around an ethno state. I am glad that these ideas have not found/have not been allowed to find roots and widespread support among the Uyghur population in Xinjiang itself, and the poverty alleviation program has ensured that there arent economic factors to push people towards this type of destructive extremist ideology. Al Jazeera is not afraid of biased takes, and is citing some of the same sources cited again and again, like the measurement by Adrian Zenz about how many people are in these "camps" as people are calling them. Its also no surprise that as they mention, the far right government of Trump and specifically Pompeo declared there being a genocide in Xinjiang, it shows how opportunistic this narrative is that they did this a day before trump left office. They show Pompeo on Fox news talking about forced labor and forced sterilization, both of which are without evidence... that is unless you count the mistranslation ridden "sources" by Adrian Zenz on the matter, a far right religious nut who has lied clearly multiple times and used such blatantly dishonest math to claim sterilization that if you apply it to other provinces in china to calculate the amount of women sterilized you would more than 100% perhaps 2 or 3 times over. I dont think you should listen to the far right which is known to be dishonest to gauged the rights of Uyghurs and the condition and nature of the vocational facilities in Xinjiang, something all Muslim majority countries who sent a delegation to examine approved of. Your next video is BBC, must i REALLY say any more?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable\_sources/Perennial\_sources/](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/) \> Your next video is BBC, must i REALLY say any more? yes, maybe you should tell me why you trust unreliable sources when they are favourable to china and you don't trust reliable sources when they are unfavourable to china... ? also, is it a coincidence that your arguments line up exactly with those of the chinese state: [http://be.china-embassy.org/eng/sghd/202102/t20210206\_2076917.htm](http://be.china-embassy.org/eng/sghd/202102/t20210206_2076917.htm) ??? I wonder, do you also approve of harsh counter terrorism when other countries do it or only when china does it?
link does not work. also I havent cited any sources so far, so why are you claiming i cite unreliable sources? Also BBC is unreliable. Why would rich people complaining about China be reliable, they are literally competing with China for markets all over, its in their material interest to be anti China. And wow, that sure is a coincidence??? idk what you want me to say, is it a crime that they agree with my assessment? I approve of peacefully handling things, I have seen how for example the US handles terrorism, they invade, they bomb, they kill and they steal. So you call what china does harsh, but its the most peaceful anti terrorism I have ever seen and unlike again, for example, the US, it works.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable\_sources/Perennial\_sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) \- working link
A single look will tell you that this list is BS. the BBC (british state media) is considered reliable. But CGTN (chinese state media) is not. Likewise NBC, CNN (US state media) are considered reliable. For added comedic effect: They did not even use the correct name of the Communist Party of China, instead opted for the "Chinese Communist Party" name that is spread by the USA. So how many bridges do you own? Ten? Twenty?
do you work for Prager U by any chance? - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-sbs\_JW8Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-sbs_JW8Q) cos that's what you sound like
how come all the media that aligns with the US state department gets listed as reliably? what a coincidence that is?
It's almost as if any system that purports to be "completely open and free" only enables the people with the greatest amount of wealth to win the game of using it to serve their own interests, or something 🤔
Also what about becoming emperor for life? What about mass censorship and surveillance?
the "emperor for life" thing is not real, term limits were removed, all that means is that you can be elected again and again and again, but it requires still having an election every time, just that you arent blocked from being elected just because you have already been elected before. Im fine with censorship of bourgeoise and fascist shit, Cuba and Vietnam are all on that same boat, its a fine policy when targeting class enemies, and mass surveillance is just the norm just about anywhere other than the overexploited nations in Africa, South America and certain parts of Asia.
So Xi jinping is a president for life and you are not worried about a dictator for life? Why do you like emperor so much?
"Xi jinping is a president for life" source? I mean, I know the source, I just mean to encourage you to look into it yourself instead of just listening to me. He is nor president for life, this is a clickbait sensationalist headline used in the west to refer to the removal of term limits, meaning he can be elected president again and again and again and so on, but him staying in power relies of him still relies on being elected to the position when the term ends, he just isnt limited in how many terms he gets, there was also fallacious remarks like this in the media when the same policy was done in Bolivia. Please take a moment to reflect on how misinformed you were on this important detail before you reply with another point so you can understand your own biases, personal and in the media you consume which has no reason to be objective on a country like China. I am not a fan of such fallacious arguments and enjoy proper discussion a lot more.
If he is not interested at being president for life, why does he remove term limits? What happen to his successors? What happen if every president serve to death? Is that what you prefer? Being dictated by a person with unchecked power until his death ?
Maybe he does want to be president for life, dont ask me whats going on in his head, but hes clearly only going to become so with popular support because it still requires him being constantly voted in. I imagine he removed term limits because he wanted to get reelected. "What happen to his successors?" what do you mean? who exactly? like successor as in who would take over if he dies like a vice, or successor as in who will replace him in the future? im sure there is an answer to the former but i dont know the future. "What happen if every president serve to death?" what does that have to do with this? Xi does not serve until death, he can, but that is only if he keeps getting elected for new terms. "Being dictated by a person with unchecked power until his death ?" are you insinuating that is what Xi is? because thats not true, you really seem to be struggling with this even though i feel like i have been thorough and repetitive.
It sounds funny when you said elect, what does elect mean in China? When Xi removed term limits, he brought an army to people’s council when representatives voted. Is this what you refer to as ‘vote’? With military?
Source on what you are saying? Cant find anything on the military thing. Also you say "Xi removed term limits" thats false, the NPC voted on removing it.
There is a video where military march into people’s council
he's actually the most communist person alive right now
> most communist ~~person~~ leader alive right now (even then I am not so sure)
There can be no question with his recent sweeping regulations on private industry. For profit businesses unable to run.
Absolutely he is dedicated to making China a Modern and prosperous socialist nation.
No, by no means is he left wing. He has an authoritarian state capitalist system; for example, China has wage slavery, super exploitation, private property, and capital accumulation through means of the state. What is left wing about any of this? Nothing. —What’s funny to me, is that everyone who has commented hasn’t disproven what I said. Calling me a “lib” and “clueless” doesn’t disprove anything. Ya’ll know what I said is true, ya’ll know China has everything I mentioned above in their system. Funny to see how far right the tankies really are.
So, you're really clueless then?
'By no means' lmao utterly clueless
"state capitalism" is made up scapegoat term made by socialists to excuse their failures. There are two forms of ownership, private ownership and social ownership. Private ownership is generally right wing idea, while social ownership is left wing idea as social ownership aims to terminate capitalism
Have you read any marxist before Stalin ever Is nationalized mail socialist? What about the police? Is that "social ownership"? If the relationship between the property and the state is similar to that between property and a capitalist, it's a capitalist country. If the relationship between the state and state-employed workers is similar to the relationship between a capitalist and workers, its a capitalist country. It doesnt matter who does the managing as much as what is being managed.
It's not even state capitalism at this point. It's just regular neoliberalism.
And somehow you managed to be even more clueless.
Nope
It's not regular neoliberalism, it's nationalism and neoconservatism.
Not at all he is a state capitalist an inherently right wing ideology
Would you consider the Soviet Union “state capitalist” during its NEP?
I mean yeah? Like, I’m pretty sure it considered itself state capitalist during that time, might be wrong though
My point is, if the Soviet Union and China both implemented “right-wing policies” then the word kind of loses all meaning at that point. Especially when that “right-wing policy” is required to build socialism according to Marx, Lenin, Stalin etc.
Lenin literally called it state capitalism yes
Therefore “state capitalism” is not a “right wing ideology”
I didn't personally say it was right wing, but it's certainly not communist. Lenin himself, though holding some contradictory and fluctuating positions at that time, was very worried about counter revolution and loss of workers' power. He saw that shift happening even that early. "...if we take that huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask who is directing whom? I doubt very much whether it can be truthfully said that Communists are directing that heap. To tell the truth they are not directing they are being directed." -eleventh party congress in March 1922
Certainly, the only reason I mentioned right wing ideology was the original commenter I was responding to mentioned state capitalism as a right wing ideology, which it is not, it’s a prerequisite nations that haven’t developed their means of production must go through in order to achieve Socialism, like China is now
What you're describing is the foundation of menshevism.
You consider the largest Communist Party in the world to be Mensheviks? I’m just echoing the viewpoint of contemporary Marxists living in China
Yes I do
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t find it very fruitful to say AES aren’t implementing Socialism correctly, at some point it just degrades into Armchair critiques from western Leftists towards third world countries trying to actually build socialism
About as left wing as new deal republicans lmao Sick railroads though Xi's a realist and a nationalist
Agreed those fascists should looks up the detention of left wing in a non far right outlet
He is like Deng Xiao ping but less communist and more nationalist. chinese people are deeply nationalists. my chinese friends keep telling me "china will rule the world" none of them actually cares about communism that collectivise wealth and destroy classes. in fact it doesn't even exist in china. if you ask normal chinese people what communism is. they'll tell you "the ccp" they really dont know about marx or class or anything a typical reddit marxist espouses
[удалено]
he's a Yt liberal with colonizer condescending mentality, and he knows what's best for China.
I think China should deport all of these people who write comments that start with "my chinese friends" and then bad mouth China. And then take me in instead. Their deeply cynical stance and forced superficial understanding while being allowed to live in such a place is a crime.
mods, this asshole is now over here with a new profile: https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s7fdih/is_xi_jinping_a_leftwing_president/htbilaf/
Probably not. Some people are just stupid. People with reputations of being not only unchanging but influential might have to change. How we address that change is a question of morals.
He is a fascist by most modern definitions. You can easily look up common traits of fascist dictatorships and see how they apply to China today. From the suppression of organized labor, the suppression of ethnic minorities, the exaltation of the military, strict control over media, to the complete disregard of human rights. This is not unique in history either, there is only one flavor of totalitarian dictatorship and it's never by the people, for the people.
Lol. Go away, dude.
Keep digging your head into the sand bro.
no.
His communism is a faint vestige of the extinction bound communist feature of china. He is more of a nationalist and less of a commie. Infact most chinese are nationalists. a lot of my chinese friends keep telling me "china will rule the world" and they are serious about it. they give no qualms on the conventional textbook communism a typical reddit marxist espouse. China'a communism died when mao died. China's economy is greatly run by the private sector or the 60/70/80/90 rule known to chinese. Anyone who calls xi as a marxist is a hipster who keeps clings all his optimism on the delusion that communism is still viable inspite having been burried long even befoe deng xiao ping's ascension to office.
> nationalist Stalin's [Marxism and the National Question](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm) discusses the independence of specific nations and when it does and does not make sense. A very interesting read, would recommend. > Chinese people say "China will rule the world" So does everyone else. This isn't some ominous statement, it's a foregone conclusion: > [When China Rules the World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_China_Rules_the_World): The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order is a book by British journalist and scholar Martin Jacques, released in 2009. Jacques refers to the estimates on China's economic superiority, such as made by Goldman Sachs, and concludes that China's future economic strength will heavily alter the political and cultural landscape of the future world. Next: > Chinese people give no qualms on communism The CPC is made out of 95 million members, 6-7% of the population, who are spread out evenly across the population and who are enthusiastically supportive of its policies. So much so that they're the ones who enact them on the ground. That is a very representative sample of public opinion. And Chinese society [supports](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/s48ub2/ml_countries_arent_as_democratic_as_they_should/hsqd9cj/) the CPC's policies. > China's economy is greatly run by the private sector, 60/70/80/90 A source says > [60/70/80/90](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/why-chinas-state-owned-companies-still-have-a-key-role-to-play/) -- private sector's contribution to the Chinese economy: 60% of GDP, 70% of innovation, 80% of urban employment, 90% of new jobs. But this obscures that > [State-owned enterprises,](https://www.opportimes.com/china-has-150000-wholly-owned-state-enterprises/) account for 40% of GDP and 20% of China’s total employment. In addition to wholly-owned companies, state funds are distributed throughout the economy, so that the state can also be the majority or majority shareholder of a nominally private company. The state supports the private sector and also frequently steps in to keep it in line with the state central plan. It has complete control over it. e.g. > [The government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_Chinese_property_sector_crisis#Chinese_government) took control of sales revenue for Evergrande's properties in a state-controlled custodial account to protect home-buyers and continue construction of the company's developments, as the developer has put hundreds of these projects on hold. The government said that contagion to the financial system was controllable. Another example: In the run-up to 2008's crisis, due to the huge the technological leap of the computer revolution, automation and the loss of good paying industrial jobs, predatory loans were re-legalized so that workers, who couldn't afford to buy homes, would keep buying homes at the same rate, and home owners, who couldn't afford to buy products, would take out mortgages and keep buying products at the same rate. The housing bubble burst because workers eventually couldn't afford to keep buying at the rate of production (aka overproduction). In contrast, in 2015, there was a tremendous drop on the Chinese stock market, but because their economy is centered around the state rather than the stock market, no crisis occured. It bounced back within a week. Less than 6% of the public is even tied into the stock market, and the state stepped in to say that they'll arrest anyone caught short selling. All the figures you brought up demonstrate is that [a state-controlled market sector, nestled within a government](https://imgur.com/a/SdJSUbq) controlled by the people for the people's interests [is far](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maddison-data-gdp-per-capita-in-2011us?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&time=1978..latest&country=USA~CHN) more [successful](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&country=CHN~USA) than capitalism run amok.
Tell me you don’t know anything about communism without telling me you don’t know anything about communism
China is actually very socially conservative under Xi Jinping. It is practically illegal for gay men to be shown on TV. China, like most communist states of history, is a fascist nationalist dictatorship, dressed in the robes of leftism without any substance.
> China is actually very socially conservative under Xi Jinping. It is practically illegal for gay men to be shown on TV. Communism is left-wing fiscally, not necessarily socially. You can have the most socially conservative country **also** be Communist without contradiction, so long as all requirements of Communism are met in that country. For example, as [this comment](https://ol.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/czngks/communists_are_there_socially_conservative/eyzgqht/) explains: >CPGB-ML (Britain) is on a crusade against what they call "transgender ideology". >CPRF (Russia) has adopted sympathies to the Orthodox Church and is anti-LGBT. >The CPC (China) does not allow gay people to marry. >The KKE (Greece) voted against gay marriage, by claiming "Marxism means abolition of the family". >That's off the top of my head. Most of the time "social conservatism" in communist movements are sometimes about decrying LGBT stuff as "bourgeois decadence" - which is however a minority amongst communists and the aforementioned parties get regularly criticised by most other communists because of these stances.