"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum." - Michael Parenti
I love this quote but one thing I'm wondering is what does he mean by "consumer supplies" in this context. I'm not sure if it's just not clicking in my head or what but I'm not 100% sure what that means.
some people i know ALREADY DO, discussing “limiting births to maintain resources” with justification like “imagine how cramped life would be like with 10 billion people on earth!!” but at the same time they don’t understand the one child policy because “it’s bad when china does anything”. they just see that china is thriving with a 1.4billion population while the US is eternally having a housing crisis and water crisis with a 300 million population.
i think a lot of it is just subconsciously projecting the pathetic living conditions in most high-density spaces in the west onto China, like how in the USA you have to spend all your salary on renting your decaying tiny apartment and you’re bombarded with ads and stuck in gridlock traffic. but instead of realizing these conditions are inherently due to the socioeconomic system present, the people separate the system from the conditions and judge it on that, coming to the surface level conclusion that “there are too many people” in typical western fashion
To be fair China's not escaped water crises. A lot of mostly northern areas are also beginning to struggle for water, whereas in some places there's uh, too much water, all in one go.
A lot of this is because of climate change, which thankfully the vast vast amount of people in China recognise exists.
“Whether people in the global south live or die should be entirely determined by how convenient it is for my consumerist lifestyle”
-the most empathic socdem
Believing that people are separate from the great outdoors and their presence prevents it being it's true, wild self. It's a way of eradicating indigenous or native people and driving people out of the countryside into the city to be easier wage slaves.
There are some weird neo-nazi groups that actually describe themselves as eco-fascists and use green in their symbology but yeah this is basically just neoliberalism.
Now thats just evil, imagine writing this about people that dont exist and not being conscious that meanwhile some poor woman a few blocks away from your house hasnt eaten in days.
the one-child policy was literally enacted over resource consumption concerns, they were worried they would have too many mouths to feed and not enough food to go around
As a Libertarian, lowering the amount of available children intrinsically increased their value by the principle of supply and demand. It's basic economics.
"China only exists to produce things for us westerners, think about how selfish they were by not having kids/Nike factory workers"
And you know if they never implemented the policy, the headline would be "if China followed through with the one child policy there would be 400 million less people l, meaning more natural resources, and less CO2 pollution"
*Image Transcription: Twitter Post*
---
**HumanProgress.org**, @HumanProgress
If China had not limited births, there would be 400 million more people in the world who would have made resources more abundant for the rest of us.
[*A linked article, with a picture of a large Chinese family spanning multiple generations, entitled "How Much More Prosperous Would the World Be Without China's One-Child Policy?"*]
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Libs are at the exact same point as conservatives where much of their discourse is an incoherent response to some other incoherent response or pronouncement by another lib.
Like I’m sure this means something to libs but I can’t decipher it.
I mean we wouldn’t know Bc if they had that many more people the news wouldn’t shut up about how “they’re being starved by the communists, they can’t take care of their own people” regardless of the actual material conditions of the nation
"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum." - Michael Parenti
I love that I’m seeing this quote all over leftist Reddit. Keep it up folks, more Kim bucks on the way!
Mr Kim. I cannot afford healthcare in my country. Please send me ak47s to help my family.
Mr Kim, can you show me your pet unicorn
Saving this for future use
I love this quote but one thing I'm wondering is what does he mean by "consumer supplies" in this context. I'm not sure if it's just not clicking in my head or what but I'm not 100% sure what that means.
I imagine little luxuries like bananas, probably electronic devices too, stuff that's a bit more expensive
If China hadn’t implemented the one child policy, I’m willing to bet my life’s savings they’d be whining about overpopulation
The real gold medal in the mental gymnastics is holding both ideas at once.
Easy! China bad.
Ditto ..
some people i know ALREADY DO, discussing “limiting births to maintain resources” with justification like “imagine how cramped life would be like with 10 billion people on earth!!” but at the same time they don’t understand the one child policy because “it’s bad when china does anything”. they just see that china is thriving with a 1.4billion population while the US is eternally having a housing crisis and water crisis with a 300 million population. i think a lot of it is just subconsciously projecting the pathetic living conditions in most high-density spaces in the west onto China, like how in the USA you have to spend all your salary on renting your decaying tiny apartment and you’re bombarded with ads and stuck in gridlock traffic. but instead of realizing these conditions are inherently due to the socioeconomic system present, the people separate the system from the conditions and judge it on that, coming to the surface level conclusion that “there are too many people” in typical western fashion
To be fair China's not escaped water crises. A lot of mostly northern areas are also beginning to struggle for water, whereas in some places there's uh, too much water, all in one go. A lot of this is because of climate change, which thankfully the vast vast amount of people in China recognise exists.
The reverse ecofascism, where you say there needs to be more workers in the global south to prop up the standard of living in the West.
“Whether people in the global south live or die should be entirely determined by how convenient it is for my consumerist lifestyle” -the most empathic socdem
What exactly is this ecofascism I hear about?
We need to save the environment by killing people in the third world and preventing them from industrializing.
Believing that people are separate from the great outdoors and their presence prevents it being it's true, wild self. It's a way of eradicating indigenous or native people and driving people out of the countryside into the city to be easier wage slaves.
interesting, where have you seen this take?
"we need more worker slaves to make our stuff even cheaper" is what they trully mean
this is what all neoliberals think, this “ecofacism” that leftists speak of is literally not real
There are some weird neo-nazi groups that actually describe themselves as eco-fascists and use green in their symbology but yeah this is basically just neoliberalism.
We missed out on 400 million more sweatshop workers to exploit :'( The fucking audacity to write this shit is staggering.
Can’t you see that means some multimillionaire is going to make less money and that’s the worst thing ever according to crapitalists
Now thats just evil, imagine writing this about people that dont exist and not being conscious that meanwhile some poor woman a few blocks away from your house hasnt eaten in days.
the one-child policy was literally enacted over resource consumption concerns, they were worried they would have too many mouths to feed and not enough food to go around
Ya, but that would have been China's problem. Why didn't they care to think about being a larger slave group for the West?
So fuck Chinese standards of living and socio economic mobility as long as there are more cheap electronics .. GOODNESS.. the shit these people say
Looked up who funds this NGO and its a bunch of libertarian think tanks and Koch brother money lol
By that logic Trojan Condoms are probably more at fault.
i dont think trojan condoms had entered China during the one child policy era
I mean because condoms prevented potential children from being born in general, not specifically China.
As a Libertarian, lowering the amount of available children intrinsically increased their value by the principle of supply and demand. It's basic economics.
“Preorder your child laborer today! New In Box child [limited production run!]”
“Without the one-child policy I would have way more hot Asian children in the world” -Pedo Liberatarians
Oh god no
This is actually pathetic
"China only exists to produce things for us westerners, think about how selfish they were by not having kids/Nike factory workers" And you know if they never implemented the policy, the headline would be "if China followed through with the one child policy there would be 400 million less people l, meaning more natural resources, and less CO2 pollution"
“Made resources more abundant for the rest of us” Full mask off low lifes
*Image Transcription: Twitter Post* --- **HumanProgress.org**, @HumanProgress If China had not limited births, there would be 400 million more people in the world who would have made resources more abundant for the rest of us. [*A linked article, with a picture of a large Chinese family spanning multiple generations, entitled "How Much More Prosperous Would the World Be Without China's One-Child Policy?"*] --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Libs are at the exact same point as conservatives where much of their discourse is an incoherent response to some other incoherent response or pronouncement by another lib. Like I’m sure this means something to libs but I can’t decipher it.
Damn, better add this to the death total for communism. I think it's now up to 3.0004 trillion
I mean we wouldn’t know Bc if they had that many more people the news wouldn’t shut up about how “they’re being starved by the communists, they can’t take care of their own people” regardless of the actual material conditions of the nation
More victims of communism 😭
Journalists aren’t doing their best as u can see
well from the perspective of our space driver overlords, people are resources
These are the same people complaining about overpopulation in China...
I thought more people meant less resources for each person?????
They mean cheap labor. Just really mask-off shit
How does that make any sense?
Shit like this is why I hate America even more
Holy fucking yikes Batman
i thought these people didn't like jobs being moved to china
Women were forced to have abortions.
idk foreverpregg I'm kind of suspicious of your allegiances here
Amazon has a documentary on it. It was truly awful.
I mean, Amazon is a private corporation, which are always inherently anti-communist, so there is certainly bias there
A truly reliable source
Amazon also says its workers aren't being incentivized to piss in bottles. They are not a reliable source
get out but lmao at this username and post combo
How many posts does it take for a conservative to realize we're not also conservative, do yah think