That’s why Engels referred to the remnants left behind from a state that has withered away as the “Administration of Things.” It ceases to be an instrument of class oppression in a classless society, but administration remains a useful tool for Communist production.

If we understand the state to be any and all administration, then no, but that’s not the way Marx and Engels treated “statelessness.” Engels in particular referred to stateless administration as “The Administration of Things” as contrasted with state society as “the Government of Persons” in *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific." States are specific instruments of class oppression, without class, there’s no need for a state in the Marxist sense.

The idea of “brain-washing” can be credited to Edward Hunter, a CIA-funded writer and editor, who in 1950 started writing articles and books on the subject. His thesis was that Red China and the Soviet Union could control the minds of their respective citizenry—which explained how susceptible Americans captured on foreign soil would be.

Rather than “mind control,” people license themselves to believe ideas that coincide with what they percieve to be materially beneficial. Capitalists genuinely believe that Capitalism naturally selects for those most competent, Chinese citizens genuinely believe Socialism in China benefits themselves, and both are genuine beliefs because of real material benefits.

You know, if for one second you entertained ideas that go against your current understanding, you’d develop deeper and multi-sided understanding. Instead, you reflexively complain about communists and conspiracies. Of course environmental factors play a role, but they do not command thought, but reinforce beliefs.

I’d argue not. First, the majority of people in a space disagreeing with your stance doesn’t make it an “echo-chamber” to begin with. Secondly, Marxism is thoroughly demonized throughout the English-speaking internet, while liberalism flourishes in real life and online. Spaces with higher concentrations of Marxists cannot avoid contact with liberals throughout their lives, while liberal spaces can shut out all Marxists from their real lives and online lives.

People disagreeing with you doesn’t mean it’s an “echo chamber.”

“Brainwashing” doesn’t exist. It’s a theory pushed by the United States during the Cold War to offer an explanation for why citizens in Socialist countries supported their systems. Read Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” if you want to learn more about the subject.

This is a childish response. Democracy is not simply limited to “choosing the party in power.” China ticks all the boxes of democracy even in the Wikipedia article on democracy, elections are held for representatives and policy is guided by what the people themselves want. Here’s a good article comparing the US system with the PRC’s system.

Furthermore, you just assert without basis that the people of China “have no rights” and that they are “constantly repressed,” repeating verbatim US State Department talking points without genuinely engaging with Chinese people and how they view their system. You even contradict yourself, you say that Chinese people support their system because it works for them, but also that they are scared of it and in constant fear, yet support it anyways. It’s a non-falsifiable orthodoxy describwd by Michael Parenti, in Blackshirts and Reds,:

In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. 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.

The article is written by a generally anti-China group, hence why they tried to spin it as being unpolular locally, rather than just less popular. The central government being more popular makes sense, as its the one that tends to enact the most major changes that have uplifted the living standards of Chinese citizens.

Further, the Cambridge examination is biased. If you read the paper, they state that at the outset, their desire is to prove that Chinese citizens are in constant fear of the CPC in order to discredit the Ash study. Even then, we can see that approval rate for the CPC is overwhelmingly positive, while party approval rarely exceeds 50% in western countries.

In the end, you have a hypothesis that is non-falsifiable: if the CPC’s approval is high, it’s because the citizens are in fear and are brainwashed, if the CPC’s approval is lower (though we will see it’s somehow never negative), then this must be “truly accurate” and indicative of fear and brainwashing. You set out from the beginning to prove your hypothesis, not to understand why China is constantly improving and why the public supports their system, when both surveys tell you: it’s because the system works, and the people have dramatically improving conditions year over year.

Finally, repression of speech most directly applies to businesses and wealthy individuals, not to random citizens. China is Socialist, it oppresses the bourgeoisie and restricts their speech, so that the US and hostile powers don’t try to use their heavy financial Capital to fund misinformation campaigns and foment political instability in order to get China to open up its markets for total foreign plundering, like what the US did to the USSR.

Progressive liberalism, as opposed to conservativism. DNC/SocDem/etc and not GOP. They aren’t “left,” but they do have differences from other forms of liberalism.

You misread. It said 11% were very satisfied, the satisfaction rate with local government including “moderately satisfied” is 70.2%.

Further, the study acknowledges and accounts for your fears of “brainwashing” (which, itself, is a baseless theory):

Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread in China, these findings highlight that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being. Satisfaction and support must be consistently reinforced. As a result, the data point to specific areas in which citizen satisfaction could decline in today’s era of slowing economic growth and continued environmental degradation.

You have a biased perception of what constitutes democracy, you take the western, liberal model to be the only form of democracy, and reject other models. This is a rather narrow-minded approach to political analysis, rather than immediately condemning others for not conforming to what you consider to be standard, it pays immensely to ask instead, “why?”

In western liberal democracy, democratic input is largely restricted to which party you want to represent you, not how each party functions. In China, you can’t really depose the CPC, but there is a much larger and more comprehensive scope on what you can influence. Public policy is comprehensively considered and voted on, tested, and local governments have large degrees of input from the local pooulation, laddering up to the regional and finally national level.

I think you’d do yourself a massive service if you asked the question “why do Chinese citizens overwhelmingly approve of their government, and feel that they have genuine democratic input despite having a different democratic model than my own?” Rather than simply looking at a different system and condemning it as wrong on the basis of it being a different system.

The PRC is democratic, in fact the public in China feels its desires are better represented through policy than in Western Countries, especially the US. It’s absolutely public ownership, this is an extremely confused idea on what Capitalism even is. Private Property is distinct from state property.

Further, markets are not “Capitalism.” The PRC does have private property, but limits it to medium and small firms, and cooperatives. The overwhelming majority of the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, as is the job of a Socialist government, to facilitate this gradual extension of Public Ownership to the entirety of the economy as it develops to the level that such ownership makes economic sense. This gradual transformation in society is the Socialist mode of production.

Lastly, “true” Communism isn’t a thing. There is Communism, and there’s Socialism, and there’s Capitalism. Applying descriptors like “true” or “false” is a moralistic judgement, not a scientific one, and Marxists reject moralistic analysis in favor of scientific analysis.

The PRC is Socialist, the overwhelming majority of large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and the CPC has “golden shares” for medium firms so even those it controls. The rest, everything else depends on the publicly owned key industries, so they have to work on the terms of the public sector to do business.

The PRC is a Socialist economy that is governed by a Communist party. “Communism” as an ideology is the guideline of the CPC, ergo the fact that the PRC has rapidly developed a massive and competent rail system can be seen as an achievement for Communism.

On Lemmy.ml, there"s a catch-all Memes comm (this one) and a specifically non-Political memes comm (a different one). The “political memes” comm you are talking about is likely the Lemmy.world one, which is politically biased towards liberalism and against Communism, so it makes more sense to post here.

Which is, as you hint at, an absurdity. Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism are not elements of society, but the overarching Mode of Production. That’s why Bismark wasn’t a Socialist despite nationalizing industries, what matters is the overall economy and the direction its heading.

Games should be easier to run, with better modding tools. Simple as that, Morrowind with mods is still a fantastic time and it runs well on a Steam Deck, something we can carry around with us.

Socialism is not “social programs,” it’s an economic mode of organization where public property is the principle aspect. Further, higher social programs invests in a more productive working class. Finally, Capitalists don’t create any value, they exploit their wealth, it should be returned to the working class.

World War I was a war between Imperialist countries, World War II was won by the Soviets (who were responsible for 90% of Nazi deaths), and the Korean “War” was an act of genocide from the United States against the Korean people, both to the north and south of the 38th parallel. The United States was in World War I as a creditor, which partially led to World War II as all of the allied powers shifted their debts to Germany, aiding in the rise of Nazism.

The Biden/Harris presidency locked up as many immigrants as they could. There was no “flood.”

“Securing the border” is just xenophobic nonsense and anti-immigration rhetoric. The US gains more than it loses when people immigrate.

Trump is a bit more to the right than Biden/Harris, in general the US Empire is a far-right genocidal terrorist regime.