/lit/ - Literature

>>19222163
>why Marxist theorists always end up sounding like theologians?
Because they both want to transcend nature in some way

>>19222163
Because the only credible reactionary theory is theological in a disciplinary sense. See Kolakowski

https://palladiummag.com/2021/10/11/the-triumph-and-terror-of-wang-huning/

>Wang recorded his observations in a memoir that would become his most famous work: the 1991 book America Against America. In it, he marvels at homeless encampments in the streets of Washington DC, out-of-control drug crime in poor black neighborhoods in New York and San Francisco, and corporations that seemed to have fused themselves to and taken over responsibilities of government. Eventually, he concludes that America faces an “unstoppable undercurrent of crisis” produced by its societal contradictions, including between rich and poor, white and black, democratic and oligarchic power, egalitarianism and class privilege, individual rights and collective responsibilities, cultural traditions and the solvent of liquid modernity.

>But while Americans can, he says, perceive that they are faced with “intricate social and cultural problems,” they “tend to think of them as scientific and technological problems” to be solved separately. This gets them nowhere, he argues, because their problems are in fact all inextricably interlinked and have the same root cause: a radical, nihilistic individualism at the heart of modern American liberalism.

>“The real cell of society in the United States is the individual,” he finds. This is so because the cell most foundational (per Aristotle) to society, “the family, has disintegrated.” Meanwhile, in the American system, “everything has a dual nature, and the glamour of high commodification abounds. Human flesh, sex, knowledge, politics, power, and law can all become the target of commodification.” This “commodification, in many ways, corrupts society and leads to a number of serious social problems.” In the end, “the American economic system has created human loneliness” as its foremost product, along with spectacular inequality. As a result, “nihilism has become the American way, which is a fatal shock to cultural development and the American spirit.”

>Moreover, he says that the “American spirit is facing serious challenges” from new ideational competitors. Reflecting on the universities he visited and quoting approvingly from Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, he notes a growing tension between Enlightenment liberal rationalism and a “younger generation [that] is ignorant of traditional Western values” and actively rejects its cultural inheritance. “If the value system collapses,” he wonders, “how can the social system be sustained?”

>Ultimately, he argues, when faced with critical social issues like drug addiction, America’s atomized, deracinated, and dispirited society has found itself with “an insurmountable problem” because it no longer has any coherent conceptual grounds from which to mount any resistance.

>>19222163
Sounds like a propagandistic truism to me. A bite of ideology open for plug and play--nothing transcendent, wise, or theological-sounding about it.

>>19222568
cope

>>19222300
>Eventually, he concludes that America faces an “unstoppable undercurrent of crisis” produced by its societal contradictions
Stating social problems as if they're inherent to a central thread of disease stemming from a foundational and systemic corruption is ideological and devoid of practical meaning. It's asserting a static character to something that is dynamic and prevalent within any social order. It's a big leap to assert that a system has failed because you can point to social ills that haven't been overcome by any socio-political system.

>a radical, nihilistic individualism at the heart of modern American liberalism.
I reject that hypothesis. Aside, the corporatism he refers to is a serious problem but it can be formulated and resolved in terms of an open democratic system that weighs emphasis on individual rights as a societal value.

>In the end, “the American economic system has created human loneliness” as its foremost product, along with spectacular inequality.
I'd rather be poor in the US than poor in China. Inequality is an open threat but the idea that the West is based around it, coming from a country that is continuing to build it's wealth via a massive underclass, is farcical. It's also a big jump to move from the Marxist idea of commodification to the assertion that the US is fundamentally nihilist. I know he's a commie but Utopia is a pretty silly idealization to boil things down to.

>growing tension between Enlightenment liberal rationalism and a “younger generation [that] is ignorant of traditional Western values”
This is topical and I'd have to agree that the West is experiencing a crisis of ideology. However, this is rooted in mass immigration and the fact it's an open society. Identity politics is a symbolic sham and it isn't a good platform from which to build policy. However, such is heavily propagandistic and isn't necessarily the only option for practical reform...it also isn't the sole competitor when it comes to integrating and reconciling Western values with modernity and increasing diversity. It's a dangerous trend, but it's mostly in the arena of popular public discourse and hasn't yet become fundamental to the character of Western intellectualism wholesale. Values are being reformulated and this is dangerous in an ideologically inclined atmosphere--but it doesn't mean collapse.

>...“an insurmountable problem” because it no longer has any coherent conceptual grounds from which to mount any resistance.
That's a sleight of hand in that it begs the question of a cohesive ideological thread as the key to solving complex societal problems. Decentralized and bottom-up community-based approaches to such are being generated and the idea that a top-down approach from something akin to the federal level is what directly deals with these issues (instead of just formulating their character for a national audience) is disingenuous.

The above quotes read like propaganda.

>>19222568
>In November 1993, the Third Plenary Session of the 14th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) further proposed a basic blueprint for the establishment of a socialist market economy system and set out the basic framework for the development of a socialist market economy. The Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Several Issues Concerning the Establishment of a Socialist Market Economy presents China's basic conception of a socialist market economics in a more complete manner. The basic points of this concept are: (1) to establish a modern enterprise system with clear property rights, clear authority and responsibility, separation of government and enterprises, and scientific management; (2) to establish a nationwide unified and open market system; (3) to change the government's function of managing the economy and to establish a sound macro-control system with indirect means; (4) to develop a system of income distribution based on the division of labor, with efficiency first, and a fair system of income distribution; (5) to establish a multi-level social security system. The establishment of these principles is a complex systemic project, as well as a sophisticated and multi-faceted process of social change. What is the role of the political system in this process? What are the challenges to the political system itself? What kind of changes should be made in the political system to adapt to this new economic model?
Go ahead anon, you propose a better solution to these problems than State Basedism with Chinese characteristics

>>19222705
I'm not the one unironically attributing obvious propaganda with theological weight. Enjoy your ideology, Chang.

>>19222723
How about a social order that organically grows private construction companies that can be trusted not to cut their concrete with sand? That's a solid start midwit.

lmao at China

>>19222722
>Aside, the corporatism he refers to is a serious problem but it can be formulated and resolved in terms of an open democratic system that weighs emphasis on individual rights as a societal value.
If you read his book, and not right wing blogs about it, he actually makes a really good point by looking at the inability of an open and democratic system with emphasis on individual rights in dealing with systemic issues like drug addiction.

>Why is drug use a major challenge to the United States? Herein lies the problem. Americans believe in the right of each individual to determine his or her own destiny, a right to personal freedom that cannot be taken away. This right evolved gradually, after World War II, from the right to vote, the right to racial equality, and the right to equality between men and women in the political sphere, to the later right to sexual freedom, the right to pursue one's own lifestyle (e.g., hippies, etc.), etc. All of this was accepted by Americans. Now comes the right to take drugs, and Americans cannot accept it. Because accepting it would mean the downfall of the nation or a significant part of the nation. Whether there is a solid philosophical foundation in the American system to support this anti-drug initiative, it is too early to say. The opposite philosophical foundation is there. Americans are now mostly in favor of anti-drug policy. This is a factual and emotional choice, a public opinion. What does the future hold?
>The challenges posed by drug use are not primarily in the realm of philosophy; few people are interested in such abstract and esoteric questions, if they have not developed certain conditions. The challenges posed by drug use also include: What motivates people to use drugs? The answer for many drug users is that they feel bored, empty, in a trance, and depressed, so they use drugs for a boost. According to one psychiatrist's analysis, one third of Americans have one or more mental problems. So, what are the causes of this phenomenon? In this way we have to go into a vast perspective. People live in a certain social environment, an environment that includes family, school, business, culture, education, politics, law, and other aspects. Is this environment producing drug addicts or eliminating them? The number of drug addicts is increasing with each passing day. Anti-drug purging is only a negative means, because it is only for the results. But how easy is it to change the causes that produce the results?
>We are well aware of the harmful effects that drug use can have on a nation. After the mid-nineteenth century, opium was imported into China in large quantities, and the harm it produced can be said to still exist today, and as history, will have long-lasting effects. Most Americans who oppose drug use worry about their children, a few worry about the development of society as a whole, and some individuals think even farther. Farther is the hardest thing to accept.

>>19222750
Small dick energy.

>>19222759
First off, Western/US individualism didn't arise spontaneously after WWII (he could at least read up on Jeffersonianism) and the sexual revolution came about alongside (WESTERN) scientific developments such as birth control. From assertions like this, you should be able to tell that an ideology is speaking through him and he isn't generating novel ideas based on the acceptance of complexity.

There's a pattern to this idiot's writing. He makes fundamental claims about things on a societal level and ignores the complexity of historical and cultural development. It's like he's ignoring the cause of massive shifts we've seen over the last 200 years and attributing such as crises that are intrinsic to a political system instead of the emergence of modernity.

As far as the drug issue goes it is a philosophical problem because it's a legal issue as well as a social issue. We don't execute people for selling pot (or being associated with someone who does like pic).

Again, this moron is acting like there's some fundamental flaw in Western society because we don't enact the same draconian (I'd even say evil) manner as they do. If anything, I'd say building an addiction model in terms of mental health (an innovation that's come about only in the last 20 years) and working against stigmatization so that addicts can be helped is a credit to our system.

Bros I’m having second-thoughts about supporting China.
I’ve been reading Culture of Critique and chinamen act suspiciously like Jews...
Chinese don’t have the best interests of others in mind, only their own.

>>19222759
At least they were shot and not gassed in mobile killing vehicles. Maybe your buddy can lecture the US about methods of capital punishment (the US might have to face an ethical conundrum when private institutions refuse to supply the materials of lethal injection but the streamlined Chinese system overseen by the benevolent CCP will never run out of bullets or gas--right?)

So THIS is the power of CHINEY SCHMITT.

>>19222882
>The normalization of the activities of the lobbyists was reflected in a certain degree of institutionalization. In 1946, the main statute regulating the activities of lobbyists was passed in the United States. Everyone who wanted to influence the legislative process had to register if they were paid to do so. In this way individuals, associations, and companies all fall under this scope. When registering, it is necessary to state the scope and field of activity, name, address of the company, name of the employer, number of years as a debater, salary, who pays the salary and daily expenses, which legislation is of interest, who receives funds and for what purpose. In terms of the law, it is naturally good. But it's actually extremely flawed. Many people influence the legislative process, but they can claim they are not lobbyists and have no interest in the legislative process. In total, there are about 20,000 lobbyists working in Washington.
>The activities of the lobbyists are often effective and significant. Israel, for example, has a very strong and effective platform. There are approximately six million Jews in the United States, and they have an above-average level of education, social status and political activity. One of their major lobbyist organizations, AIPAC, had 75 members and a budget of $5.7 million in 1985. Naturally, Arab lobbyist organizations are also very strong. The book Washington Lobby gives a number of examples of the effectiveness of Lobbyists' activities. Needless to say, few ordinary people have their own lobbyists.
>One of the characteristics of American society is that the political arena has been turned into a big commodity market, and politics has become a kind of trading market like the economic market. You can sell your own "products" or buy other people's products in it. Politicians bargain in it, you compete with each other.

>>19222163
>major official of the post-1979 CCP
>Marxist

>>19223282
He drops Marx constantly in his work, and almost all of his contemporary sources (aside from the occasional Austrian School economist) are Marxist political theorists.

>>19223236
Fuck off CCP shill. Your bullshit has already been pointed out above and you've been thoroughly BTFO'd. Go over to Reddit and regale your fellow fags with the standard 3000 years of history cope or tweet about how awesome it is you discovered gunpowder by playing around in pig piss.

六四运动

>>19222894
>>19222894
>being this butthurt over dispassionate critique
Huning isn't trying to take town the USA with a catty twitter comment. He's making a genuine effort to understand the structure of American society, and has a lot of admiration for the American political project and everything it's accomplished. Stop viewing things as a dick-measuring contest between China and the US.

>Not far from Iowa City, about ten minutes away by car, there is an Amish settlement called Kolona. With these questions in mind, I came to this place. As soon as I entered Kolona, I could see on the highway the 17th and 18th century European-style carriages, with a horse dragging a small carriage and Amish sitting inside, usually dressed in black. The roads here also have a special design, with carriage lanes on both sides of the carriageway. This is because the Amish do not accept modern cars and want to take horse-drawn carriages. It took the government authorities a lot of effort to convince them that horse-drawn carriages are very dangerous on the highway, and they had to install a prominent red sign behind the carriages to remind the drivers to pay attention.
>Over the years, despite the fact that the Amish have changed in one way or another, the basic spirit of this group has not changed much. It is curious: why has such a powerful modern civilization failed to influence and transform them?
>This is a real social phenomenon worth thinking about. In the heart of the modernized world, there is such a group of people who refuse to be modernized. Their remoteness is not in the geographical area, but in the spiritual world. They are voluntarily isolated from modernization. From this we can draw an opinion that if people refuse modernization in the spiritual sphere, then it is difficult for modernization to invade them. This phenomenon can be seen in different societies. The real driving force of modernization is in the inner world of people.
>In reconciling these contradictions, society has adopted the method and means of listening to them and not imposing uniformity. It cannot impose uniformity either. If the government forces the Amish to accept modernization, it will only add pressure to itself. There are many examples like the Amish in the United States. People in many places have their own ways of life that are not in line with the mainstream of society, but they can exist. A part of society's contradictions are resolved in this kind of eye opening and eye closing. No one blushes at the backwardness of the Amish, but rather considers it a typical reflection of the American spirit. Some methods of management in American society are practically unmanaged. This is a more effective method of management under certain conditions.
>When I returned, I saw an old couple driving a horse-drawn carriage along the modern highway. They were so peaceful, so self-contained. Is it wrong to be modern? Any choice of lifestyle comes with its own convenience and price.

>>19222163
Hi Xi's army.
>This supply must keep pace with the development of material life in society, and must be able to channel the energy released by the development of material life into a rational spiritual order
Politics can't make spiritual meaning.
>>19222300
This is true.

Another great thinker wasted to non-Christianity.

>>19222722
I'm sad I wasted the time to read your post,democracy larper

>>19222163
>Has anyone ever written about why Marxist theorists always end up sounding like theologians?
Bro Marxist predictions of the future are equivalent to Christians calculating when the Rapture will play out. Look at the CCP. There are morons out there who genuinely say stuff like "trust the plan bro, three more decades and the CPC will lead us to true socialism!" It's the same as "the end times are coming, I better obey the Church so I can go to heaven."

>>19222844
>First off, Western/US individualism didn't arise spontaneously after WWII (he could at least read up on Jeffersonianism) and the sexual revolution came about alongside (WESTERN) scientific developments such as birth control.
He addresses these topics, the sexual revolution was just an example he gave of the extension of the domain of liberalism into the private sphere, as opposed to Jeffersonian liberalism which existed in a world of property owning patriarchs.

>There are also different views on drug abuse. Thomas S. Szasz, for example, wrote an article arguing that: most people are against drug abuse and believe that coercive policies are needed because drugs are too dangerous. But he argues that each person can damage and kill himself, which is a fundamental aspect of human freedom. Self- destruction can be seen as a sin and punished by informal means, but it cannot be seen as a crime or a mental illness that can be controlled by police force. Therefore it is absurd to prevent an adult from possessing drugs. Weapons and sharp edges are more dangerous, but no one prohibits them. It is a right. So adults cannot be denied the right to possess and use drugs, even though most people don't use them. This is a classic contrarian notion.
>In fact, it is also a challenge to the margin of human rights. What is the margin of freedom that can be granted to each person in social life? This is the practical question. It is unrealistic to say that a person can enjoy full rights. Locke, Rousseau, and others discussed issues that they failed to address practically and that people today still fail to address practically. I am afraid that we still need to do some re-conceptualization of human beings.

>>19224005
Repent.

>>19224005
>He addresses these topics, the sexual revolution was just an example he gave of the extension of the domain of liberalism into the private sphere, as opposed to Jeffersonian liberalism which existed in a world of property owning patriarchs.
Come on CCP. This is some grad school level shit. Send me your honkiest clown.

>>19224035
>t. operation earnest voice equivalent

>>19224087
Ding ding. They mostly post on /pol/ but whenever they come on /lit/ it's a delight. It looks like they needed to hire grad students to do it. To probably even stand a chance they'd have to send in their best writer and then I'd stop phoneposting and open the City of God.

Link for the lazy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice

>>19224116
YOU are the glowie
There are no CCP shills in this thread, but there are State Department minimum wage psyop operators in it

>>19224131
>YOU are the glowie
>There are no CCP shills in this thread, but there are State Department minimum wage psyop operators in it
Every clause in this post is wrong.

>>19224002
Marx was right about the proles revolting when finally squeezed too hard with exploitation. But he was wrong about the socialist outcome. Fascism seems to be the trend of the revolving masses (Spain of the 30s and Venezuela of the 50s notwithstanding)rvn8a

>>19224140
China's propaganda is dogshit. Even when they're given extraordinary opportunities, they flounder and produce nothing but boomer-tier cartoons. Their entire political apparatus focused inward, managing their own population and affairs.
There's no fucking way anyone has ever been paid to post on 4chan on behalf of the CCP, and yet we know for a fact the American Media/Intelligence complex monitors and posts here constantly. This thread was a benign discussion about a book which is not even available in English, and here you are spazzing out over very mild criticism of American "liberty"
u are a glowie

>>19222722
You completely ignored the part about commodification and its relation to corruption. That was the most important part of the post.
>I reject that hypothesis.
It's not a hypothesis.

>>19224162
>China's propaganda is dogshit.
Availability bias
>Even when they're given extraordinary opportunities, they flounder and produce nothing but boomer-tier cartoons.
Didn't know they did that.
>Their entire political apparatus focused inward, managing their own population and affairs.
Lol.
>There's no fucking way anyone has ever been paid to post on 4chan on behalf of the CCP
Honk honk
>and yet we know for a fact the American Media/Intelligence complex monitors and posts here constantly.
The American media doesn't. It's clear you're using catchalls.
>This thread was a benign discussion about a book which is not even available in English,
>which is not even available in English
You're not supposed to say that part.
>and here you are spazzing out over very mild criticism of American "liberty"
I said the criticisms were valid. Non-Christians are incapable of producing something good but can identify the bad. They can destroy - never build.
>u are a glowie
Weird thing to say.

>>19224162
Every political organization on Earth is paying people to post here, from Israel to America to Russia to ISIS to China. 4chan is the battleground on which WWIII is being fought.

>>19224188
It's so cozy. I do think /lit/ is largely safe but I btfo out of CCP posters a couple of months ago so this must be a higher paid 5 cent. It's sad because they're just servants and would be fun to actually have a legit debate.

lzjscript.com/translation

>>19224216
You weren't supposed to post that friend lmao

>>19224216
>>19224219
https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/what-is-cloudflare/
Lol the domain is owned by a security company. Weird. I wonder if that is part of a spyware program.

>>19224203
>It's sad because they're just servants and would be fun to actually have a legit debate.
There's one CCP shill on /lit/ who's actually fun to talk to. He's a true Maoist type. Just don't point out China's nationalist tendencies or he gets all pissy.

>>19224243
Oh that's super nice nice. See, OP? You could have fun here too. Do you know of any Christian Chinese thinkers?

>>19224183
>Non-Christians are incapable of producing something good

I wondered when discussion of this article on Wang would show up on /lit/. Land posted about it the other day so I knew it was only a matter of time.

My sense is that he is largely correct about what ails American and what increasingly ails China but he cannot conceive of the proper remedy. This is because he's still a Maoist and a Marxist and does not comprehend the spiritual dimension required for any healthy polity. There must be an aliveness of the souls of the polis for them to prosper, for them to want to succeed and thrive, for them to dream of building a healthy society, for them to want to marry and have children. This is lacking in modern America as well as in modern China.

Basically America and China both need Jesus.

>>19224171
>You completely ignored the part about commodification
No I didn't. ("It's also a big jump to move from the Marxist idea of commodification to the assertion that the US is fundamentally nihilist").
>It's not a hypothesis.
Yes it is. ("their problems are in fact all inextricably interlinked and have the same root cause: a radical, nihilistic individualism").

Conveniently, you ignore literally everything though. You're drinking the ideological kool-aid.

>>19223969
Not nearly the waste of time of reading the walls of greentext posted by OP.

That's the tendency with ideological diatribes though--if you criticize it on a fundamental level the ideological adherent just restates and pretends the attack was at the periphery (in fact, they don't even register the criticism).
Popper made the criticism of ideology, using Marxism as an example, almost 100 years ago in his attempt to solve the demarcation problem. inb4 pOPpEr sUX--the demarcation programme failed but his ideas concerning falsification are still a great litmus test to be used against ideological charlatans.

>>19224005
>He addresses these topics
Not in the argument you posted. He does exactly what I said above (i.e. "He makes fundamental claims about things on a societal level and ignores the complexity of historical and cultural development. It's like he's ignoring the cause of massive shifts we've seen over the last 200 years and attributing such as crises that are intrinsic to a political system instead of the emergence of modernity.")

Before I read any more walls of greentext answer some of the criticisms I've made. Consistently shifting goalposts by copy-pasting new quotes isn't an argument.

>>19223938
>He's making a genuine effort to understand the structure of American society
And he's incredibly biased in his criticism and ideological in their formulation. Regarding the greentext wall you've once again substituted in place of an actual retort: >>19225809

>>19222163
Wang Hunin threads are always very interesting, thanks OP, will read in the morning.

>19224318
>19225868
Samefag. Let it die.

>At a time when society is fully committed to the development of material life, the supply of values is often neglected

Fuck off accfag.

Why'd this thread trigger the bots and state department shills so much? Jeez.

>>19225809
>He makes fundamental claims about things on a societal level and ignores the complexity of historical and cultural development
If you take the time to read him, he's not doing this at all. For the discussion about drugs he's trying to understand the "War on Drugs", so to do this he identifies cultural and historical trends in America, such as the rise of social liberalism, the sexual revolution, and the rise in drug addiction in America, and remarks that all of these things have a common point of 1. being different from the Chinese model, and 2. being concerned with the rights of an individual over their own body. Then he discusses modern scholarship on the issue, quoting an argument from Thomas Szasz for example, and explains that this line of reasoning can find justification in earlier philosophers such as Rousseau. Then he brings up the fundamental contradiction of holding such high minded beliefs in the face of major systemic issues such as drug addiction. This is quality cultural criticism and analysis, not propaganda. Huning isn't trying to make any sort of qualitative statements, and you're the one who's incapable of actually addressing any of his points.

>>19222894
>>19222844
>those pics
What's your point?
Shouldn't egoistic hedonistic well-poisoners not being punished because...they are young?

>>19226133
What china worship does to a man's face.

>>19224146
>nationals
>fascist

>I am quite sure that very few of the so-called Reds in Spain were really Communists. We were badly deceived, for, had I known the real state of affairs, I would never have allowed our aircraft to bombard and destroy a starving population and at the same time re-establish the Spanish clergy in all their horrible privileges.
A.H

Because marxism is a religious cult.

>>19223967
>Another great thinker wasted to non-Christianity
The Greatest philosophy that everyone fawns over here came from non-christians. So pipe down.

It is always surprising to see how conservative these people are, lamenting the decline of the family and 'traditional western values'. People like me got their introduction to leftist politics from May 68 and radical European intellectuals who actively wanted to destroy both the family and traditional western values.

>>19226696
Punished? Maybe.
Murdered? Absolutely No.

>>19226503
I addressed everything you posted and tried to do so concisely. You've written a lot but failed to meet any of the criticisms I made (just "nO hE iSN't!'). As far as comparing models is concerned: >>19222844 >>19222894. Community-based models, mental health paradigm, decriminalization debate. Human rights as a fundamental value all the way down to an individual level, an open legal system, a dynamic political apparatus that maintains the accountability of elites. No one expects a perfect utopia and framing the system as a whole in terms of it's ongoing challenges, as if they're the result of a fundamental flaw in character and value, is rooted in propagandistic intent and ideological thinking. Nothing Huning writes deepens our understanding of our challenges as it is rooted in insincerity, disingenuousness, and bad faith. Huning can list societal ills and plug them into an ideological framework--but his misunderstanding of Western values and bias towards a totalitarian system renders his criticism as shallow.

>>19227658
I think pretty much anyone who saw what happened after the fall of the USSR could see that social liberalism under capitalism is just a solvent for communal bonds. I think Russia gets an undue amount of attention for this, but I’ll use the Hapsburg lands.

Yes, in 1900 Vienna may have been the centre of cosmopolitan sophistication, and there had been a strong liberal current throughout the history of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, certainly since the compromise of 1848, but there was a society. Several, it was a multiethnic empire.

Interwar, with the dissolution of the Empire we see nationalism, right wing ideology, fill the void left when the empire was broken into pieces. Czechoslovakia could not reconcile with the Germans in Sudetenland, though they had lived side by side since Charlemagne. There was violence between all of the communities that had lived together under the Double Eagle - and of course ultimately the near total destruction of the Jewish community.

These had been liberal societies! What happened? Interwar, material reality ground down the human connection between people, and peoples. You could still get coffee and admire the avant garde in Vienna, but there was nothing tying you to your fellow man. Just the market.

Ultimately, this turn towards inhumanity led to the destruction of these societies in the Second World War. The Red Army kicked down the gates and found a charnel house. Even as they were racing to encircle Budapest, the Nazis and Hungarians were devoting rolling stock to the deportation of Hungarian Jews. In Austria, Hungary, Croatia, there was no society left, just Fascism - the ultimate expression of total alienation from humanity except for exploitation.

Under socialism, these societies were rebuilt. I understand that this is not the prevailing narrative in English language pop history, but it is incredible reading postwar histories of Central Europe. Not to excuse the rapine and pillage of Ivan Frontoviki, or the hardships of the harsh military occupation until the late 40’s, but socialism eventually started to bloom in the minds of Czech, Austrian, Hungarian.

In Czechoslovakia, to be Czech meant something again. More than freedom to consume, or destiny to conquer. Central European society found a renewed sense of community - across borders and ethnicity. Warsaw Pact was not the Austro-Hungarian Empire, we may never know its like again, but Romanian and Hungarian lived in peace for the first time in a thousand years. Serb and Croat. Bulgarian and Macedonian.

People talk about repression, and I will not comment on the events in Budapest and Prague. I only ask that you look at what has happened since 1991. What does Czechoslovakia produce? Not steel, not automobiles, not art - pornography.

That is your liberalism.

>>19227759
>Community-based models, mental health paradigm, decriminalization debate. Human rights as a fundamental value all the way down to an individual level, an open legal system, a dynamic political apparatus that maintains the accountability of elites.
If you'd actually take the time to read Huning you'd realize this is exactly what he's attempting to build within China and consistently arguing in support of. He's not a propagandist, he's a cultural critic trying to learn from the successes and failures of America while fitting the lessons into a Marxist framework.

>The United States is a large country. In this great country, one can give one image of the United States and one can give a contrasting image of the United States. It is true that many people living in this part of the world are rich, and more than a few are rich enough to own private airplanes. The majority of the population can also be said to be living “comfortably”, and the average person's home is usually equipped with a small motor vehicle, for example. But if this is the United States, then one can immediately paint a different picture. At the University of California, Berkeley, there is an area known as “People's Park”. The so-called “People's Park” was originally a vacant lot on the Berkeley campus, but was later occupied by homeless people. When I was at Berkeley, about a hundred raggedly dressed homeless people spent the night there every day, some with small tents made of rags, others with newspapers on the ground and sleeping on the floor. The dirty, filthy, listless appearance of these American people was not in any way in keeping with the American dream. Every morning they were given breakfast by a church charity and the university swimming pool was regularly opened for them to wash themselves. On the evening of the day that George W. Bush was announced as the 41st President of the United States, I saw a number of homeless people sleeping in the doorways of the high rises, lining both sides of Bush Street in San Francisco. Isn't this America? Is this America? I am afraid I cannot answer that with a single word.
>Paradoxes like these abound. It can be said that the United States is a rich country, but it can also be said that the United States is a country full of poor people; it can be said that the United States is a Western democracy, but it can also be said that the United States is a not so democratic country; it can be said that the United States is a country with advanced education, but it can also be said that the United States has a lot of failing schools; it can be said that the United States is a country where equality is paramount, but it can also be said that the United States is not a very equal country; we can say that the United States is a stable and developed society, but we can also say that the United States is a society ridden with crisis. My goal is to oppose the imaginary America with the factual America.

So is this bots?

>>19227834
It would appear so. We had this exact same thread a year ago with lots of interesting discussion and thoughtful debate. Now it seems like /lit/ is flooded with NSA bots trying to muddy the waters through lame pot-shots and one 'clever' takes against and thing China.

There's no way that >>19223627, for example, isn't just a computer script executing code every time someone triggers the wrong keywords (probably some combination of "America", "China", "lobbyist", and "Jew").

>>19227825
Right back to more walls of greentext instead of meeting specific criticisms directly. Jesus Christ.

You say I need to read him but you can't even discuss him. All you can do is assert he's fundamentally correct and dismiss criticism without thought as if it's peripheral. This is the hallmark of ideological thinking...you copy/paste random passages instead of thinking critically about them and when some does criticize them you fail to address it, reaffirm the assumption without justification, and post more nonsense as if any flaw pointed out was peripheral to the message. Seriously, Popper is into level philosophy--he lays out the patten you're exemplifying in 2 or 3 paragraphs. (Once again, inb4 Popper sucks--the demarcation argument failed but his ideas concerning falsification are useful when it comes to arguing with an ideologue) .

>>19227834
The midwit I'm arguing is programmed like one.

>>19227905
Go ahead and generate some interesting discussion then midwit. The copy/paste ideologue doesn't leave much to work with.

>>19227798
The absolute delusion of socialists is something that… I dunno, you just have to admire how comprehensive their brainwashing has been. Anon, socialism created the inhumanity, the atomization you mourn. Socialism led to the decay of morality which made the Czech pornography industry emerge the second it was allowed to. Socialism is the cause of everything you are unhappy with, and it makes me sad that you support a system which is your enemy. I don’t expect you to take this post seriously, but there will come a day where you will wonder if socialism is truly the good you have been fooled into thinking it is, and I hope you will be able to stand against this toxic system on that day.

>>19227913
>Right back to more walls of greentext instead of meeting specific criticisms directly. Jesus Christ.
I'm posting direct quotes from his book to keep this thread on topic, rather than roll around in the mud with your midwit opinions I'm not claiming he's fundamentally correct, not even Huning claims that. I'm just offering his perspective in contrast to your lies.

>Although these eleven chapters cover quite a wide variety of subjects, the object is a large country, so the facets actually covered are only a limited glance at American society. With this in mind, I think this book falls short on two counts.
>First: The book is limited in its coverage and cannot possibly cover every side of every tree in Americas forests, so it should be said that there are limitations. It cannot be said that my book adequately reflects the entire United State, I wanted to provide a glimpse into American society, but the question is what insight can be found. I think I have found some, but not much. Luckily there is a lot of other literature about America that can make up for the shortcomings of this book.
>Second, I analyze American society as an observer rather than a researcher. Some of the data and materials, though sourced, do not meet the standards of rigorous statistics. I am afraid that some of the issues discussed may be subjective, or even erroneous. Therefore, I hope that people will read this book from a macro-sociological point of view, rather than treating it as microbiology.
>Also, in this book, I do not want to torture the reader with too much thoughtful analysis and theoretical ideas, which is not the purpose of this book.
>The United States is only one capitalist country, and it does not represent all Western capitalist societies. I simply want to use the case study of the United States to promote our understanding of capitalism and, indirectly, socialism as well.

>>19222163
>theorists always end up sounding like theologians
Because christcucks created the blueprint for faking anything for being real
It's easy, any fucker can do it. Look at fucking Scientology and tell me Truth isn't a bridge with a price on it

>>19227905
>NSA bots
I wish. The American government is completely retarded when it comes to propaganda, the Soviets back in their day and the Chinese today are able to spread their propaganda all over the internet and the USA doesn’t even try to stop them. There are a ton of CCP shills here. As for the NSA, I doubt they care about anything except threats of violence on /pol/.

>>19227966
and there'll always be some dumb fuck eating it all up
Sorry, mean drinking the blood straight from the wound
You fucking morons, get back to x

>>19227955
No, you're failing to engage criticism and shifting the goalposts by posting more bullshit. The only thing a midwit like yourself, someone so programmed by an ideology that most of the people on here think you're a bot, considers on topic is affirmations of your beliefs.

Have more greentext to post?

>>19227950
The bourgeoisie are a predatory and parasitic class. They were able to outcompete and destroy their old aristocratic rivals, but because the class is only sustained by the extraction of surplus labor, their ultimate fate is always to become decadent, lazy, slothful, and purposeless. Unlike the old despotisms, the capitalist system is predicated on continued expansion of the productive forces of society, but increased productivity produces a contradiction with capitalism in that a less physically destitute, more educationally developed, and cooperatively sophisticated society does not need “captains of industry” and other dreck past a certain point. That time has passed in the US, and anyone with a brain can see it.

>>19227973
>noooo stop discussing the book get in a mudslinging contest with me instead
Fuck off glownigger

>>19222163
Everytime I read something from these marxist chinkoids it sounds like gobbledygook thrown into a Judith Butler machine

It’s just truism on truism draped in marxist lingo

Asians can’t think

>>19228033
>Asians can’t think
Western leftists are just as dumb, if not dumber.

>>19228033
either you are a faggot glowie shill or you must be really stupid to be filtered by such generic prose

>>19228056
Some western new leftists/gramscians produce interesting writings at times

This chinese shit however sounds like it’s being written by a machine or at gun point

>>19222300
Based, America is a joke.

>>19228008
You're not discussing the book--you're posting greentext as if it's a retort to criticism of it. Figures you'd pull a tactic like your Chinese overlords:
>no! not accepting Hunings read of cultural values, pointing out his shallow read of history, and connecting his criticism to an inherent bias that seeks to justify a totalitarian regime is just mudslinging! Just read more of what he wrote...if you criticize it I'll tell you he's right and post more greentext, k? On-topic means accepting his thesis about culture and values--just focus on the fact he lists valid symptoms and accept his diagnosis as the way they're to be formulated and understood. Otherwise, you're a glownigger!
Fuck off pseud. You might as well go back to copy/pasting shit because critical thinking isn't your strong suit.

>>19228224
What do you expect, that the 3k character limit on /lit/ is enough to capture every possible criticism that could be leveled at the book? You point out lack of historicism, and I post examples where Huning uses western history (>>19224005) to inform his opinions. You say stuff like >>19227759 but you fail to understand that "a dynamic political apparatus that maintains the accountability of elites" is exactly what Huning admires about America and wishes to emulate within China. You claim that Huning is only making surface level observations, and I post he paragraphs from his introduction where he levels the exact same criticisms at himself (>>19227955). Yet the whole time you accuse me of moving goalposts and ignoring your criticisms. It seems like what you really want to do is derail the thread into a mud slinging contest while leveling enough cheap takes ("Chinese bug people can't write they can only copy lmao fuck China") to discourage the casual observer from actually bothering to read the thread.

If you aren't actually a bot or a glownigger then you're really fucking stupid.

>>19222163
It's interesting not because the information he presents are known to many, most of us get it but he presents a good complete picture of likes of USA with the beautiful bias of his own against such system and the most defining aspect is that he penned those thoughts in 1991.

If anyone has read the speech of Bezmenov or listened to him, he did the same thing about USSR but penned it in a way to showcase as if the american system not doing the equally culprit or worse than USSR in those aspects, that cia was not carrying out coups, destroying countries and that somehow the 'marxist' takeover of USA happened out of its own. Even while criticising USA somehow it is presented as a victim by him, a propaganda from CIA front which doesn't discredit his viewpoints about marxist or ussr.

We are at a beautiful stop right now, but the we are on the streets (kek) and we can't move and a car of 'western liberalism' is approaching to us fast and they don't care what happens to us and it isn't gonna press the break and no one is going to save you here, only you can. We had to make choices but we are paralysed, we need a solution which is not present in just one country or a system, an amalgamation of all of them are possible.

China is not a great case either otherwise huning wouldn't need to course correct to the point of tackling the very point of their existence, extreme level of consumerism, lack of apathy and many issues which plague an authoritarian system but it had some brighter beautiful sides which shine so bright that they hide all those odds and the author here subtly tries to downplay it, aka if you read the tfr section he will say that every developing country goes through that phase but what he hid was no, every developing/developed countries if you trace their TFR were way more linear(not the correct word) rather than abrust as china which is causing this issue with them.

Some very eager kids think that either liberalism or extremem authoritarianism will solve our problems without realising the issues with India, i would suggest we read more on usa and more on china and then move on to our own country and the imaginary path that should follow.

As the USSR collapsed, so is USA going to and we saw the rise in fans of Yuri Bezmenov among people as the confirmation bias kicked in soon it will happen with the Wang Huning as the USA is collapsing. Chasing an outdated model when we should be working on our own one.

Why the fuck is there so much seething in this thread? This board is always going on about civilizational collapse, but when the pre-eminent theorist in China talks about it suddenly it's a problem? His views are completely correct and clearly China is taking notes from him. Modernization causes spiritual collapse and it must be controlled or the entire system will implode. This is happening to Liberalism, and if China continues to develop it will happen to them too. Modernity is a universal solvent and industrialization tends towards Liberalism. Morality has to be organized better, material advancement doesn't solve everything and it's refreshing to see Marxists understand this whereas in the West leftists are the ones embracing liberal degeneracy more than anyone.

>>19228277
>What do you expect, that the 3k character limit on /lit/ is enough to capture
From the samefag who posted this challange: >>19222723? You're a disingenuous ideologue that can't compute criticism (hence the constant copy/pasting).
>You point out lack of historicism
No, I pointed out a specific example and also offered an alternative narrative. Instead of addressing such and offering an argument to affirm why Huning's take is more acceptable...you posted more greentext. The fact is you can't address criticism because you're a fellow traveler that can't criticize their own worldview.
>you fail to understand that "a dynamic political apparatus that maintains the accountability of elites"
You fail to understand that claiming to admire an aspiration isn't the same thing as a systemic read of how a given culture has fostered such. In fact, you could easily argue the US is failing with regard to elites (i.e. there's no such thing as a direct democracy, there never has been, and the institutional gatekeepers lost the faith of the electorate to the point that half of it's political apparatus was overtaken by a reality TV star). Let me guess, Huning can explain that too in terms of nihilism and individualism. The point is that an ideology can claim to explain everything because it does what you're doing--treats fundamental criticism as if it's merely peripheral while recharacterizing the argument in terms of it's premises.
>It seems like what you really want to do is derail the thread into a mud slinging contest
Again with the mudslinging. Anyone who doesn't accept the thesis at face value is mudslinging and criticism is off topic.

You're an ideologue. Since you're incapable of critical thought and repost the same shit or copy/paste over and over; I'll do the same:
>no! not accepting Hunings read of cultural values, pointing out his shallow read of history, and connecting his criticism to an inherent bias that seeks to justify a totalitarian regime is just mudslinging! Just read more of what he wrote...if you criticize it I'll tell you he's right and post more greentext, k? On-topic means accepting his thesis about culture and values--just focus on the fact he lists valid symptoms and accept his diagnosis as the way they're to be formulated and understood. Otherwise, you're a glownigger!
Does the truth hurt? It shouldn't.

>>19228391
>His views are completely correct
Criticism isn't seething. That's projection from a midwit who gave up their critical thinking to an ideology--because it's easier and makes you feel like you're right all the time. However, when the ideologue is challenged they'll react emotionally (i.e. seethe) because the ideological schema has rooted itself within the person's narcissism, their sense of self, and challenging the worldview is taken as a personal affront.

>>19228391
Because everyone knows you're samefagging.

>>19228392
>just focus on the fact he lists valid symptoms and accept his diagnosis as the way they're to be formulated and understood
What diagnosis is that?

You keep calling Huning and ideologue but what ideology specifically is he pushing for or advocating in his text? Can you provide a single example of this supposed ideology?

>>19223938
>>When I returned, I saw an old couple driving a horse-drawn carriage along the modern highway. They were so peaceful, so self-contained. Is it wrong to be modern?
Right in the feels

>NeoConfucius say, Man who run behind car get exhausted.

>>19224292
Michelangelo made that. Imagine just thinking it was ‘discovered’ in the 1500s
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/arts/is-laocoon-a-michelangelo-forgery.html
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/laocoon-and-his-sons-michelangelo

>>19228985
>NeolConfucius say, Man who lun in flont of cal get tiled.

>>19228855
I did those things with specific regard and reference to the walls of greentext you were posting. The criticism is there...you can answer it or fuck off. I'm not going to write the same things over and over detached from their prior context.

I get it: you were filtered. Don't feel bad though, when it comes to ideological midwits who internalize propagandistic diatribes, going as far as grandiosely attribute them as being theological in character (you literally and unironically did this, kek "muh religion!"), being filtered is a defense mechanism.

>>19223938
>>When I returned, I saw an old couple driving a horse-drawn carriage along the modern highway. They were so peaceful, so self-contained. Is it wrong to be modern?
Right in the feels

>>19228997
>Posts two paywalled articles from rags
Blow me

>>19229364
He's lying and the articles he posted don't confirm that Michelangelo forged it (he probably did a google search and blindly posted the links). I'd agree that Christianity inspired great art and the wealth of cultural artifacts it produced are unrivaled--but the idea that non-Christians failed to produce anything of artistic value or merit is retarded. I'd also agree that Western achievements in all mediums are superior both technically and aesthetically...except maybe the Japs when it comes to certain aspects of theatre (they have some decent heavy hitters when it comes to literature as well).

https://archive.is/L2rG5
https://archive.is/5foHw

>>19222163
Because the Chinese Communist Party is the living embodiment of Goethe and Hegel.

>>19222300
Based.

>>19229867
Did you want to tell everyone that you're misinformed about China *and* German philosophy?

>>19222748
Your (and 90% of Amerishartistani boomers') view of China is stuck in 1990, which is why they've been able to leapfrog you Americucks

>>19223967
>politics can't make spiritual meaning
wait till these niggas find out about my 城隍

>>19229893
World-historic forces don't care about your feelings. The world spirit lives in China.

>>19229909
Not American. As far as leapfrogging them goes, come back when your per capita GDP is high enough to purchase a decent used car Chang.

>>19229933
>References Weltgeist
Figures, the Chinese can't come up with their own shit so they steal from superior cultures.

>>19229950
>we developed the fastest and marked the bushes quickest
>that means we're better
The West's feats will be honored in the history books for sure, that we can agree on
The society-culture you live in, however, is not the West, not anymore.

>>19229984
>modernity is evolving therefore your cultural institutions and values don't exist anymore.
Fuck off. Westerners conceptualize history according to epochs that are each defined by their own character. They reverberate and echo into the present and past character serves to provide inspiration for a changing future. The Chinese cope of "muh 3000 years of history" underscores that civilization's hubris as well as its fatal flaw--dynamism isn't understood by the Chinese and they assume an assured and steady progress via a closed totalitarianism and the subjugation of their own citizens.

Your simplistic demoralization narrative doesn't carry weight for those that know their history and capabilities. We don't base our worth in the false specter of past utopias and don't assume we're moving towards one because a state-mandated ideology tells us to.

The truth is you're unthinking. You don't conceptualize your own reckoning because you're incapable of doing so. You think you can win a fight by focusing solely on an opponent's flaws while shamelessly gloating a shallow confidence that only recognizes current strengths to the neglect of understanding the danger of your weaknesses. You don't understand your opponent and service a false idealization. Your perception is limited to feel-good falsehoods and selective memory.

Chinese propaganda seeks to take advantage of the fact that we openly layout our mistakes and debate our weaknesses so that we can have a discussion about them. It doesn't understand that's how we move forward and past them.

Fuck off Chang.

>>19222163
Holy boring

>>19222163
This sounds more like Confucianism than Marxism.

>Has anyone ever written about why Marxist theorists always end up sounding like theologians?
Schmitt. He literally wrote a book called Political Theology on this subject.

>>19227969
holy shit i saw this text almost word for word not long ago

bum

>>19232642
kys

>>19228391
>His views are completely correct and clearly China is taking notes from him.
They're definitely taking notes. He's a member of the standing committee and is the top party ideologue in China. He keeps a low profile though and doesn't do interviews. If you watch some stuff coming out lately, you can see his influence.

>>19228391
>Morality has to be organized better, material advancement doesn't solve everything and it's refreshing to see Marxists understand this whereas in the West leftists are the ones embracing liberal degeneracy more than anyone.
Well, have you see the MAGA types? I see what you mean, though, but if you ask me, the only people in America who I see really talking about setting aside their own individuality for a collective project recently were BLM protesters. They would have signs that say "We have a duty to fight for our freedom" which is a quote from exiled black communist Assata Shakur. Who else is talking about duty? I don't expect them to receive acknowledgement for this, of course, but I think they will proceed regardless.

>>19230249
>This sounds more like Confucianism than Marxism.
I think there are elements of Confucianism in it. You'll see Xi Jinping talking about reading Marxism as a "spiritual" pursuit, and so westerners see this as like a religion, and yeah you could say that, but I think some of this is drawn from Confucianism where one pursues Enlightenment by doing everyday tasks, like paper-pushing to advance socialism and that being an almost meditative experience. "The Secular as Sacred" as Herbert Fingarette titled his book on Confucianism which I would recommend.

This is from Youth Day and it's very earnest:

https://youtu.be/WF_q_vLEBLg

This is a PLA video and it's pretty amazing because the song sounds like a Christian worship hymn of the kind I grew up hearing in Texas:

https://youtu.be/Qo5odzLpwl4

Confucianism is an enormous school of thought though. But one thing you'll also see in Confucianism is the role of societal ritual or "li" (i.e. patterns of traditional activity) as a way of holding a society together and giving people meaning. This is true in every society -- just see that presidential inauguration business in the U.S. where there are days of events and oaths and ceremonies and so forth. Well, Confucianism thought that was disintegrating in his own time. There's also ren, which is like benevolence (treating people well) and so forth. So the ideal of a Confucian gentlemen and a truly ren person is someone who performs the proper rituals (the li) perfectly but also spontaneously; i.e. they've internalized the morays of their culture to such a degree that their spontaneous desires coincide perfectly with them (which is also how Confucius is described).

https://youtu.be/9wPq0M_T8JQ?t=76

This is incidentally why I think Land and his vision of a Matrix pod of goo doesn't really jive with Xi Jinping, because Xi is just too benevolent. The heroes come from the people.

>>19229984

>>19232881

>>19232886

How to destroy the CCP (a.k.a your guide to destroy the current political power in mainland china)

The Chinese are, traditionally and still today, of the opinion that death isn't "an end". A Christian fundamentally believes that death is "the end", and after that it's over, bam done. To most traditional views of how life and death works, Abrahamic religion is basically atheism in all ways that matter, it just stops short in a few areas (death being annihilation therefore nothing matters and an eternity in paradise are functionally identical).

But for the Chinaman, when you die, you stick around. In fact, you're still very much a part of this world (you're currently much a part of the world of the dead, too). A dead Chinaman needs constant infusions of food and cash, or political and religious power, to not suffer grievously in the afterlife. The lucky ones become Gods and powerful spirits, but there's a billion Chinks in China so not everyone can be so lucky.

>>19232923

So what happens when your children, or grandchildren, won't burn the hell-money, or give you food? You take it out on them and make their lives miserable until they pay you the basic fucking gratitude you're owed. You gave them LIFE and this is how they repay you!? The Chinese are very, very, VERY careful with their dead. A lot of Chink politics and religion gets wrapped up in this.

When the Yuan dynasty began to falter, a radical apocalyptic sect, the Red Turbans, cropped up. The Red Turbans themselves got their asses kicked, but along the way a dude named Zhu Xingzong started gaining speed. This dude was born a rice farmer's son; his six sisters were given away as prostitutes because of the intense famine. His parents gave him to a monastery, and then starved to death (he begged to get money for their funeral, and then buried them). He hung around the monastery until they kicked him out, then came back when it got burnt down by the Red Turbans, learned to read, and then left to join the Red Turbans.

He eventually becomes the Hongwu Emperor and establishes the Ming Dynasty. His second order of business? Dealing with the massive ghost problem that China has. The country is INFESTED with ghosts. A Confucian scholar said that this was peasant superstition, everyone knows that the human body is made of fine clay, water, and tiny hairs, and that at death the water seeps into the ground is destroyed, the clay became dirt, and the fine hairs blow away. Zhu's first order of business upon becoming emperor was moving his parent's tomb out of his peasant bumfuck village and rebuilding it, and he knew damn well that ghosts were real and serious business. He had the Confucian scholar tortured to death, and then curried the favor of many, many Gods. Each village, town, and city would have a Ghost Manager, and a God; these two would together pacify the dead. Enormous effort across the whole of China was necessary to get this to work, but eventually, the Ghosts were made happy. This was heralded across China as the Hongwu Emperor being divinely chosen by Heaven to save the world. Hongwu was considered a messiah for his heroism in this ghost business, and was viewed at the time as having righted a terrible wrong, and this legitimated his rule.

So you can see why the CCP would be concerned if, for example, a massive Haunting ensued. After all, that would be a sign that the CCP was faltering, wouldn't it? If people saw the dead, then it would indicate that maybe someone else, who is more respectful of China's most valued population, should be in charge?

Reading about the red turban rebellions made me realize that seeing ghosts (spooky noises, glints of light that are their reflections, shadows of critters cast large by lighting, etc) is not the only pre-requisite for rebellion against the government,

it must be accompany by natural disasters, plague and incompetence on behalf of the government (i.e losing a major war among other things)

>>19232891
Skip to 2:24 (Chinese Baby Girl Atlantis): https://vimeo.com/16473745

>>19232804
>This fucking guy again
You are by far the most brainwashed person I have ever met. I always groan when you (you have a very distinctive posting style) join a thread because I know it is going to be filled with the ramblings of a very deluded person who somehow managed to fall for every last bit of CCP propaganda out there. Please tell me they are paying you because the alternative is very depressing.

>>19232930
>So you can see why the CCP would be concerned if, for example, a massive Haunting ensued.
https://youtu.be/lOTyUfOHgas

>>19232960
>>19232947
why are triggered? the ccp is living in borrowed time

>>19232950
How am I brainwashed? I never said the propaganda reflects the reality. This is just the propaganda they're pushing and it reflects a worldview that I'm trying to understand. They're trying to motivate their people. I think the reality is more like the party being repeatedly thrown the windshield of a repeated series of car crashes, but the amazing thing is how they keep being able to pick themselves up, brush off the glass shards and then look sheepishly at the camera and shrug, because they're fine.

The Chinese are kinda like Jews in a sense that they're overachievers so their critics immediately knock off 30% on their score. They survived another car crash? Oh, well, it's because they're naturally smart so we're not going to give them any credit. I also don't think irony permeates Chinese culture as much as it does in western countries (or this forum). It's not like they lack the concept of irony or don't make ironic jokes, but there's just more earnestness, but that's called being "brainwashed" (people the reigning nihilistic attitude in western societies is not believing in anything), and people don't want to try to understand that, and basically you're fucked pal

Wang Huning really triggers people, too, and that's funny. But he's like a ghost. There's not much to go on, but he doesn't seem like he lets loose very often. He's like the guy from Fight Club where he shows some flair by wearing a cornflower blue tie:

https://youtu.be/mSe_t8HBDA4?t=27

>>19233051
>You: How am I brainwashed?
>Also You: Xi is just too benevolent.
Xi Jinping does not care about you. He does not care about the people of China, beyond what they can do to establish his place in history. He is a dictator like any other, and if anything his dominance of Chinese politics is the second biggest threat facing that country.

As for China, I doubt the CCP will collapse anytime before the 2050s, after which everyone will be in danger for entirely different reasons. Still, I would not be surprised if they are still in power in 2100 or beyond.

On another note, you being a Texan with memories of Christian hymns is rather interesting. How’d you end up falling down the communist rabbit hole?

>>19232659
No

>>19233135
Xi Jinping may not care about the Chinese people, but at least he seems to make decisions that actually benefit them. He does not rule with total contempt like our ruling class, who actively push deleterious policies on us constantly, by sending our jobs oversees, flooding our communities with drugs, our arteries with seed oils, and our sons with estrogen pills.

reading this thread makes me wonder, if the top chinese political theorist doesn´t understand the united states then, the ccp is basically screwed and that´s a good of thing of course

>>19233355
In general I find that political theorists have absolutely terrible takes on the internal politics of other countries. Communist theorists are the worst when it comes to this because they are dogmatic about Marx’s theory of history.

>>19233135
>Xi Jinping does not care about you.
I'm under no illusions about this. Xi Jinping is not going to come rescue anyone in America. First of all, they couldn't do it even if they wanted to. They wouldn't succeed. It's like a whole different country, with different political traditions, a different culture, a different history. Secondly, Xi doesn't even talk that way. The dude doesn't give speeches like "I, Xi Jinping, the Great Leader, has saved China." Lastly, I'm not sure I'd like living in China, or like everything about it. There are business deals that go bad and someone gets thrown out of a window. Maybe there are some things that I'd like. It's hard to say.

But it's interesting. I think they're more open to learning about other countries and studying them (the good and bad, from their perspective) than Americans are nowadays. There's an arrogant attitude in the U.S. that "we're the best so we don't have to learn from anyone else." Over a very long period of time, the U.S. developed a political culture in which it won't be rivaled by anyone else, because the U.S. has always been "on the rise" in the world with only a few detours along the way. But no country is no. 1 forever, or will be totally unrivaled forever.

And over there, they're studying everything that you do, and that's what Wang Huning was doing in the late 1980s, and it's interesting to read about the U.S. from outsiders' perspectives. That doesn't mean everything is wonderful. There are probably huge disasters just waiting to happen. But it's like the quote from Breaking Bad: "Mr. White…he's the devil. You know he is. He is smarter than you, he is luckier than you. Whatever -- whatever you think is supposed to happen -- I'm telling you, the exact reverse opposite of that is gonna happen, okay?" White gets the jolt he needs when he's backed into a corner. The precipice of disaster shakes him out of his complacency and leads to success... somehow.

>On another note, you being a Texan with memories of Christian hymns is rather interesting. How’d you end up falling down the communist rabbit hole?
I wasn't raised religious but some of my friends were in a Christian rock band and I'd go to church with them sometimes and listen to them perform. It was all very peppy, Pentecostal stuff like Hillsong. I actually like that kind of music. My personal journey or whatever isn't important.

As far as "communism" goes, that isn't so important, either. But it's funny to me as well that, in the U.S., you see Bernie Sanders go down in flames. Then suddenly the Chinese government is like "we believe in Marxism!" And everyone is confused and wondering what the hell is going on. Their propaganda is also just flat-out entertaining. It's hilarious, really. It reminds me of the Reagan 80s or something. Or Van Halen. It's not like Marvel movies where it's all ironic "we're saving the world again... that'll build character har har." This is new:

https://youtu.be/G7R0QLTrT4E

>>19233505
>Lastly, I'm not sure I'd like living in China, or like everything about it.
….
You are literally the most dedicated+intelligent China shill on this site. What do you mean you don’t want to live in China? Have you ever visited the country?

> But it's interesting. I think they're more open to learning about other countries and studying them (the good and bad, from their perspective) than Americans are nowadays. There's an arrogant attitude in the U.S. that "we're the best so we don't have to learn from anyone else."
A consequence of geography. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans insulate us from the rest of the world, and we dominated our neighbors a long time ago. It’s not a healthy view I suppose, but it works.

> But it's funny to me as well that, in the U.S., you see Bernie Sanders go down in flames. Then suddenly the Chinese government is like "we believe in Marxism!"
You cannot seriously think Bernie Sanders led to a shift in Chinese propaganda messaging.

>>19233548
>You are literally the most dedicated+intelligent China shill on this site. What do you mean you don’t want to live in China? Have you ever visited the country?
Nope. I have friends (from the U.S.) who live there, or lived there and visited. I'd like to go there. But I don't know if I'd like everything about it. The government would probably do things that'd be piss me off by forcing me to use some VPN to access YouTube or listen in on my phone calls. That's all I'm saying. Thing is, though, the Chinese government could be arbitrary, spasmodic, paranoid, and even draconian in some ways... and also radical and extremely adaptive. People don't like nuance. So I'm a "shill" because my take isn't just wholly negative -- which is pretty much the reigning consensus in the United States nowdays. But that's boring as fuck. You can go to the comments sections of CNN articles to read people who think China sucks. What makes this place different?

>A consequence of geography. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans insulate us from the rest of the world, and we dominated our neighbors a long time ago. It’s not a healthy view I suppose, but it works.
True. But the U.S. sits atop a global order, so I see the crackup of the "U.S. empire" as really a crackup of that order, which is a different thing from the contiguous, territorial United States.

>You cannot seriously think Bernie Sanders led to a shift in Chinese propaganda messaging.
That's not what I'm saying. It's funny to me that this is happening now when the left has been getting blackpilled after they put their eggs in the Bernie Sanders basket and then the wolf ate the eggs. The Chinese aren't going to save them, of course.

>>19223351
>aside from the occasional Austrian School economist
Who is that? I'd hazard a wager it's von Wieser because he was the least enthusiastic about individualism and liberalism

>>19233466
But fascists are just marxists who replace Duh Bourgwhuzee with Dem Jooz.
Which is even worse because it destroys any idea of race even as it proclaims race as the only thing.

But stop bumping this thread since it is race Chineys playing the same card, and they don't even know basics of race.

>>19233652
>But fascists are just marxists who replace Duh Bourgwhuzee with Dem Jooz.
True but to be blunt I’ve never read any fascist political theorist’s thoughts on othe countries

>>19233599
>That's all I'm saying. Thing is, though, the Chinese government could be arbitrary, spasmodic, paranoid, and even draconian in some ways... and also radical and extremely adaptive. People don't like nuance. So I'm a "shill" because my take isn't just wholly negative
No desu, you are a shill because of the way you fawn over China and see it as the fulfillment of Marx’s stages of history while parroting CCP and Maoist talking points. This post is the first time I’ve seen you being critical of the PRC in any way. I do find it amusing that you heap praise on Communist governments while not wanting to live under the greatest one which ever existed (not false praise, but an honest assessment).

When it comes to the American global order, I think it has been a net loss for America. I have long been a proponent of downsizing the military and diverting funds and attention to internal issues. I don’t care, and I don’t think most Americans care, about maintaining hegemony for no reason. That’s not to say I think China should be the hegemon either. A multipolar world is where we are headed and that’s for the best.

As for the left in America? I have my own theories on how that will work out for the best.

>>19233720
>I do find it amusing that you heap praise on Communist governments while not wanting to live under the greatest one which ever existed (not false praise, but an honest assessment).
Well I qualified what I was saying. Maybe I would like it! Or maybe there are some things I wouldn't like. But generally speaking, I think one of the pathologies that exists in politics is when people start thinking of it as like a personal or heroic (and often individualized) quest that leads to one's desired result, or where one's own particular values win out in the end -- rather than the end result being the result of many individual wills colliding into each other and ending in a result that no individual actually willed (to paraphrase Engels). A resulting mean, in other words. I think that's what often ends up happening. So, I'm comfortable with trying to keep some personal distance from what's going on.

What also happens in places full of ostensibly radical weirdos like this forum is that there's a lot of projection that goes on. Have you read Christopher Lasch? The left considers him a conservative nowadays but I liked The Minimal Self about how people lose confidence and project their fears and desires onto others. I think China can be that for some people. But another manifestation is to retreat into survivalism like Montana militia people, which is anything but self-assertive.

>A multipolar world is where we are headed and that’s for the best.
I agree with that. I heard some Chinese students talking to the BBC around 10 years ago that the Chinese government is the "worst system except for all others that have been tried." Paraphrasing Winston Churchill talking about democracy. But they were saying that about their government for their country. It might not be the best, but it's the best for them, and they have a ton of problems, but they're happy there's someone trying to take care of it:

https://youtu.be/nRjdJWeCuFo?t=323

Anyhow, for some entertaining contemporary propaganda, I like the May Day stuff they do on May 1. Here are ballet dancers in a bullet train maintenance depot:

https://youtu.be/bMd9u4y3Vn4

Like WHAT

>>19233652
>Which is even worse because it destroys any idea of race even as it proclaims race as the only thing.

Fascism does not do the latter. Very cringe of you to imply such.