Bottom text
It's not even that but Mao unified a complete shitshow of country the size of the USA rife with social ills, poverty amd warlordism and set it on a path to becoming a superpower
Wtf
The things they hate China for are so easy to dunk on. Libs really get made about stealing IP, which is completely based.
Muh developers!!!!
Yeah bruh they’re not getting any of that money you spend on your games that’s the problem
"Both the USA and China are bad" = China needs to be nuked, but politely and Trump was a bad guy that made us look bad.
Trump was gonna bomb China too much, Biden only wants to bomb it the right amount.
The gist seems to be: any [often fictitious] bad actions of China irrefutably prove their state is morally evil and deficient; the bad actions of the US are always just well-intentioned mistakes and say nothing about our state's morality, no matter how bad the consequences and how often we err.
Depends on the letter at the end of the president's name. If it's good letter, then it's a complicated and nuanced thing, and the intentions are good, and shut up, you're clearly just bringing this up in bad faith. If it's bad letter, then it's all this guy's fault, I might give lip service by saying the word "systemic", but the US shouldn't be sanctioned, everyone just needs to :vote: harder.
bad actions of China irrefutably prove their state is morally evil and deficient; the bad actions of the US are always just well-intentioned mistakes and say nothing about our state’s morality
I see another angle on this. Even beyond intent, the actions a Chinese official takes - like municipal quarantines, infrastructure improvements, corporate corruption crack-downs, low-interest lending / aid to neighboring nations, geopolitical neutrality in the midst of foreign conflicts - are pitched as villainous precisely because they deviate from American foreign policy interests. All of these policies run contrary to what American national figures insist are good and virtuous, be it for strictly ideological reasons or for more realpolitik or capitalist-centric purposes.
China Bad isn't just a comment on the inherent morality of foreigners. Otherwise, we'd feel confident in labeling India and Brazil and Japan as equally diabolical. China Bad is a comment on a domestic and foreign policy that is antithetical to the political agenda of neoliberal DC power brokers. China presents itself as heretical. The things the Chinese do that really grind America's gears tend to be things that refute US common wisdom or undermine US political agency.
I agree completely that benign, positive Chinese policies are portrayed negatively, by the press, governments, NGOs, etc. because the US sees China as a geopolitical and ideological threat, the threat of a good example. My comment was more about how individuals perceive states as either moral or immoral, regardless of what they actually do in practice. The atrocity propaganda about Uyghur concentration camps, Falun Gong organ harvesting, "disappearing" dissidents, etc. is what allows people to rationalize that inconsistency. The well documented, objectively evil things the US does are ignored, spun as a positive, dismissed as just as a mistake, or outright denied by the hegemonic culture, so that individuals don't perceive the US as morally outrageous; the perception of atrocity goes completely one direction.
Once hegemony establishes that China is unquestionably evil, then individuals accept that their good policies, the policies that as you point are hated by the West, are actually terrible and oppressive. The combination of atrocity propaganda and excusing actual American atrocities enables demonizing effective, popular policy; if people did not think that China sends you to the laogai for posting Winnie the Pooh, there's an unacceptably high chance they would think twice when they see an article portray zero-Covid as oppression. You are absolutely correct that the bourgeoisie's hatred of Chinese policy is why it is demonized, but this demonization is only effective by establishing China Bad, US Good moralist doublethink.
My comment was more about how individuals perceive states as either moral or immoral, regardless of what they actually do in practice.
And there's definitely some baseline xenophobia that guides this view. America is a great country because its my country and I'm a good person. The only time it is less good is when it deviates from my ideological vision. Etc. Foreign countries are inherently bad because I'm not in them, so they don't have me to guide it.
The atrocity propaganda about Uyghur concentration camps, Falun Gong organ harvesting, “disappearing” dissidents, etc. is what allows people to rationalize that inconsistency. The well documented, objectively evil things the US does are ignored, spun as a positive, dismissed as just as a mistake, or outright denied by the hegemonic culture, so that individuals don’t perceive the US as morally outrageous; the perception of atrocity goes completely one direction.
But even outside the US, we see countries doing atrocities that don't receive remotely the same level of criticism or suffer any kind of uniform moral critique. The Saudis are good when doing genocide in Yemen, while the Iranians are bad when aiding the rebels. Meanwhile, Ukrainians are good when doing armed resistance against Russia, while Belarus is bad for aiding the invaders.
The Uyghur genocide line is about shaming China for opposing a new Operation Cyclone in western China. Falun Gong organ harvesting stories are about promoting a group of Chinese ex-pats with significant wealth and an extensive political network in the California State House and the US National Congress. #SOSCuba trending on Twitter isn't some organic outcry coming from a Floridian diaspora, but the most visible aspect of a military operation aimed at overthrowing the government in Havana. This isn't simple human rationalization, it is foreign policy made manifest through domestic propaganda.
Once hegemony establishes that China is unquestionably evil, then individuals accept that their good policies, the policies that as you point are hated by the West, are actually terrible and oppressive.
Chinese national policy has taken a hard left (or, at least, nationalist focused) turn since the end of the Deng Era. An increase in Chinese protectionism, a new competitiveness with the US over natural resources, a focus on Chinese sovereignty, and an internalization of the ownership of Chinese capital all break from American foreign policy in a way that shifts our international relationships. This is what drives American hegemons to villainize China. If these policies ever change - or if DC elites ever reconcile with a multi-polar global economy as benign or beneficial - the media consensus on China will change with them.
And there’s definitely some baseline xenophobia that guides this view.
Absolutely, I agree.
But even outside the US, we see countries doing atrocities that don’t receive remotely the same level of criticism or suffer any kind of uniform moral critique. The Saudis are good when doing genocide in Yemen, while the Iranians are bad when aiding the rebels. Meanwhile, Ukrainians are good when doing armed resistance against Russia, while Belarus is bad for aiding the invaders.
The paradoxical inconsistency is precisely the point. Because the Saudis and the Ukrainians are pro-American, the bourgeoisie cannot allow them to be criticized like the Iranians and the Russians. If they did suffer a uniform moral critique, that would undermine the Western masses' faith in the "rules-based international order." Bourgeois hegemony presents a highly one-sided moral condemnation of its enemies and excusing or even lauding its allies, and so individuals are conditioned to doublethink and accept the West as morally superior to its enemies. The bourgeoisie does this because of its material interests, obviously, they have no illusions about morality. But remember that most individual proletarians have false consciousness and understand the world in a moralistic way; we are taught to think like this, and unidirectional atrocity propaganda preys on that weakness.
The Uyghur genocide line is about shaming China for opposing a new Operation Cyclone in western China. Falun Gong organ harvesting stories are about promoting a group of Chinese ex-pats with significant wealth and an extensive political network in the California State House and the US National Congress. #SOSCuba trending on Twitter isn’t some organic outcry coming from a Floridian diaspora, but the most visible aspect of a military operation aimed at overthrowing the government in Havana.
Yes, yes it is. It is not organic, it is directed for the bourgeoisie's benefit.
This isn’t simple human rationalization, it is foreign policy made manifest through domestic propaganda.
I agree it is foreign policy made manifest through propaganda, but propaganda is not magical. Individuals, and the proletariat as a whole, have to be convinced that this foreign policy is correct, and rationalizing and moralizing enables this. I am not claiming that rationalization is the cause of the propaganda, not at all. Propaganda's origins are material, it is performed for the benefit of a class, and it is well organized. My point is that encouraging individual proletarians to rationalize and accept these contradictions is a weapon of false consciousness, one of many, wielded purposefully.
Chinese national policy has taken a hard left (or, at least, nationalist focused) turn since the end of the Deng Era. An increase in Chinese protectionism, a new competitiveness with the US over natural resources, a focus on Chinese sovereignty, and an internalization of the ownership of Chinese capital all break from American foreign policy in a way that shifts our international relationships. This is what drives American hegemons to villainize China.
Agreed.
If these policies ever change - or if DC elites ever reconcile with a multi-polar global economy as benign or beneficial - the media consensus on China will change with them.
I definitely think this is a possibility, that if China turns to the right the narrative will change. It happened once before, it could happen again. And for example, I think we're still in that phase with Vietnam overall, I don't often see much criticism directed towards them. But I do think Chinese policy is unlikely to turn right, and that if it did, there is a chance that the media consensus will not change, because China would still be too powerful to not seem threatening to the (Western) bourgeoisie. I'm sure the US was quite pleased when it saw Khrushchev undo much of Stalin's work and turn to the USSR to the right, but they didn't let up the pressure, they actually intensified it. It was still too threatening, especially when other countries were increasingly emulating their model and seeking their assistance. If China becomes significantly more influential than the US economically and geopolitically (which we seem to be in the beginning of), and especially if other countries attempt to implement policies similar to theirs, it may not matter to the West at all if China suddenly became more pro-market or if a multi-polar economy benefited them.
And then they’ll complain about alt right nerds doing the same thing
The solution to a foreigner's political problem is to take up arms in a glorious (counter) Revolution, throw down statues, storm office buildings, lynch national leaders, and run the streets red with the blood of the usurpers.
The solution to a domestic American political problem is to :vote:
"Both the US and China are equally bad, but I've done nothing about the the former and am saying and doing everything about the latter"
"neither Washington nor Beijing" has always meant and will always mean "not Beijing"
Their response to problems in the US: reform and bourgeois electoralism, maybe some unions.
Their response to China: GIVE ME BLOOD
Geopolitical centrists are the same as domestic centrists (fascists in denial)
With China I do my best to understand and try stay out of judgement as a western leftist. With the US I dogmatically oppose its very existence and viciously bully anyone who is confused about my reactions. Am I doing it right?
Yeah that heuristic will serve you well. It's imperfect but hey use it as a starting point.
Yes. Anti-imperialism should focus on your own country. Let Chinese leftists focus on the problems with China and Russian leftists focus on Russia's problems.
Pretty much. It just lets them come across as someone who agrees with you on some points.
Anyone with the slightest amount of brain matter knows that you can think more than one thing is wrong. Even children know that. It's useless to say that, it's just used to absolve the fact that the amount of criticism is not proportionate to who is the worse.
They also aren't interested in considering that China is constrained and threatened by the US. It's not a two way street...yet.
