I guess you were looking at the images when Lemmygrad was undergoing maintenance: "Images will be broken while we perform some maintenance" https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4830625

There is a slogan "勤劳致富光荣", which basically means "prosperity through hard work is glorious", it can be shortened to "致富光荣" by removing the prefix "勤劳" (hard work), and this can be "mistranslated" into "to get rich is glorious". I don't think Deng Xiaoping actually said it, because even the Chinese Wikipedia page only mentions that this slogan was "associated" with him and Reform and Opening Up.

However, Deng was confronted with this exact phrase in 1986 during an interview with American TV Correspondent Mike Wallace, this is the excerpt from "Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping Volume III" (Foreign Language Press) page 173 to 174: (Theory China ebook link, marxists.org link, Chinese 71.cn link)

Wallace: To get rich is glorious. That declaration by Chinese leaders to their people surprises many in the capitalist world. What does that have to do with communism?

Deng: We went through the “cultural revolution”. During the “cultural revolution” there was a view that poor communism was preferable to rich capitalism. After I resumed office in the central leadership in 1974 and 1975, I criticized that view. Because I did so, I was brought down again. Of course, there were other reasons too. I said to them that there was no such thing as poor communism. According to Marxism, communist society is based on material abundance. Only when there is material abundance can the principle of a communist society—that is, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”—be applied. Socialism is the first stage of communism. Of course, it covers a very long historical period. The main task in the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces, keep increasing the material wealth of society, steadily improve the life of the people and create material conditions for the advent of a communist society.

There can be no communism with pauperism, or socialism with pauperism. So to get rich is no sin. However, what we mean by getting rich is different from what you mean. Wealth in a socialist society belongs to the people. To get rich in a socialist society means prosperity for the entire people. The principles of socialism are: first, development of production and second, common prosperity. We permit some people and some regions to become prosperous first, for the purpose of achieving common prosperity faster. That is why our policy will not lead to polarization, to a situation where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. To be frank, we shall not permit the emergence of a new bourgeoisie.

Note that the phrase I highlighted, "to get rich is no sin" (致富不是罪过), is also very controversial when taken out of context like "to get rich is glorious".

Emphasis on "liberal" in when I say "decent Chinese liberal analysis", because the author is still using a binary leftist/conservatism against "reformist"/liberal mindset throughout the paper. This same mindset is shared by ultra-lefts, or left-deviationists, so really these are two extremes in ideology.

In China, reformers include both those who seek to get rid of the Chinese Communist Party and make the country a liberal democracy, as well as those who believe in the necessity of economic marketization, opening up to the outside world, and allowing some limited political reform that falls short of challenging the party’s supremacy. Conservatives oppose a market economy and political liberalization, usually in the name of safeguarding socialist orthodoxy, i.e., an economic system based on public ownership of property or economic assets, class struggle, and the party’s absolute control. In this paper, China’s conservatives are also interchangeably referred to as “leftists,” whereas the reformers are usually regarded as being on the right side of China’s ideological spectrum.

This binary categorization is why the author concludes that leftists won over reformists and China is now going down the path of "Maoist conservatism". The author is unable to deal with dialectics as he views the following as policy contradictions:

First, if Xi was empowered by an elite consensus, what explains the policy contradictions during his early years in power? The party called for deepening marketization while further empowering the state-owned enterprises. It also advocated the rule of law while at the same time emphasizing the party’s unrestrained leadership and tightening up political control. In short, conservative and reformist policies coexisted in a confusing way. Such confusion raises the question of whether there was a unified collective patron who entrusted power to Xi.

My view is that Deng's reforms and thus Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is socialist reform at its core, and ideological struggles within the party are not class struggles (socialism vs capitalism), they are instead debates on how to develop socialism. Mao vs Deng is a false antagonism, Mao was never ultra-left, as much as ultras and liberals wished he was. The "complication" with China's politics as viewed by outsiders arises because they tend to associate certain tools with certain ideologies, like linking markets to capitalism, linking government planning and regulation with socialism. All confusion surrounding China's politics comes from a lack of dialectical thinking.

I wouldn't call this "western academia", because the author's name is "Lin Le", an unambiguous Chinese name that suggests a mainland China education background. The fact that the author provides hundreds of references to Chinese articles, and is aware of nuanced political language is also evidence of this.

Thus I would say that this is a decent Chinese liberal analysis of Chinese politics, that goes beyond simple factionalism-based analysis.

Laogai (劳改、劳动改造) is reform through labor for criminals. Laojiao (劳教、劳动教养) is reeducation through labor and is an administrative punishment separate from the judicial system, this was abolished in 2013.

China published a white paper titled "Criminal Reform in China" in 1992 that mentions reform-through-labour: http://lt.china-office.gov.cn/eng/zt/zfbps/200405/t20040530_2910767.htm

I think the specific term laogai isn't used officially nowadays, but criminals are still expected to work. From the Criminal Law:

Article 46 An offender sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment or life imprisonment shall serve his sentence in prison or another execution premise; anyone who is able to work shall engage in work for the purpose of education and rehabilitation.

I'm only talking about a hypothetical situation based on my own opinion, there is no point discussing it any further. Just look at Korea, China maintains relations with both North and South even though both sides want to reunify with the other side.

China didn't send troops to Myanmar, so the only place it would send troops to is Taiwan province in the case of forceful reunification.

China sent troops to help North Korea during the Korean War, and sent military aid to North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. It also helped mediate a ceasefire between various forces in Myanmar just this January.

So yes, if Palestine was at China's borders, things would be much different, but in that situation there would probably be another "Palestine" under imperialist-zionist invasion that is out of China's reach.

I think the real reason is because Palestine is too far away from China, unlike Korea, Vietnam and CambodiaMyanmar who are neighbours. But then again, China still has diplomatic relations with both North and South Korea, and couldn't do much about their separated status even after helping Korea during the Korean War in the 1950s.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not "internal affairs", these are recent remarks made:

Keynote Speech by Xi Jinping at Opening Ceremony of the 10th Ministerial Conference Of the China-Arab States Cooperation Forum, May 30, 2024 https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202405/t20240530_11314383.html

Since last October, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has escalated drastically, throwing the people into tremendous sufferings. War should not continue indefinitely. Justice should not be absent forever. Commitment to the two-State solution should not be wavered at will. China firmly supports the establishment of an independent State of Palestine that enjoys full sovereignty based on the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital. It supports Palestine’s full membership in the U.N., and supports a more broad-based, authoritative and effective international peace conference.

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin’s Regular Press Conference on May 22, 2024 https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/202405/t20240522_11309866.html

China always firmly supports the just cause of the Palestinian people in restoring their legitimate national rights, supports the two-State solution and is one of the first countries to recognize the State of Palestine. China’s stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is consistent. We believe the immediate priority is to implement UNSC Resolution 2728, realize ceasefire at once, end the unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Gaza and return to the right track of seeking a political settlement of the Palestinian question on the basis of the two-State solution as soon as possible. China will continue to work with the international community to play a constructive role for ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as early as possible and promoting a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Palestinian question.

(No English version yet) China-Arab states joint statement on the Palestinian issue https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/wjbzhd/202405/t20240531_11366712.shtml

Why hasn't China cut ties with the US or Japan, why did China build diplomatic relations with them in the first place back in 1972? Why does China not have diplomatic relations with countries that "recognize" Taiwan province as an "independent country", but still maintain ties with a genocidal Israel? Why hasn't Russia cut ties with the US?

What does it mean to cut ties, for all official communication between two governments to stop? For all trade between two countries to stop? Cutting ties will not stop Israel from continuing its war crimes. I think China wants to be more of a mediator between Israel and Palestine as it supports a two-state solution, so cutting ties with any side will work against that.

According to this Wikipedia page:

As of 28 May 2024, 145 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states officially recognize the State of Palestine (Israel is recognized by 165).

Press Statement of Vice Department Director of C.C., WPK Kim Yo Jong http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2024/202405/news29/20240529-13ee.html

Pyongyang, May 29 (KCNA) -- Kim Yo Jong, vice department director of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea, issued the following press statement under the title "The ROK is not entitled to criticize the freedom of expression of the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" on Wednesday:

As already warned by the DPRK vice minister of National Defence, a large amount of waste paper and rubbish are being scattered in the border and deep areas of the ROK from the night of May 28.

According to the ROK media, waste paper and rubbish were found not only in the border area with the DPRK but also in Seoul and other parts of the ROK.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff of the ROK puppet army said that the DPRK is scattering a large number of balloons over the ROK from last night. It urged the DPRK to stop such an act at once, claiming that it is a clear violation of international law, an act of seriously threatening the security of ROK people and an unethical and lowbrow act.

We have tried something they have always been doing, but I cannot understand why they are making a fuss as if they were hit by shower of bullets.

After all, they hoisted a white flag just one day after they themselves have been exposed to the despicable article-scattering which the DPRK has called into question and demanded a stop for years.

I doubt whether those in the ROK could only see the balloons flying southwards without catching sight of the balloons flying northwards.

Scum-like clans of the ROK are now blatantly claiming that their leaflet-scattering towards the DPRK is "freedom of expression" and that the corresponding act of the DPRK is an "obvious violation of international law".

Are the "freedom of expression" and "international law" defined according to the direction in which balloons fly?

It is the height of impudence.

It is an opportunity to reconfirm how clumsy and brazen the ROK clans are.

The ROK clans must be subject to due pains as they tried to scatter leaflets, the political agitation rubbish slandering the idea and system of the DPRK regarded by all its people as sacred, and inject their mixed ideas raised at cesspools to the DPRK, and made a serious mockery of our people by scattering the cheap money and trifles which even mongrel dogs wouldn't like.

If they experience how unpleasant the feeling of picking up filth is and how tired it is, they will know that it is not easy to dare talk about freedom of expression as to the scattering near border area.

Today, I will get the following stand into shape:

"As the leaflet-scattering to the ROK belongs to our people's freedom of expression and provides the people in the ROK with the right to know, there is a limit for the government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to immediately stop it. I courteously seek the ROK government's consent. …"

The ROK clans cannot deprive the DPRK people of their righteous "freedom of expression".

They should continue to pick up rubbish scattered by our people, regarding them really as "sincere presents" to the goblins of liberal democracy who are crying for the "guarantee for freedom of expression".

We make it clear that we will respond to the ROK clans on case-to-case basis by scattering rubbish dozens of times more than those being scattered to us, in the future.

Full report as Word document from http://english.scio.gov.cn/scionews/2024-05/29/content_117221007.htm : http://download.china.cn/en/doc/202405299.doc

PDF/Word from https://en.humanrights.cn/2024/05/29/7074a761eec248189a88da55e721e8b4.html:

• https://en.humanrights.cn/r/hren/files/cms/attach/2024/05/The-Report-On-Human-Rights-Violations-In-The-United-States-In-2023.pdf
• https://en.humanrights.cn/r/hren/files/cms/attach/2024/05/29e88e52-d0db-49e7-b5a1-bb28a6e55847.doc

Full report as Word document from http://english.scio.gov.cn/scionews/2024-05/29/content_117221007.htm : http://download.china.cn/en/doc/202405299.doc

PDF/Word from https://en.humanrights.cn/2024/05/29/7074a761eec248189a88da55e721e8b4.html:

• https://en.humanrights.cn/r/hren/files/cms/attach/2024/05/The-Report-On-Human-Rights-Violations-In-The-United-States-In-2023.pdf
• https://en.humanrights.cn/r/hren/files/cms/attach/2024/05/29e88e52-d0db-49e7-b5a1-bb28a6e55847.doc

Additional context (there were questions over at news@hexbear.net : His superior Lai Xiaomin:

• investigated in April 2018
• arrested in Nov 2018
• prosecuted in Feb 2019
• first court trial in Oct 2020
• sentenced to death on Jan 5, 2021
• appeal rejected, verdict maintained on Jan 21, 2021
• executed on Jan 29, 2021
• corruption activities were between 2008 and 2018

As for Bai Tianhui:

• arrested in Jan 2019
• first court trial, sentenced to death, on May 28, 2024
• corruption activities were between 2014 and 2018

The jig was up when Lai was investigated in 2018, Bai was already doomed from that point on.

Additional context to answer some of the questions here: His superior Lai Xiaomin:

• investigated in April 2018
• arrested in Nov 2018
• prosecuted in Feb 2019
• first court trial in Oct 2020
• sentenced to death on Jan 5, 2021
• appeal rejected, verdict maintained on Jan 21, 2021
• executed on Jan 29, 2021
• corruption activities were between 2008 and 2018

As for Bai Tianhui:

• arrested in Jan 2019
• first court trial, sentenced to death, on May 28, 2024
• corruption activities were between 2014 and 2018

So the jig was up when Lai was investigated in 2018, Bai was already doomed from that point on.

If there's a reprieve it would be explicitly stated, none in this case.

I'm not sure if you're serious about the internet dying, it is basic infrastructure that improves efficiency for everyone from governments and corporations to individuals, it is not limited to being a source of information and entertainment, or a platform to express your opinion.

Calling it an infrastructure might not be accurate, the internet at its core is a global network of interconnected machines, the widespread connectivity is what makes it the internet, such a concept will still exist even if hardware advances.

Regarding purging online stuff, some people might find sentimental value in reviewing what they used to watch/listen to many years later. If you have issues with storage space, just store a text list of music you've heard, links to videos/articles you've watched/read, names of movies/shows/books/games you've watched/read/played, and add a date for additional context for future you. As for images, do not delete any of your personal photos but also keep them safe, memes can be deleted because popular ones are readily available and the rest don't matter. Non-personal photos mostly don't matter unless you have some use for them.

Digital "hoarding", for lack of a better term, is not a new problem, but is much easier to achieve than physical hoarding due to cheaper storage in terms of physical space. People used to and still do collect physical tapes/disks/newspapers/posters/books.

Like I said, if you don't want to have kids, that's fine, some great communists like Zhou Enlai and his wife Deng Yingchao don't have kids either. You can use any reason to justify it, no one is forcing you to have kids. However, the consequence of not having kids is very clear, there will be less potential comrades on your side.

Also, if you cannot bring up your own kids to be socialists, how confident are you in radicalizing strangers?

Raising a kid is an "18 year commitment" only if you view children as a product in a capitalist society that takes 18 years to produce. Children are a lifetime commitment, as is any serious relationship whether bonded by blood or not.

So what happens if your kid turns 18 and becomes reactionary one way or another, is this person then different from the strangers who you want to radicalize? Where do these strangers who you want to radicalize come from in the first place, were they not children once? Do you then prioritize radicalizing strangers who do not have kids over those who do?

Even if the traditional (bourgeois) family relation were to be abolished (as touched upon in the Communist Manifesto), the relationship between people will still be there just by their existence in society. As Marx also mentioned in "Theses On Feuerbach" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/): "But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations."

I also want to mention that other than the traditional idea of reproduction, there may be more options in future that have ethical issues like surrogacy and artificial wombs. These potential options do not change the physical blood relations between mother and child, but if they were to become mainstream along with accompanying societal measures for childcare, they would fundamentally dismantle the traditional family unit too.

All this is a long-winded way of saying, how children will be raised in future might be different from today, but it doesn't change the fact that you need children for society to continue functioning. Children are the future, not just philosophically but also materially because the old will pass and the young will carry on the flame.

Throughout my comments I have not mentioned the emotional value of having children, because I think it's easier to explain the practical value of children to society to someone who doesn't understand the basic idea of why reproduction is necessary to humanity.

Final point that I haven't mention, is that revolution involves bloodshed, and fighting counterrevolutions too.