news
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
view the rest of the comments
The general public in China does not care about these theoretical disputes about "left-deviation". From their perspective, these blunders and tragedies were, in fact, from being "too socialist" which is why they moved away and to the right
Your narration was not "they say this" but "this is so". Of course revisionists would use Mao's failures to attack socialism in general, but that doesn't mean we should uncritically repeat that framing.
No it literally was "they say this". Reread the comment, I'm describing why China is the way it is (revisionist, right-leaning, averse to risks, averse to internationalism). It's due to their history of doing the opposite and getting punished for it.
As-written, no it isn't. If that's what you meant, sure, I believe you, but as-written your phrasing states directly that they were "too gung-ho in their socialism" and the rest of the comment doesn't reframe that statement to be "in their minds," but is posed as a fact that has provoked them to react a certain way.
You are the worst poster on this website. The context of the comment was me criticizing China for being revisionist and non-interventionist! Why would you think then that I agree that they are "too socialist"? Are you really this inept at understanding and parsing information? You just have debate-brain and want to do gotchas with out of context clipping of my comments
That is true.
Were too socialist. You do clearly say that their modern position is an over-correction. You nonetheless did say they were "too socialist." As-written, you were ceding to their framing of the issue even if you still criticized their response to it.
Idk, maybe you just didn't express that part of your comment the way you intended. What motivation would I possibly have to be actively deceptive apropos of nothing? That doesn't make any sense, I don't have anything against you, despite the name-calling and such that you continue to direct at me.