You just gave away you have no idea what communism is.

I found this to be a decent enough primer: https://medium.com/@bobbyarlan/a-case-study-in-racist-anti-chinese-sentiment-fuelled-by-american-bots-and-western-propaganda-f0a69978d568

A decent TLDR: The article argues that anti-Chinese propaganda spread by the U.S. and Western media is fueling racist sentiment. Claims of mass detention of Uyghurs are based on flawed studies and sources like Adrian Zenz, a far-right Christian fundamentalist. Atrocity propaganda is a common tactic used by the U.S. to justify wars. The U.S. is threatened by China's economic rise and technological progress, so it is trying to portray China negatively and prepare public opinion for a potential conflict. However, most of the world sees China positively and as an economic opportunity, making a new Cold War against China unlikely to succeed

In short, a lot of information about China that has come out of Western news media has been proven to be based on known biased sources, known anit-China rhetoric, and/or outright lies. It's difficult to prove/disprove of any information specifically, that takes time and reporting, but a lot of people see the anti-China pattern in BBC reporting, and tend to dismiss it because of known history.

This is so key to propaganda. When researchers do a study on 58 people, you can barely claim you have a good representation of the population. And even in that case, if they are good, high quality researchers, they aren't pushing any opinion, just stating facts. It's just that 58 people can't represent the population well, It's just a starting point.

Now if we're talking about an opinion and not just stated facts, 58 people is hardly representative, easy to manipulate, especially when you don't have to cite specifics, just conclusion.

Okay, let's assume these are facts. 58 people were threatened, etc. This is still propaganda. Opinion, and interpretation can push the conversation in one direction or the other very heavily.

For example, let's draw a comparison to a system that people find more familiar (For westerners, at least), such as the united states police system or the FBI. How many US citizens are threatened to stop talking when pushing the limits of conversation publicly (Say, about calling out the inhumane treatment of others by the US military)? How many people have talked publicly about being approached by the FBI, or said they can't comment on their interactions with the FBI, or of some private corporation that paid them off to keep their mouths shut about some insider deal, money laundering, or underage sex scandal? Governments and even private citizens coming after people who are talking shit publicly happens in capitalist states all the time.

And that's just taking into account regular people who live in western countries. How about an even more direct comparison? The Uyghurs are Muslims that participated in terrorism in China, but the United States had Muslim terrorists of their own, what did they do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_post-invasion_Iraq You can find all kinds of resources about the human rights violations that the united states participated in against the muslin people, even in western sources such as wikipidia, and others https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/03/iraq-20-years-since-the-us-led-coalition-invaded-iraq-impunity-reigns-supreme/ have lots and lots of facts surrounding this.

"rules for thee, but not for me" comes to mind.

Sorry didn't mean to unload on you. I'm vehemently agreeing!

Wow, talk about conspiracy theories...

"Every person who doesn't participate in Sinophobi is paid off by the Chinese government"

Like, really? You actually believe that? Was 911 an inside job? How hot DOES jet fuel get??? Is Q-anon real? Is the earth flat?

If you've ever debunked a conspiracy theory, you should reconsider the idea that maybe, just maybe, not everyone hates China. It's probably more likely than you think..

Edit: And then they edited their comment to be more defensive instead. Perfect.

And I'm sure you're an independent reporter from a neutral country that doesn't benefit culturally from propaganda making communism look like fascism...

Eh, it's kinda both. Yes, it's nice to stay on one topic like how we can make communism the best it can be and learn lessons of the past. But when people look at some of those decisions/theories and say "that sounds terrible, I'd rather keep what I have" then you really gotta cross-compare. America is only as well off as it is because of slavery, corruption, death and destruction. It's just not death and destruction of their own people and land, so most American citizens don't "see" that. Or if they do, it's a "well, that sucks, we should do better" kind of thing, but lack real recognition that the system benefits them so much. As well, the capitalist autocracies have been way more deadly and authoritarian and corrupt than anything communist, and it's important for people to learn about the differences.

A: "Communism is authoritarian" B: "Wehll, sometimes, but capitalism is too, and it is MUCH worse" A: "Don't commit whataboutism" B: "Uhhhh, but we have to compare systems to know which is better and which is worse..."

Just IMHO.

You can’t just imagine some utopia where nobody has to work, and everything is free, and call that communism.

Those are the anarchists (usually, definitions get fuzzy)

Most communists recognize the need for a transition state, we call that Socialism.

This isn't a utopia we're pitching, it's hard work, and there will always be controversy, and people will have to work, we will just work less, and we will strive toward working even less over time.

And that power will sooner or later be abused

There's LOTS of evidence that, right now, under capitalism, that abuse is veeeeery bad. We can learn the lessons of previous socialist attempts, but capitalism? That's shown to be corrupt and beyond repair.

As well, right now, under capitalism, your politicians are bought and paid for by capitalists. Power is already being abused beyond control. Under a socialist system, it would be illegal to donate to politicians. Political campaigns would run within a short, standardized window of time, with equal funding, and commercials would be illegal, it would just be a platform of ideas and opinions. The people would vote for the person who best represents them, normal people.

This exist in Cuba, right now. It's SO much harder to take power from a system that actually represents regular citizens, instead of a system that is bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

Capitalist citizens tend to do better because their private organizations & government are willing to oppress the people in other parts of the world in order to extract their wealth. Communists respect the lives of poor people and refuse to take advantage of that, or oppress them further.

If a capitalist nation is completely cut off from the rest of the world they become fascist very quickly (Germany, middle east, etc. etc.), when a communist nation is cut off from the rest of the world they become poor (Cuba, USSR, East Germany, etc. etc.).

I don't think the argument of "I'm rich therefore I'm better than you" is really a strong one.

When all else is equal, life is better under communism for the vast majority of people, just not the wealthy people of capitalist nations. But even for the capitalist "middle class", when it comes to the essentials (Food, water, housing, healthcare, equality among women, minorities, etc.), communists still beat capitalists.

Not sure how you are defining them, but they are, and aren't, the same. Socialism is a transitionary government to communism. It isnt the 'exact' same thing, but when a communist party is in charge, they create socialism, with goals to move towards communism.

Socialism is also a lot of things, but all those things are considered communist.

Democratic socialism is what Cuba has for example. Socialism run by a democracy.

Socialist democracy is what Sweden has, currently. It's still capitalist, so is not communist at all, but regulates capitalism better than America and most of Europe does. They are slowly loosing the fight to Nazis though. Like literal Nazis, they call themselves nazis, That's not a joke.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Why do people drink Coke products? Well once upon a time they were filled with cocaine! But now they're only filled with tons of sugar and caffeine, those are only the two most addictive legal substances besides tobacco and alcohol, which are simply more regulated than sugar and caffeine.

I'm not saying that people should not try to self-regulate drinking Coke. But I am saying that you will never, ever fix this problem by convincing individuals to drink less Coke. Especially since it's not just about Cola, it's about literally everything you do.

If you live in the suburbs, you absolutely have to use a car to get around. If you aren't rich you cannot afford and ev, and if you want a cheap ev you won't get much range or convenience (thought that is changing painfully slowly).

And you can't live downtown if you have kids, or if you can't afford the high rents or condo prices.... so if you don't have a lot of money, you then have to live in the poor run-down suburban neighborhood, which is a food desert. Now your only choices for food are Dollar general, Wallmart, or corner stores that have bars on the window because they are broken into so often.

Those people do not have a choice, they have to live in the world that they live in. In fact, we all do. Even having a choice to buy high quality products is a luxury.

But... Being more green requires buying and using less things, which is bad for the economy. Unfortunately we cannot just switch to green energy, we have to drive less, consume less, etc.

And who do you think is going to push back on that? How about the people who sell us stuff...

And how much money do you have to donate to politicians? Because it's probably not billions of dollars... but they have it, and they will use it.

I am not saying we should not try, but I am saying that we shouldn't ask, we should demand, that things change. But when politicians won't listen to you because of the fat stacks of cash stuffed in their ears... We will inevitably be closer to step 3, and if that happens, we'd better be organized and ready to build something better.

Sorry for the wall, I see a lot of misconceptions about this stuff...

I'm not convinced this is true for most people.

YOU may be conscious enough to understand not to buy a large vehicle because of emissions, bust MOST people do fall for marketing after a long enough period of time of being exposed. Think about ALL the F-150's you see (In my area they are everywhere) that have NOTHING in the back. NOTHING. Not towing ANYTHING. I have an EV hatchback & a wagon with a mid-sized trailer. I've done WAY more backyard projects than the vast majority of the people in suburbia. We've used excavators, built multiple 30 ft retaining walls, a 12x12 shed, and we plan on doing more. I will never need a truck because I can tow 2000 lbs in my wagon, which is more than 99.9% of people need.

Most "normal" people that I talk to, and that's all we have if we're not looking for people who are on the internet a lot, most of them think their truck is really convenient. They get a full sized cab that holds their whole family, they get that truck bed that they throw a toolbox and once in a while, and the truck can tow 10,000 lbs even though they literally don't even own a trailer hitch and don't know how it works.

Trucks are just the replacement SUVs, oversized cars that marketing has determined is the "american car". You can do anything in a truck! Or you can do the vast majority of things in a Toyota Corolla too, but those aren't "cool".

Marketing works dam well, Apple owns the high and computer market even though we know that they screw over customers by making their products impossible to repair (literally, there's software preventing it). Ford sells the most vehicles and america through the F-150, which I already established is something most people don't need but buy anyway. The vast majority of people do not even need a single family home. How many backyards go completely un-maintained? How many older couples live in a 4 bedroom house because... That's just what they are used too... We could have more middle housing for people who want space, but not a backyard, but they don't exist. You literally can't vote with your wallet to buy the housing you want if you don't want a single family home (Or a crazy expensive condo downtown, or to rent the rest of your life...)

And lastly, when your driving on the road in a little ev hatchback like me, you become painfully aware about how gigantic all of the trucks and suvs are around you. You realize that at any moment if somebody takes a wrong turn you are probably dead. Most people become very uncomfortable with that, and they get a bigger car, as big as they can afford, to prevent that feeling.

And we've just talked about cars and living situations, how do you vote with your wallet when every single product is made by child labor in a country being exploited by america? Can you trust when a company tells you that it doesn't do that? How much greenwashing exists?

No, car companies marketed big cars that are less efficient. They did this because using more gas is good for the "economy". It is good for business to spend a lot of money on big cars that take a lot of gas. There has absolutely been times in our history where our energy regulations were higher and our cars were more efficient and everyone was happy with it.

Think about it, why do marketing departments even exist if people are going to theoretically buy and demand what they want anyway? I'm too young to remember when commercials basically just explained what a product was and what it does. Nowadays, commercials are trying to get you to feel something, not explain something. Advertisement online are trying to be splashy and catch your attention, not be useful and tell you what you're going to get.

Any marketing department should be able to explain that they try to get people to by their products for reasons other than customer demand.