Chinese Communist Party evitcs tens of thousands of “low-end population” from Beijing

Video of the """People's""" Police Force evicting poor residents from their shabby homes to demolish them.

Revolutionary defeatism doesn't mean support x bourgeois against y bourgeois.

...

Man, this pic is social commentary on """The People's Republic""" Of China in and of itself.

Why does communism always defeat itself? It never falls because of a war, it just dissolves over time under the weight of it's own incompetence.

This. Mao should have purged way more people.

What's the alternative? A vanguard party's needed to keep Porky away. You think an anarchist state's gonna hold off a capitalist military and propaganda onslaught on a post-revolution country?

KEK.

This report doesn't change my approval of China at all.

Yes, they live under capitalism, and yes, the migrant workers get the short end of the stick.

All of the above was also true in Mao's time, only that the urban population was even more privileged than peasants than they are now.

Like the Chinese Communist Party?

A vanguard party needs to become such porky, that porky never could.

Yeah, but preferably one that won't descend into revisionism right after the guy in charge dies.

Well, that's bound to happen when you centralize power like that whether you want it or not. The "vanguard party" meme is to communists what the "fascist transitional period" is to libertarians.

The Chinese Communist Party was filled with bourgs from the very start. That's the problem with "national liberation." The Cultural Revolution failed to drive the liberal elements from the party and thus the revolution as a whole failed.

Am I the only one that feels like China's way more materialistic and classist than anywhere in the west? Shit, at least in Europe and America being rich kid comes with a bit of a stigma, but in China rich kids legit wear that shit like a badge of honour.

The only alternative to ML isn't fucking anarchism, brainlet.

Made me miss mao/10

So, better?

I still feel like not having one's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's a miracle if the proletariat can even overthrow a capitalist government so why risk the bourgeoisie turning things back to the way they were just cuz some anarkiddies don't like the idea of being told what to do?

Classism ain't the same as class consciousness.

*Anarchism isn't the only alternative to Marxist-Leninism, brainlet.

You semi-illiterate bitch.

Chinese people, at least the ones I had to deal with, are so crass and the most unpleasant people I had to deal with.
Vapid, with no real interests, they brush off all concerns for politics as something that normal people shouldn't even care about, and they're always flaunting their tacky branded shit and always make sure to remind you that it is indeed branded and expensive.

Oh wow, English isnt my first langue, im so sorry daddy

What is it, then? If you realize that the classes exist, you will react to your own class and other people classes accordingly.

After all, unlike the races and ethnicities, classes are a very real thing.

You Chinese or is that flag icon just supposed to represent Maoism?

Fucking foreigners…

...

But at least they got national liberation right?

A
FUCKING
RUSSIAN

I'm third worldist because conventional socialism states that the third world can't do anything and we have to wait for complacent people in Sweden and France to do revolution and save us from our own underdevelopment.

He does realize that their national bourgeoisie are a large part of why the workers in that country are oppressed too, right?

Yes if they manage to seize a big enough territory. Ideology doesn't determine military strength.

Syndicalism is dead, Trotskyism is irrelevant, Leftcoms are pretentious MLs or pretententious Anarchists, Bookchinfags are anarchists who call themselves something else. If there is a revolution any time soon it will be Anarchist or ML.

I don't think anybody denies that China is mostly capitalist. The CPC doesn't deny it themselves, as far as I know. They keep talking about a "socialist system" in official statements but you can see that they specifically say "socialist system" instead of "socialism" because they very well know that their system is capitalist. I don't know how that makes them revisionist though. Revisionism would say "capitalism is actually socialism" or something but they don't. Rather they see capitalism as a means to an end. I don't agree with it though.

The claim that the CPC still incorporated bourgeoisie is a myth. Mao probably eradicated capitalists even more Stalin. He failed in eradicating the capitalist roaders though, somebody who wants to revert to capitalism is not the same as somebody who actively is a capitalist.

Mao was very libertarian in his approach. Considering the more authoritarian Marxist-Leninist governments who had less of a grassroots structure turned revisionist way slower than Mao's China, it's an argument against libertarian socialism if anything.

I feel like China's government's more nationalist than anything. It's like they've got an axe to grind with the west and they're tryna establish themselves and their civilization as #1 in the world.

Its not about how "libertarian" you are. Its about not making people be so sick of your government that it becomes super easy for revisionists to gain power. after 5+ years of pure chaos during the cultural revolution, Mao lost basically any respect he had amongst leading communist party members and much of the country. Maoism is never returning to China as it is now thanks to Mao himself. The only hope socialism has in China is if there is a second revolution.

The logical conclusion of ☭TANKIE☭sm (and yes, "revisionism" included). ☭TANKIE☭ "socialism": not even once.

What about a
REAL MOVEMENT TO ABOLISH THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS

The argument was that Marxist-Leninist political systems provide the structures which let revisionism flourish, Mao took a different approach but didn't change the outcome, it was easy for Deng to construct an authoritarian state after Mao's death. The Cultural Revolution has to be looked at from two sides, it was one of the most genuine communist movements on one hand, and ended up getting out of control on the other hand. I disagree with you assessment that Maoism is reviled in China, the Maoist Communist Party is growing and the Deng government saw more proletarian resistence against it than Mao.

You must be a special kind of retard if you think Mao was a ☭TANKIE☭. Christ.

TANKIE

==☭TANKIE☭===

I'm pretty sure you guys would have been the brattiest Red Guard student during the Cultural Revolution who would rat out their own parents or something, considering your "fuck you mom and dad" attitude your ideology evolves arround.

Third world is especially vulnerable to imperialism of the first-world imperialism. Butchering third-worlders only makes the news when its by a propaganda arm of one first-world imperialist against another. Only during global uncertainty as the military super powers find a new equilibrium as they fight another world war does socialism has a chance. Git gud at realpolitik.

>washingtonpost.com/

Yeah, I'm not fan of Chinese capitalism but that doesn't mean we should take everything at face value the imperialist media puts out against China. They often paint the Chinese as some sort of soulless sociopaths, which wasn't at all my impression when I visited the country. I have to admit I could never get along with their disgusting table manners though.

>It is a mass eviction sparked by a fire in a crammed and unsafe apartment building on Nov. 18 that killed 19 people
>It is a mass eviction sparked by a fire in a crammed and unsafe apartment building on Nov. 18 that killed 19 people
>It is a mass eviction sparked by a fire in a crammed and unsafe apartment building on Nov. 18 that killed 19 people
>It is a mass eviction sparked by a fire in a crammed and unsafe apartment building on Nov. 18 that killed 19 people
So what's your solution, anarkiddies and leftcoms? Let proles burn to death like Grenfel Tower? This is basic adherence to safety standards.

...

Do they give specific sources as to why they would think that? I mean, wasn't the last party congress about muh unequal development? I can very well imagine that whatever the Chinese plan for Bejing is, the Western media will use the word "gentrify".

Sounds good to me, what, do you like it when proles burn to death?

Oh really? Please show me the CCP plan that says "we must gentrify Beijing and kick out all the poor people." Because that would directly contradict Xi's new plan.

sorry i just wanted to pwn you

Even Chinese state media said it was a "simplistic and brutal" movement. The outrage in chinese social media is well documented.

What about it? It will look like Anarchism and ML because that is what currently exists.

I have a very good relationship with my parents. Stop being a butthurt that someone dares to criticze the Porkies Republic of China for making a shit load of workers homeless during the winter.

One that doesn't involve making tens of thousands of proles homeless during the winter with little notice.

what else was he then?

...

Mao had anarchist origins, was in favor of grassroot democracy and a libertarian flavor of socialism, he didn't even centralize anything, his planning was decentralized, he let village committees do there own thing completely, etc.

I mean fucking hell, most Maoists are ultraleftists who reject actually-existing socialism. Ever heard about the Mao-Spontex?

What makes you think they'll be stuck homeless? China doesn't have a housing shortage like your shitty country.

Socialism is when you clear those filthy migrant workers off your streets.

I'm sure the thought they'll get shelter someday will keep them warm in the winter.
My shitty country has 17 empty houses for every one homeless person. The issue isn't supply, it's the market, as these migrant workers who can't afford housing will soon find out.

...

You're retarded.

...

Maybe if I said something like "all you do is x" you would have a point, but I didn't.
I honestly don't understand the alternative to being a ML, everything else seems like a meme and there are never any theoretical discussions here so all I can do is slowly read.

What specfically don't you understand?
And I would wager you have a meme understanding of everything else, which judging by most posts on this board is true of most posters when it comes to other sects.
What else where you expecting on a chan?

Is this the "with Chinese characterstics" part of their praxis? Im not sure I understand how they can call themselves communist with a straight face

Well for one I can barely wrap my head around anarchist "just abolish the state". I still do not understand this one post by a syndicalist where apparently, the grand plan of revolution was to form a giant union and stop working. It is stuff like this that is so mind-bogglingly separated from any reality that it reminds me of those "too deadly" martial arts where they never spar and get absolutely smashed.
Yeah, I'm sorry I'm not the reincarnation of Lenin. I don't have an indepth understanding of ideologies which, for all intents and purposes, serve only to perplex me as opposed to the straightforward ideas of the ML books I'm reading. Do you have an indepth knowledge of all these ideologies? Care to enlighten me?
Nothing really, this place will always have a soft spot in my heart for radicalizing me. I could swear that this place used to be filled with so much theory. Would it be better or worse if that was just my perspective?
thanks for responding, this board can be strangely slow at times

What the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever actually read any anarchist theory? Anarchists don't just say "abolish the state and everything will suddenly be fine", that's why there's half a dozen tendencies for what to do after the state is abolished. Read breadbook to get an idea of what ancoms plan on doing.
Straightforward ways to get to failure maybe.

Why? No serious anarchist thinks the revolution is an overnight affair or peaceful, they are fully expecting a long drawn out conflict that will require much violence. Saying "Anarchists just want to abolish the state" is about as absurd as saying "MLs just want to seize the state".
The idea of the general strike is to seize control of the workplace, not just stop working. This of course requires some sort of force to pack it up, which revolutionary syndicalists have advocated for as opposed to just hoping the bourgeoisie will play nice. The issue with this tactic is that by and large unions are dead and ineffective, with the adoption of right to work laws in burgerland the chances of getting a minor union off the ground are almost non-existent and from what various comrades have said yuropoor unions aren't revolutionary either.
Somewhat, but reading for yourself is better. Pic related has some good introductions to Anarchism, namely to understand what we mean by state, as well and some tendency specific texts to understand each tendencies ideas or tactics. i could try to answer any specific questions you have.
Neither. Holla Forums's quality and population ebbs and flows. I remember when it was almost an even split between Anarchists and MLs and some days it would be interesting discussions on industrialization while on others it would be "lol anarkiddies" or "fuggen ☭TANKIE☭s" between Holla Forums spam.

I always thought an-whatevers werent the same as plain anarchists, except for an-nils who are just edgy.
Have you actually read my post, I clearly stated that the theory doesn't interest me, and thus I haven't devoted time into reading it as opposed to the theory that interests me more??? My only conception of the breadbook is Anons half-assedly referencing it.
Sure, I'll do that, once someone convinces me it is worth my time instead of making half assed quips about ML states. Maybe one day I will have read enough where I investigate every ideology for the truth, but today is not that day.
Speaking of half assed quips
Feel free to argue, anytime.

I understand Anarchists don't want to just "abolish the state", but the entire "nonhierarchial" stich is shit, and the idea that the state will be destroyed in any context and rebuilt/reformed/a new totally not a state will be put in its place is just laughable. At this point I'm just airing general grievances I suppose, especially with the non hierarchical part. It all seems idealist man.
Please quit taking me so literally.
I'm on board with reading, but I am, again, more interested in Marxist theories and have not been in any way swayed to read anarchist texts. I have a perfectly sound world view right now, and until someone brings up an inconsistency, critique, etc… or I become so knowledgeable that I glean other ideologies for usable parts, I will continue to read ML theory.

There's very few plain anarchists, most have a specific tendency like ancom, anysyn, individualist etc.
Name a single accomplishment of a ML state that isn't just social democracy. Their failure as an ideology is apparent in that all of them failed as states from within, whereas the two major anarchist experiments were destroyed by Leninist counterrevolutions.
Both times non-statist institutions were created and functioned just fine without devolving into authoritarianism.
Hierarchy is either autocratic, and therefor unsocialist, or it is democratic, which works under the belief that the electors are less capable than those they elect to rule over them.
How can a Communist possibly use this as an accusation?

it is

They'll be stuck out for a couple weeks at most.

Yes, that's the cause of housing shortages. It's still a shortage even if it's caused by the market. China doesn't have a housing shortage.

If you dish out hot takes, you shouldn't have such a horrifyingly bad understanding of history.
One was a fucking land pirate the other one got destroyed by fascists. Utterly pathetic. Not my problem that your revolution can't defend itself. Where did Marxist-Leninists ever signed up for being your mom everytime your incompetent shit fails?
Sounds obnoxious. Liberal fetishization of democratic decision-making with no argument whatsoever. Go and take your disgusting socialized capitalism with ballot votes on who cleans the pipes with you. I'm always surprised on how awful anarchism actually is all the time.

You understand that the abolition of hierarchy is intrinsic to Communism right?
Which is why it isn't any context, but rather specific context(s). The idea isn't to just smash the state and hope shit works out, it's the abolish the state and capitalism and replace it with communism for most. I believe that you yourself complained about anons mistaking ML with MLM, but from your comments it would appear that your understanding of Anarchism is secondhand at best.
Please stop being confused over ancient praxis then.

Have you ever been without shelter in the middle of winter for a few weeks?

Liberal fetishization of democratic decision-making with no argument whatsoever.
He was attacking democracy you illiterate fag.

The working class seizing the MoP is capitalism. Wtf I’m totally a ☭TANKIE☭ now

This right there is fetishization of democracy. I can only assume that he considers democratic decision-making in capitalist firm to be less socialist to an actual socialist economy with a lack of the latter but in favor of an economic plan.

Socialism isn't voting in a firm dude. It's the collective (!) common ownership of means of production, where surplus is allocated collectively in accordance of utility as opposed to individual producers.

So then then how’s does the communist society, as per Marx’s defintion organize itself, being stateless?
Like it or not but there are aspects of anarchism you should absolutely understand and advocate for if you give 2 shits about actual Marxist theory.

"it is democratic, which works under the belief that the electors are less capable than those they elect to rule over them" is not fetishization of democracy by any reasonable standard. No one is saying muh coops are socialism or that democracy is inherently socialist.

Once it's global. Socialist states may eliminate classes but the state retains its class character due to capitalist siege.

If you are referring to something like Richard Wolff and democratic workplaces those are meant to be transitionary, you know, just like how centralist states such as that of the USSR.
But if we are speaking of revolutionary Catalonia, you need to do some reading. They essentially “nationalized” numerous industries, the difference being that unions had much more power than the Soviets. They weren’t simple coops, these were revolutionary unions with government backing in the form of anarchist government infilitration. Quit being reductionist and spewing memes

You didn’t even remotely answer my question. HOW does society organize itself, such as make decisions once the state has “withered away”, to uses Engels words

Sick counterargument. Truly the Soviet Union being a really efficient example of capitalism with a heavy dose of free stuff shows what a great example of socialism it is. Let's just forgot about the absence of worker control of the means of production or the fact that the autocratic bureaucracy allowed it to be easily destroyed by wannabe capitalists.
Just because Trotsky lied through his teeth doesn't mean it's truth, if it was, it definitely says something bad about the Bolsheviks if they chose to ally with a bandit who the people eventually chose over them.
Yes, after a literal counterrevolution instigated by Stalinists to reimpose the bourgeois state. It's impossible to know if it made a difference in the end, but it certainly didn't help.
No, but it is your fault when you literally fight against it.
Is your reading comprehension bad in general, or just right now?

Are you a fucking technocrat? You say in accordance with utility instead of in accordance with worker decision, implying that the masses have no say in this process and the surplus will be allocated to whatever the government sees as most useful. You don't even attempt to justify yourself by appeals to democratic centralism; you blatantly reject democracy in any form

Freedom of speech is bourgeois

Apparently so is helping the poor maltreated by the government.

Being poor is bourgeois

Ideology does however determine organization ability. Don't want to use the state you captured? Congratulations, your military will be inherently dysfunctional, and you'll fall like all the other anarchist states.

I'm aware that anarchist Catalonia was a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Funny how you imply I wouldn't now how to organize a society while I could point to some of the longer-lasting Marxist-Leninist states of my liking, such as the DPRK for example, whereas you are the one who has to explain on how to overcome all the structural difficulties of a fictional anarchist society, such as the problem of unequal development.

Where were workers not in control in the USSR?
Ah yes, the red.fascist neofeudal nationalist orcs. Have I forgotten anything? A bureaucracy is not a class. Bureaucrats didn't earn more than otjer workers (yes, bureaucrats are workers too), they had no special relationship to the means of production, they could be recalled. You are already starting to use heavy buzzwords, yet the union functionaries in anarchist Catalonia would be bureaucrats as well.
He was backed by the local petit bourgeoisie as well, not just the working class. What is the point in trying to create a small scale agrarian commune until you are out of grain in the middle of a fucking civil war? Now seriously, what's the point? Do you think socialism can be materialized within such material conditions?
Again, it's not our obligation to help with your retarded splitting in the middle of a war. The Spanish Republic wasn't a Stalinist state, it was a left-leaning bourgeois liberal democracy, so don't blame this on the USSR, not giving you your gibsmedat is not the same as actively killing you. Should have Mao split from the Kuomintang during the Japanese invasion?
Your statement doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter what sort of "workers decision" is made under capitalism, the law of value subjugates their decision-making, in socialism economic decisions are made against the law of value therefore allocation according to use-value. That's not opposed to communal decision-making in the enterprise by the workers. Answer me this, how would you define worker control? What, in your opinion, should be voted upon?
Economic planning in Marxist-Leninist states is reciprocal and participatory.
Not at all, but obviously the endgoal should be the abolition of democracy.

...

The state has the organizational ability to bundel resources into a powerful military and conduct built-up of heavy industry, let's assume you have an anarchist central union committee doing the same thing, this would effectively be a state just as well.

Migrant from where, inside China - bad commies, outside - good commies.

With barely any results.

Then seeing how frequently the various Marxist parties split, they're going to be crushed by imperialist powers while they're busy infighting among themselves.

It's implied you have no idea how the DotP will dissolve into communism or what communism will look like, which you continue to prove by invoking various DotPs and not how said DotPs would transition to Communism in the event of successful global revolution.

By acting as a firm coordinating labor. Do you think that in communism we would cease all industry or that communism requires full automation?
A state isn't any form of organization.

China hate thread?

The burden of proof is on you to prove they were. Considering the USSR dissolved without worker support, even today, that seems to say a lot about the mechanisms in place, along with Lenin suppressing the power of the soviets and never restoring it, imposing a single party state instead. Even if it was a true representative democracy, then it wouldn't have been a democracy at all.
You mean other than being the individuals who decided everything about it?
By who, the people who didn't elect them?
The CNT had its own anti-democratic problems.
What's this fucking nonsense? The Makhnovist movement imposed land reform and worker control everywhere they went.
The territory of the Black Army composed nearly a 3rd of Ukraine at its furthest extent, which included many cities and industrial proletariat. It wasn't some agrarian commune.
Worker control can be materialized anywhere there are workers capable of taking control, which is exactly what they did in Ukraine. Unfortunately for them they couldn't defeat the Red Army once the Red Army no longer needed them to fight the Whites.
There could hardly be considered splitting, you had genuine revolutionaries on one side which included the POUM and the rank and file members of the CNT, and opportunists and cowards on the other, which included the PSUC and part of the leadership of the CNT which allowed the counterrevolution to happen. This happened in the first place because the USSR was unwilling to give aid unless that aid was towards the good respectable bourgeois republic.
I didn't imply it was, I said the counterrevolution was started by Stalinists, as in people working for the interest of Stalin.
Using those gibsmedats as a coercive influence to cause a counterrevolution, is.
I'm not advocating for anything under Capitalism.
Firstly, who decides that? And secondly, no, under socialism economic decisions are made according to the workers will, which will logically be towards use-value, it won't be based upon the will of some theoretician.
Everything that Capitalists decide on now. What kind of work is done, in what way, at what time, towards what production to be sent to what place and which people.
The rule of the many should be abolished, but decisions must still be decided upon.

It has that ability under certain circumstances. The Reds would've been just as fucked as the Blacks if their territories were exchanged.
It's only effectively a state if it uses the authority and coercion of a state.

Why the fuck would the Communist Party care about Beijing?? They already have Hong Kong under their thumb, Beijing is a shithole for mainlanders slightly above the mountain retard average.

If there's a fire, let them leave. That means more to move out and take factory jobs the US creates.

There was a All-Union Council that had considerable influence in drafting the plan, cooperatives with elected managers and open discussions and the soviets consisted exclusively of workers. The Stalin constitution pretty much enshrined the role of the soviets, so I don't know what you mean by "never returned power to the soviets". The soviets were overruled that one time in the middle of a crisis and that's about it.

Makhno press-ganged people into joining his army or for forced labor, he had a veto in almost all the potential decisions that were made (Stalin never had that kind of power) and put his own fucking family in charge.
They didn't decide "everything about it", not even bourgeois historians propagate such bullshit. Even if they did, it's not an argument, as they don't extort surplus value. Bureaucrats could be recalled by workers councils making a complaint to the party, for example. This happened hundreds of times.
First off, let's get this weird assumption out of the way that the Black Army would even have survived if it wasn't for the Bolsheviks. They never had the mass movement or support of the people like the Bolsheviks, and would have been utterly destroyed by the Whites if it wasn't for the Red Army. Instead of repaying them, they conducted terror attacks and theft from the Bolsheviks. So please stop claiming that there was ever a mass movement equal to that of the Bolsheviks, it was a small group of people that randomly established some agrarian communes which mostly failed, and yes, they were pretty anti-urban as well. The land reform was directly benefitting the Kulaks as they could engage in primitive accumulation as the Black Army press-ganged people into forced labor. Stop idolizing some Ukrainian warlord who played Robin Hood in the early twenties in the Russian periphery.
You don't know what the word means. The fascists won the Spanish Civil War, that's it. There was no counterrevolution. Marxist-Leninists have no obligation to help something that runs contrary to the war effort - especially something so insignificant. Anarchists in Spain - as they were anywhere else - were mostly insignificant and lost every single battle they've fought. They didn't get backstabbed or anything, they simply didn't make it.

That's not true. They explicitly rejected conscription as being anti-anarchistic, not that'd it make any sense to since they had more volunteers than weapons.
He had zero official power. He was highly influential but he wasn't some ruler. He physically couldn't have that kind of power since soldiers elected their officers, and workers controlled their workplaces. He appointed some people in the General Soviet but only had that power because people respected him.
In charge of what, exactly? There were few formal institutions and they were representative in nature, not executive.
Are you implying that the nomenklatura and by extension the party didn't have full control over the MoP? If they didn't, who did?
Just because they didn't use it for personal gain doesn't mean the workers weren't exploited, which obviously they were since the surplus had to come from somewhere. I never implied the nomenklatura was some new bourgeoisie, I said they were non-democratic.
Recalled by the party, not the council. If the party and it's multitude of individuals with personal interests didn't care, then nothing would've happened.
That is possible.
That's just bullshit. They were an intensely popular movement.
Stop taking the word of icepick man for fact. The Blacks only ever attacked the Reds after they broke whatever alliance they had at the time, which were many
Obviously they weren't equal to the Bolsheviks, they existed in one part of the Ukraine.
An army of tens-of-thousands with a territory encompassing many cities isn't small or an agrarian commune; it wasn't even technically communistic since they functioned on a system closer to syndicalism.
Makhno was born and grew up in a fucking town; why the fuck would they be anti-urban?
The land reform specifically targeted kulaks and landlords. A peasant was only allowed enough land and livestock to personally use without hired labor.
Stop believing Trotsky's lies he made up on the spot to justify his blatant betrayal and aggression. If Makhno was some warlord is says badly about the Bolsheviks that they repeatedly allied with him, even adding the Black Army into the Red for a short period, and that he was the only thing that prevented the Whites from entering Moscow.
There was very clearly a counterrevolution in Catalonia before the war ended.
It wasn't contrary to the war effort, it was contrary to Stalin's foreign affairs strategy.
Yes, it was called Revolutionary Catalonia for laughs, right?
This is just blatant revisionism. The whole reason the coup didn't take all of Spain was because of the resistance of the trade unionists, CNT being the main one, with the general strike being called so that they could force the government to arm them. The militias were the only thing keeping the Nationalists away while the Popular Army was being mobilized.
Yes, I'm sure the attack on the telephone exchange was just a misunderstanding.
>

Stalin was also concerned with playing nice with the Western powers and not making it look like he was supporting class warfare.
You're being pedantic.
No, but pretending that if the Blacks had a state they would've succeeded is believing in magic.
Anarchists have always been very clear on this, particularly Malatesta. Ancaps take this position and bastardize it with the NAP, which is effectively non-coercion for the propertied.
What writings are those? Why would he need to conscript when he had more volunteers than guns? I don't doubt that conscription might've been used at certain points, but it was never a policy.

Chinese migrant workers come from the rural parts of the country, but you can still head right back to Holla Forums

"Communism is when you make the workers homeless and supress those who try to help the homeless" - t. Chinese Communist Party

SOCIALISM
WITH
C H I N E S E
C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S

A mass eviction is a mass eviction. The fact that those people were even there in the first place serves to demonstrate how porkyist Bejing has become. Slumlording is not socialism.

Also, as an addendum:

Much of this occurs due to public cities creating their own publicly-owned "private" contractors to build things. In such cases, the newly created entity gets direct access to three forms of capital: tax money, bank loan money, and investment money. As a result of this, they are usually extremely corrupt and don't do anything other than to serve the city's cosmopolitan elites.

For as shit as America is, at least such combinations between public and private entities are not the norm. Trump Tower had to be built with Donald Trump's line of credit, not New York's. There are many issues with this (slow infrastructure development, only rich people being able to afford new buildings), but it prevents incestuous relationships between city governments and developers. The only exceptions I can think of this is Walt Disney World aka the Reedy Creek Improvement District in Florida, and Paradise, Nevada. Both those examples also demonstrate my point: WDW and the Las Vegas Strip kick out anyone who cannot pay. Homeless people are dumped off in nearby sewers and left for dead when the seasonal floods come.

This happens all over the world, but China is by far the largest and most notorious offender.

(and neoliberals defend such a system because it's not pure capitalism, only corrupted public governments acting on behalf of bourgeoisie aka diet capitalism or as I call it, state plus capitalism)

China is also a good example of what happens when the organs traditional communism creates is mixed with capitalist standards&practices to create a god awful frankenstien combination of the two. It is a clear cut demonstration of how elites can coup an organization and use it to enrich themselves.

...

We must support Socialism with Chinese Characteristics against Western capitalism.

That wasn't my point. My point is that China's communists (like most of the world) are emulating the absolute worst aspect of America: dickrubbing between large companies and local municipal governments. My other point was that it is ironic that such a disgusting, putrid and nakedly capitalist thing is actually very rare in America (a country who has it's own brand of putrid capitalism).

"Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" = slightly left of center western capitalism

How many of the Youth are Maoists would you say? I really hope it isn't all old people who the last good thing that happened to them was being in the red guard having fun pissing on the graves of emperors, China needs a new breath of life for Maoism in order to be the headquarters for world revolution, like Xi is trying to do with the Naxalites and I presume the New People's Army in the Philippines, don't quote me on that, I don't have a source.

Where's that an com who was insisting that china is totally socialist because they were shutting down factories for environmental inspections?

Probably none. Maoism brought the great famine, Nixon brought money (at least to the top 30% of the population). When the current capitalist market crashes into the ground an entirely new branch of socialism will need to be formed, and Xi probably realizes this hence why he hasn't named a successor. I doubt they'll be the HQ for a new revolution unless they start exporting nuclear weapons (the only thing that prevented Truman from invading China in the 1950s and preventing Maoism from being a thing, ditto for the DPRK and Kim).

As the US does decline I feel as if Xi will start flexing his muscles and forming his own coalitions in the face of a decaying US and its puppet states like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, if he really wanted to, I think Xi would start arming Iran if the US invaded and got wiped the fuck out, because the US market logic is fundamentally broken.

Those nations won't break off from America, especially with how Trump is conducting his Commerce Dept. investigations of China. It's increasingly likely Trump will enact tariffs against China only, especially as it pertains to semiconductor-related industries (which Taiwan, Korea and Japan base their economies off of). Japan will only get burned when Trump renegotiates NAFTA to require 100% NA car parts (Mexico wants this in exchange for The Wall™) but that's a small price as they already have factories in America.

China's real power is in their brewing conflict with India. As much as people ignore that entire region, if/when they throw down over Kashmir China will have the upper hand as they have more allies in the region. If they can get some sort of concession out of India, they have a door to Afghanistan which US forces will have already withdrawn from to do other things (like unfucking Iraq). From there they can jump to Iran then Turkey before they hit Europe and start making deals there like Russia can. This is the real "silk road" that Xi aims to create. The US wouldn't care enough to be involved with these dealings until Israel cries about Iran getting bombs from China, but by that point it'd be too late to change things.

But how will a revolutionary Indian ally to China deal with the opportunist nationalist guerilla movements across the country? It sounds incredibly easy to put yourself in a quagmire if there were, say, a number of armed Fascist Sikhs ready to grind the peasants with their jackboots.

I don't mean China dominating India and making them Communist, I mean just getting a concession out of them on Kashmir. In Kashmir itself China can wall it all off then go full ☭TANKIE☭ on the remaining population. And by "tankie" I mean gas bombing villages like Saddam did, a thing which the west will be "very concerned" about but won't be willing to intervene in. A new trans-Tibetan railway from Tehran to Xigaze and Deyang would seal it as a major trade corridor. It'd also give the PRC the ability to quickly move war equipment and soldiers into those regions if they attempt to rebel against Beijing.

THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF TᎪNKIES

You now what kind of people did they killed in Tiananmen??
Mostly Maoists, and after the events they purged of the party any Maoist, or non-promarket member.
Of course there were also lots of intelectuals (some of the non communists) but most of the people there were just workers who thought (correctly) the reforms were a comeback to capitalism and oppression.
You can find this even in the fucking Wikipedia article.

I'm not a maoist but saying that Tianamen was an antimaoist protest is retarded, also Mao condemned the soviet intervention in other Warsaw pact countries, so whow the fuck was he a ☭TANKIE☭?

Mao died in 1976. The Tiananmen Square protests happened in 1989.