Protests after violent seizure of Peking University's Marxist Society

boing
21

Not really. The story I was discussing was how a so-called party of the “left” deals with young people who call it out for its corruption. Remember, China is for all intents and purposes a one-party state, which means the CPC has a lot more latitude to use the PRC’s monopoly on violence and imprisonment in a case like this – state and party are nearly indistinguishable.

In contrast, the Dem establishment in the U.S., even when in power in all three branches, can’t imprison a Harvard student for writing an editorial that calls out the DNC’s corruption or imprison students for participating in a peaceful campus demonstration protesting the party’s Third Way neoliberal-lite policies.

6 Likes
22

I was specifically referring to the statement that it “involves state violence and prisons”.

image
image1084×771 21.7 KB

can’t don’t.

…because the USA’s methods of suppressing political dissent are more sophisticated than those of the PRC’s.

5 Likes
23

Yes, but the fact that states are able to avail themselves of a monopoly on violence (legitimately or otherwise) is pretty obvious – it’s one of the defining characteristics of a functioning state. That’s not the story being discussed.

In terms of the incarceration rate, I would put money on the proposition that there are more people in prison (Ministry of Justice and others) for political dissent in China than there are in the U.S. (being a racial minority or poor person in the U.S., while increasing one’s likelihood of incarceration, does not automatically make one a dissident or activist).

Again, the story I was discussing is how a party (a different concept from the state) deals with its internal critics. For example, the Chicago Police Dept. didn’t murdered Hampton because Mayor Daley thought he was being a disloyal member of the Democratic party but because it considered Hampton an enemy of the state.

And also because elections in the U.S. place more emphasis on the popular vote than does China’s system, because there are two parties (with substantive differences even between the establishments) instead of just one, because there’s an independent judiciary, and a Bill of Rights that’s given more than lip service. etc.

“More sophisticated” doesn’t necessarily mean “more effective”. In general, at the moment the PRC/CPC is obviously more effective at suppressing political dissent with its blunt instruments than the U.S. or the DNC is with their less obvious methods. An example of a system that’s both sophisticated and effective in this regard is Russia’s.

4 Likes
24

The Marxist Society of Peking University were getting ready to celebrate Mao’s 125th birthday when the university administration abruptly deposed its leader, Qui Zhanxuan, and replaced the Society’s leadership and upper cadres with 32 ringers largely drawn from the Communist Youth League or the Chinese Communist Party.

complaining that your marxist organization was nationalized isn’t very marxist imho :wink:

25

2 Likes
26

Shouldn’t that be Beijing University?

1 Like
27

Nope.

Beijing - the city - is the current rendering of pinyin (the phonetic spelling of Mandarin). The earlier rendering was Peking. In any case - that is the actual name of the university and over time they probably didn’t see a need to change it.

3 Likes
28

You might have expected that, but prior regimes were somewhat less “hands on” in their approach - leaving scope for regional leeway. That has been addressed and ratcheted up to the max under Xi.

1 Like
29

Oh I see you don’t mean centrist like Hilary Clinton. You mean centrist like Vladimir Putin.

2 Likes
30

Normally, people that want to celebrate Mao’s birthday would not be getting much sympathy from me, but apart from the schadenfreude reaction… good luck with that. And maybe, learn a bit about what happens when you concentrate all power in one party, while you are at it.

1 Like
31

Maybe “centralist” would be better, as in someone who wants to centralize power?

3 Likes
32

I’m not so sure. After all, people have been loudly calling themselves “Christian” despite opposing just about everything Christ advocated for more than a millennium.

9 Likes
33

Are you suggesting that white supremacy isn’t a political ideology that helps define the American state? Because that makes many black incarcerated Americans political prisoners.

6 Likes
34

Quite the opposite. I’m pointing out that a large number of those black incarcerated Americans wouldn’t consider themselves political prisoners in the same way one of the imprisoned Chinese students might, mainly because the U.S. hides the ideological agenda while China is blunt about it.

1 Like
35

Hm. I don’t know if that’s the case. Regardless, given the nature of the white supremacist state, I’d argue that there is a strong argument to be made for understanding them as political prisoners, whether or not they do. The less explicitly political nature of the US state only hides the political nature of incarceration, not eliminate it.

7 Likes
36

If one is an educated liberal or progressive who thinks critically and knows the history and civics of the country, the argument is indeed strong. At least two thirds of the citizenry don’t fall into that category, though, which the powers that be like just fine.

1 Like
37

I’d say that many black Americans are well aware of the political situation with regards to race, even people who haven’t had the benefit of an advanced education in history or civics, because they live it on a daily basis. The culture many young black folks listen to, as well as their family histories, speak to that pretty regularly, too.

7 Likes
38

Absolutely. In the U.S. simply having dark skin makes the state consider one a targetted political class, whereas these Chinese students are being targetted by the state/party because of what they say. That’s what makes it harder for Americans to apply the formal term “political prisoners” to people in their country who are effectively that.

In either country, if you’re targetted for both reasons you can end up like Fred Hampton at worst and Bobby Seale at best.

2 Likes
39

Good point, Christianity is in dire need of some kind of “reformation” or something.

1 Like
40

Maoism has various elements not found in Russian and European Marxism-Leninism. In particular, while stressing that an agrarian society has major disadvantages in competing with an industrialized society, it still emphasizes agrarian society as a major factor in a communist revolution.
Furthermore, while Maoism takes pride in aggressive opposition to traditional, Chinese, Confucian values, my impression is that it has often carried the idea that the group is above the individual to extremes that are not even found in Soviet Russia, and in that way appears to be more culturally traditional than it likes to admit.

Marxism-Leninism is a subset of Marxism

Marx was not a “Marxist”, he was a philosopher and social scientist. His practical political activities occurred at a time when organization of the workers was unheard of, and before the various schisms between socialists, social democrats, communists, and so on. They were revolutionary in the 19th century, but from today’s point of view, are nothing more and nothing less then democratic.
The Bolsheviks were not interested in philosophy, they were interested in revolution and seizing power. They took from Marx’ ideas what they could use to that end, bundled them together with Lenin’s writings (which were much more practically oriented to his particular historical situation) and calcified them into the ideology of a highly bureaucratic state, condemning themselves to intellectual stagnation, very much unlike Marx.

Marxism is a subset of communism

Communism is a mere ideal of a society where human beings can be free and equal, by abolishing private ownership of the means of productions (factories, natural resources, infrastructure), thereby abolishing the ruling classes, and replacing them with a society in which everybody has the same material means and an equal say in the political and economical decisions of that society. To my knowledge, no state has ever claimed to have actually achieved this.

Communism is a subset of socialism

Socialism is a very broad term, traditionally applied to a society where significant industries are state controlled. The political right finds pleasure in using it as a fighting word, applying it to any country where not every last nursing home, fire station and toll road is operated for private profit. For communism, see above.

4 Likes