These are people I know personally. So no, not online people. And some are organized, some were, it varies. They are at best ambivalent on China. The idea that if you identify as a communist, talk like a communist, or are member of a communist organization, you should automatically support China would be frankly absurd in my circles. A strong minority of communists were at best ambivalent on the USSR even back in the day, so this is not new. And yes there are also those who will identify with and feel the need to support any regime that is in name or in some of its practices “communist”. Whereas others will take a more critical stance. I am in Europe by the way, this may matter, I find that the way words are used across the pond sometimes varies. Even within Europe, in much of Eastern Europe I understand that “communist” and “Russophile ” are thought to go hand in hand. Not so in my country, not necessarily. Anyway, it’s complicated.
gcheliotis
Great, now we have research on “tankies”. A word I didn’t even know until somewhat recently and have personally come to despise, as I have often seen it abused on Lemmy, along with “Russian shill”, “russobot”, “sinobot” and what have you, in attempts to discredit anyone who might say anything that is not constant political condemnation of China or Russia and respectively support for US/EU/NATO expansion. Its abuse in many ways resembles the abuse of the “antisemite” label to silence criticism of Israel, or indeed the overuse of the “fascist” label in (ultimately failed) attempts to silence the (new) right, and many other labels that unfortunately liberals among others are keen to throw around generously. It matters little what side of a debate you stand on, if you have to resort to so much name-calling to make your case. Other than that, research is fine. With the caveat that political research is, well, often political and thus not particularly immune to political bias.
I too read Wikipedia in the shower
Oh I know quite a few communists who would absolutely not support the PRC. They wouldn’t shill for the US either. Nor for Russia nor the USSR for that matter.
No one should undertake hobbies because they are attractive to someone else. Unless you want to join groups where you can meet people you’re attracted to, then the activity is just an excuse to mingle. But you are more likely to find a hobby rewarding if you are genuinely interested in it, no matter what others think.
As far as I know China is not only the largest economy or about on par with the US, but has also made huge strides in renewables, so this makes sense actually, much as we are not used to hearing international bodies inviting China to lead. I would go as far as saying this is a case of China already leading the world - at least at home, not sure how clean or energy-efficient their offshore projects are.
Chill. Most people liked your post anyway. Hiveminds are outside your control, so you gotta roll with the punches and move on. I’ve been at the receiving end of a lot more downvotes than this. Trust me, you get used to it 😂
Dude, counting downvotes doesn’t help, nor does going off on some political rant about Elon Musk. It does look like a graph that would be promoted by an Elon fanboy, but my observation had nothing to do with that. I said it looks somewhat deceiving because it makes a big deal of just one datapoint and one estimate. But I know nothing about rockets or space exploration, so maybe the underlying fundamentals are solid.
This is somewhat deceiving, as the drop only looks steep because of a single data point (falcon heavy) and an estimate.
Still waiting for the ultimate all-in edition of this one
Hey thanks for making the effort. You are clearly more passionate about this than I am. And you clearly consider today’s China a case of “existing socialism”. I do not. And I’m surprised that a number of people still do. Indeed the Trotskyist left and other related currents in the West have always had to deal with the paradox of advocating communism while at the same time opposing most if not all regimes that claimed to be communist. On the other hand more traditional communists - some would call them Stalinists if we’re using labels - who would advocate for regimes that many considered oppressive and were happy to see fall (including everyone who considered such regimes to be a degeneration of the original revolutionary potential). Personally I don’t feel I have a big stake in this. I am more and more thinking that these are experiments that largely failed no matter how you look at it, and hope to see new movements that will update their repertoire, learn from the failings, and succeed better. I am not sure what form or shape such movements will take. But am also not betting on capitalism not leading to the destruction of the world sooner or later. When I sometimes appear to defend China it is because I do not think that western-style capitalism and liberal democracy are the only ways that capitalism can function.