What do you think about Socialist countries Politics and governments

Hi, IsabellePAN. I agree, people are irrational creachers. Same question - why can't we all live together without wars, plots of some kind? Do it have to be NATO or other military block? I can understand greedy politicians,but why other people are listening them? I guess it's unavoidable because we all need some pure water, food, luxury things for some, etc. Humans will fight for such resources. Humanism? It's only excuse for some people.

I don't know many socialist countries. THose who are labeled as such often look as devoyed socialism. Socialism itself doesn't seem perfect, but a country like Cuba, or even North Korea, has some interesting points. France as well used to have, especially regarding education and healthcare. However, we live in a world in which socialism = """communism""" and labelled as bad or just completely fucked up as soon as something happen due to a certain country or a certain group of people who strongly dislike the ideology (eg: latin america and its tendency to accidentally losing sqocialist president or getting into illegal blocus).

Jeez i kinda hate this socialist system right here in china, no freedom and anything. These governments are trying to tell you to behave and love the government but what they are tying to do is certainly not just for us. Bribing and things happens all the time

If you think it's different in non-socialist countries... USA is extremely annoying and watching people on the border, even for a simple transit, then the freedom is highly monitored even though it is not as direct as in China. Same in Western Europe, there are thing you can and cannot express, and medias will tell you how to think and what to say in a way that most of people here have a set of thoughts that are very bland.

Else, like diogenes said, China isn't fully socialist... It has a very strong capitalist component.

Imagine if the CCP successfully "re-educated" every Muslim in China tomorrow. If that happened they'd go after another group next like the Christians or Buddhists.

Xi'an is full of muslims and you don't hear of re-education camp there. Maybe the problem in Xinjiang doesn't lie in the fact that some people are muslims specifically, but in their way to practice their religion or a wider ideology like a will to get an independence? More than that, can we say for sure what happens there if our countries consider China as an ennemy ? Wouldn't there be some kind of exagerration/propaganda?

in the west we still can criticize our governments in media, and there are some debates over their moves.

So so, and I'd argue that you can't express some ideas if you are blocked from ebing confronted to it. For instance, can you say that Russia has a point if you block any viewpoint coming from Russia and only hear about what the Western countries say about this country? Can you criticize EU if the information about EU is very hard to find, not to say hidden? How many people have you heard talking about what plague euro, as a currency, is? How many people would dismiss that information because they never heard about it or simply say "ok" and walk away without paying attention to it, be it true or false? How many people have been ridiculed and labeled as conspirationist during the pandemic, before seeing that they were telling the truth?

Criticizing a government is not only about being able to say this or that, but also about not being ridiculed or simply ignored when you make a fair remark.

We have protests - yellow jackets in France, armed citizens in USA (correct me someone, it was related to some governor who tried to force some strict covid policy on people?), protests in many west countries when something controversial is going on. Anyway, it often can influence decisions.

Those are like a safety valve in the West, just liek when you cook something in a pressure cooker. It's smoking a bit, but nothing happens (it influences almost nothing, because often the law people are going against is outrageous to make people accepting a less outrageous decision), and yet, you see that the pressure is rising these years with all the crap happening.

But still, citizens have more freedom in capitalistic countries.

Not sure, and not sure that freedom depends on capitalism or socialism. You could have a monarchy that is very much into freedom, or a capitalism that is very much into oppression, couldn't you?

Why China's reputation looks so bad in the world? Just because we are a socialist country?

I suppose it's partly for this reason, but also because chinese words are tricky and doesn't match its action. China's presence in Africa or in Europe is all but mutual respect and non-interference. It actually looks more like neo-colonialism. It's not a blame though, other countries do the same, especially if they have the ability to.

Maybe you’re referring to Pinochet coming into power? No I don’t call that democracy. I call that a coup.

Pinochet came to power with the support of the US and was not a communist at all,quite the opposite...

Find a suitable society for all human beings?

Society came with civilizations, and civilizations were built through armed conflict in order to protect your belongings: the fruit of your labour in a field. So I think that the most important thing in a city at least is to get an easier life for your group of people (usually your nation). This easier life comes, in my opinion, with less work hours, centralized action regarding access to health and education etc.

I hardly read history, and I know nothing about what has happened, even about China. I just have a strange feeling, why we would expect someone to provide us with a perfect country or perfect society?

From what I've seen, that what we moved to through the years. The first civilizations were much more violents and the conflicts are rarer and rarer.
We might have lose ourselves in the last decades though, at least in rich countries that are now falling, thinking that those changes have to come from someone else, and not a collective work, but that seems to fit the cycle in which this kind of behaviour triggers conflict that will create a new for of society/evolution. Ironically, competition and destruction are often the driving force of technologic and social evolutions, and makes our societies blooming.

Okay, maybe my fault - I considered my country as the west, what might be confusing, if we put it in the same bag like rest of UE countries.

Here we were able to criticize covid policy, even if it was like talking with agressive crowd with torches, and the doctors with different opinion had hard times because of the Health institutions, like suing and blackmailing.

And finally I see more talking about Poland's membership in UE, even coming from some government's members. Generally critizing UE is common here, but I believe You know that if You follow the infos about tensions between us.

It depends of the television channel, when it comes to "So, are we promoting left, or the government?" (I didn't said "or right" because our government isn't, actually, what we could call "right", even if they talk about themselves like this. Its a bit complicated).

And I wasn't comparing capitalism to socialism - rather capitalism to communism, because some people were using this terminology.

And in US it's also not so bad. You can be ignored in one tv station, but thanks to the states level of autonomy, debate there and possible actions for both sides are still on competetive level, when we talk about law's solutions.

it's sad and worrying, if You tells me that yellow jackets has been ignored by gov completely. You seems to have one of the most brutal protests in france, after all. Or maybe it's just picture in tv.

About Russia - i don't know how it looks like in other countries, but in Poland, our gov is abusing the topic. They are like drunk of unbrainless actions aimed at Russia, and help for Ukraine.
Of course I agree with this policy in general, but it's ridiculus when some sanctions doesn't work at first, and second: it more hurt Poles than Russians, and whole situation helps our gov in narration, that the inflation is caused not by covid insanity and wrong decisions, and throwing money to buy votes of people, but its, how they call it: "putinflation".

Still, compare debate and protests scale and consequences of it, in the "west" countries and "east" countries. Im still glued to my opinion.

Lianshen, I mostly agree with you than with Oxiu. But he also has some points. I would say that capitalism or socialism is not a guarantee of freedom. I am sure that in China somewhere there are some problems with freedom of speech etc, but the problem is that politicians are using these problems. Do we have problems of speech in France? Yes, we do. In Russia for example many people are criticizing Putin. So, does it mean we have a democracy in Russia? And by the way, Russia is a capitalist country. I guess in North Korea people can't criticize their government. Anyway, it was probably true a long time ago, that socialist countries had less freedom. But I am not so sure today. Probably it doesn't matter. Some socialist countries have more freedom than have capitalist countries and vice versa.

American socialist from end of XIX century create fast and junk food, to people eating quickly, to had bad thinking and spent theur money to others stuff because the food were cheap and they can't talking badly about their firms. Begore that, everybody had 1h30 to 2 hours to ate and they could think and talk badly about their companies...

"Can you ever ‘solve’ poverty? Can you ever ‘solve’ crime? Can you ever ‘solve’ disease, unemployment, war or any other societal herpes? Hell no. All you can hope for is to make them manageable enough to allow people to get on with their lives. That’s not cynicism, that’s maturity. You can’t stop the rain. All you can do is just build a roof that you hope won’t leak, or at least won’t leak on the people who are going to vote for you’." This is neoliberal ideology in action. It is no longer the responsibility of the state to work towards the greatest good of the greatest number through the administration of justice, the alleviation of poverty and the provision of healthcare, education and welfare. Politicians serve not the people but the elite and are entirely unabashed in so doing. It redefines citizens as "consumers", whose "democratic choices" are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan “there is no alternative”. But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet’s Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied – “my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism”. The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.

Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.

The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.

Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. Fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the ‘losers’ who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment.

Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities. The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. It is "The Road to Serfdom" and we still think that we have much more "freedom" than the others. No time to criticise it since we are all distracted as playing the life in "casino capitalism." Yet it is ratherl easier to swear on the ghost of "socialism." Period.

Xi'an is full of muslims and you don't hear of re-education camp there. Maybe the problem in Xinjiang doesn't lie in the fact that some people are muslims specifically, but in their way to practice their religion or a wider ideology like a will to get an independence? More than that, can we say for sure what happens there if our countries consider China as an ennemy ? Wouldn't there be some kind of exagerration/propaganda?

Out of 10 million people in Xian, about 50000 to 65000 are Muslims.
In Xinjiang there are approximately 12 million Uyghurs.
I think your right about something. I think it’s more about influence than anything. The influence of their religion overcoming the influence of their government.
The camps are a recent development of course. China denied the existence of these camps at first (that ought to say something). When they couldn’t hide them they conceded that they did exist. Now they say its part of some government scheme to find employment for these people.
Maybe there is some kind of exaggeration, but it’s obvious that China has something to hide in their re-education camps. It’s also obvious that the CCP is opposed to religion in general e.g. you’re required to be an atheist to be a member of the CCP.

Maybe you’re referring to Pinochet coming into power? No I don’t call that democracy. I call that a coup.

Pinochet came to power with the support of the US and was not a communist at all,quite the opposite...

I know Pinochet wasn’t a communist. I was replying to a deflection from SergeyMoro. I was saying that I don’t condone everything that happens outside of a socialist country.

Excuse me guys, but I don't understand? Whom do we have to hate? Chinese authorities or dictators like Pinochet? Who is better and why? Because one is a capitalist pig, does it make much better than any communist or any other guy? What it has to do with communist or capitalist? Are we not mixing things together? There are brutal communist regimes and there are capitalist regimes. Why mixing all these things together?

Does any communist government is necessarily has to be bad? Why?

Xi'an is full of muslims and you don't hear of re-education camp there. Maybe the problem in Xinjiang doesn't lie in the fact that some people are muslims specifically, but in their way to practice their religion or a wider ideology like a will to get an independence? More than that, can we say for sure what happens there if our countries consider China as an ennemy ? Wouldn't there be some kind of exagerration/propaganda?

Out of 10 million people in Xian, about 50000 to 65000 are Muslims.
In Xinjiang there are approximately 12 million Uyghurs.
I think your right about something. I think it’s more about influence than anything. The influence of their religion overcoming the influence of their government.
The camps are a recent development of course. China denied the existence of these camps at first (that ought to say something). When they couldn’t hide them they conceded that they did exist. Now they say its part of some government scheme to find employment for these people.
Maybe there is some kind of exaggeration, but it’s obvious that China has something to hide in their re-education camps. It’s also obvious that the CCP is opposed to religion in general e.g. you’re required to be an atheist to be a member of the CCP.

The Uyghurs, who reside throughout the immediate region, are the largest Turkic ethnic group living in Xinjiang as well as being overwhelmingly Muslim. This combination of ethnicity and religion also involves the movement of religious and political ideologies, weapons, and people. The desired outcome by groups that use violence is, broadly speaking, a separate Uyghur state, called either Uyghuristan or Eastern Turkistan, which lays claim to
a large part of China. While some Uyghurs want a separate state, others want to maintain cultural distinction within an autonomous relationship with China, and others are integrating into the Chinese system. There is no single Uyghur agenda.

China’s official statement on "East Turkestan terrorists" published in January 2002 listed several groups allegedly responsible for violence, including the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), the East Turkistan Liberation Organization (ETLO), the Islamic Reformist Party ‘Shock Brigade’, the East Turkestan Islamic Party, the East Turkestan Opposition Party, the East Turkestan Islamic Party of Allah, the Uyghur Liberation Organization, the Islamic Holy Warriors and the East Turkestan International Committee. . For instance, in 1997, the Uyghurstan Liberation Front and the United National Revolutionary Front of East Turkestan (UNRF) overcame their differences and joined together in a jihad in Xinjiang. The UNRF fears Uyghurs who agree with China, and announced that it had assassinated an imam of the mosque in Kashgar in 1996 because of his pro-China views.

Uyghur separatists within Xinjiang drew inspiration and envy from their Central Asian neighbors' independence after the Soviet Union collapsed in
1991, and they increased their movement toward a separate Uyghur state. Militant Uyghur groups exploited Xinjiang’s porous border with Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan to establish training camps outside of China's reach as well as to move explosives and small arms into China. 0 Since the beginning of 2005, there has been a wave of “election-related turmoil” or so-called “Color Revolutions” in Central Asia, with terrorist
and extremist forces often funded from outside and uniting religious extremists with political dissidents against authoritarian governments.
Afghanistan has witnessed the resurgence of Taliban and al Qaeda in the wake of a new wave of terrorist attacks following the Iraq War. More severely, Hizb-ut-Tahrir and other extremist groups are quickly winning popular support in Central Asia, particularly in the poverty-stricken Fergana countryside, bespeaking a reemerging grim security situation in the region that poses new challenges to both Central Asian countries and China.

the Chinese fear the Uyghur movement could internally radicalize other minorities, whether it was the ethnic Tibetans or the Muslim Hui. Many of the human rights groups that watch Xinjiang, especially the Chinese “strike hard” campaigns, fear that China is using the war on terror to disregard the human rights of Uyghurs. Not only are human rights abuses abhorrent in and of themselves, but also the Chinese worsen the problem by targeting and
antagonizing nonviolent Uyghurs.

If “strike hard” campaigns do or are seen to discriminate against nonviolent Uyghurs and if the perception that economic development in Xinjiang aids Han Chinese at the expense of Uyghurs, the separatist movements will be fueled. The region as a whole has concerns about growing Uyghur violence. Central Asian countries, especially those with sizable Uyghur minorities, already worry about Uyghur violence and agitation. Many of the regional governments, especially authoritarian secular governments, in South Asia and Central Asia are worried about the contagion of increasing Muslim radicalization. The governments of Southeast Asia are also worried about growing radical networks and training camps, but they also fear the very idea of a fragmenting China. Not only is China economically important to the region, but also political instability in China would impact all of Asia.

deogenes_cask, I am almost certain that some of the rights of Yyghurs are "violated". Why ? It's obvious. The minorities are always are deprived of some their rights. It's everywhere. Are we going to talk about Indian minorities in USA? Are we going to talk about Kurds in Turkey? Are we going to talk about Blacks in USA? It's an open question. But we are today discussing China and Russia! Can you guess why? I can answer, it's a dirty politics.

deogenes_cask, I am almost certain that some of the rights of Yyghurs are "violated". Why ? It's obvious. The minorities are always are deprived of some their rights. It's everywhere. Are we going to talk about Indian minorities in USA? Are we going to talk about Kurds in Turkey? Are we going to talk about Blacks in USA? It's an open question. But we are today discussing China and Russia! Can you guess why? I can answer, it's a dirty politics.

How about Russia's minorities?

"The bombings, it will be recalled, were blamed on Chechen rebels and used as a pretext for Boris Yeltsin’s Kremlin to launch a bloody second war against Chechnya, a republic in the Russian Federation. They also were crucial events in promoting Vladimir Putin’s takeover of the Russian presidency as Yeltsin’s anointed successor in 2000 and in ensuring his dominance over the Russian political scene ever since."

DWethers, why do you won't to ask that question the Chechen people? Will they agree with you? Are you sure? So, why I you trying to decide something for Chechen people? You know better life for them? They are decided what to do. Who are you to decide that they made a wrong choice? Is it your imagination? Why you are making such a long lasting conclusions?