Edit: so OP posted the following comment.
One thing they do have going for them is that in China capital is subservient to the state, and the state still operates ostensibly for the good of society. Chinese capitalists don’t hold sway over the state the way western ones do. For now at least. So if the state decides that this or that part of the economy needs to do this or that, they can make capitalists do it. That’s good. But it’s not enough and the anti-democratic structures are extremely concerning about the future. The capitalists after all only need to capture such a powerful state once.
First of all, I detect expose to Cowbee lmao. Second, I think this may be an example of someone who genuinely does no understand the history they are attempting to joke about and stumbled their way into glazing the Br*tish empire. 
By their analysis, I think they might think HK would be better if China assumed direct control and abolished One Country, Two Systems, which I agree with but is not at all what the meme conveys.
Hong Kong was a democracy under the Br*tish
Hong Kong is less democratic now than it was then
Even if you accept that China is fully capitalist, the implication that colonial theft of land is good because the targets can’t be trusted (according to your judgement as an enlightened westerner) to control land that is rightfully theirs.
The implication that HK people would be grateful for the Br*tish Empire.
All this coming from a KKKanadian citizen of the “Commonwealth”.
You must log in or # to comment.
A comment (not by the OP, by someone else)…
“But, but… they told us they were communist. It’s in the name.” – Those who learned nothing from Orwell, and probably still think the Nazis are “National Socialists”.
Orwell, lmao. I learned from Orwell that anti-communists are typically not creative and not very good writers. I also learned from Orwell that you should NEVER, ever trust a British nationalist. In my opinion, Asimov’s review of 1984 is quite enough for Orwell never to be taken seriously by anyone again.
Even ignoring Eric Blair, this is a textbook strawman argument. No major branch of Marxism recognizes every single org that identifies as communist to be genuine, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge being a textbook example largely rejected. Instead, we proceed from materialist analysis and relations of production and distribution.
https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm
The review in question for anyone who hasn’t read it. Its great.
I think Foundation planted some Marxism in my mind. When I started getting to reading Lenin I was like “holy shit this guy was like irl Hari Seldon!”.
People get too far into semantics when it comes to China, and its model of socialism. The commanding heights of industry, the primary elements of the economy, the financial institutions, the large firms and key industries, all are overwhelmingly publicly owned, the mode of production is defined by this. The CPC is a mass organization led by the proletariat, and Whole Process People’s Democracy ensures that policy comes from the masses and is interpreted and then implemented by the party.
Is this socialism? I’d argue that it is, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state is run by the working classes. Capitalists are kept on a tight leash. Is it as highly socialized as the USSR despite having more developed productive capacity? No, it isn’t, and that’s where the semantical games come in. It really doesn’t matter what you call it, but instead if it’s a progressive movement or regressive one in the context of the global transition between capitalism and communism.
The essense is more important than the label. No mode of production has ever been pure, even the DPRK has special economic zones like Rason, the USSR had existing private capital in the form of illegal black markets, so recognizing these principle aspexts are the best way to identify the essense of a mode of production. It isn’t about what is simply formal, legal, or total, but what is existing, dominant, and where it’s economically compelled.
The fact that China is often difficult to pin down and define, in a way that makes many leftists and even more liberals upset, ultimately stems from the core lack of recognition in transitional states. China’s imperfect, flawed, and stamped with the vestiges of capitalism, including factions of liberals, reactionaries, and more. However, it also undeniably has elements of higher degrees of socialization regularly forming, is undermining imperialism internationally, and is steadily developing further and further. This struggle between the old and the new is what compels motion, dialectically.
If Marx is correct, higher development of production compels socialization, and we can see this not only with how China treats firms as they grow, but also at an ideological level with the leftward turn of Chinese youth. Problems in China that arise from contradictions in China’s system force motion. Each major iteration of China’s economic structure has been a response to changing material conditions, each forced by the development under the previous iteration.
The ones that see China as a regressive, vulgar, capitalist force will deny China’s status as socialist no matter the degree of socialization, because they treat socialism as something pure and simple, and capitalism as something multi-faceted and complex.
OP posted the following comment.
One thing they do have going for them is that in China capital is subservient to the state, and the state still operates ostensibly for the good of society. Chinese capitalists don’t hold sway over the state the way western ones do. For now at least. So if the state decides that this or that part of the economy needs to do this or that, they can make capitalists do it. That’s good. But it’s not enough and the anti-democratic structures are extremely concerning about the future. The capitalists after all only need to capture such a powerful state once.
First of all, I can tell they’ve been exposed to your posts lol. Second, I think this may be an example of someone who genuinely does no understand the history they are attempting to joke about and stumbled their way into glazing the Br*tish empire.
By their analysis, I think they might think HK would be better if China assumed direct control and abolished One Country, Two Systems, which I agree with but is not at all what the meme conveys.
Yep, agreed! It’s almost like they see colonization as “default” and China as “bad,” as if it’s always the negative actor. In glazing the British empire, they’ve made the point implicitly like you suggested, that One Country Two Systems should be abolished, which I agree with working towards.
People get too far into semantics when it comes to China, and its model of socialism.
This is also what I was thinking. The truth is that in the case of Hong Kong, what China is and is not is not relevant. What Hong Kong is is a part of China and not the British Empire, and that’s what matters here.
The ones that see China as a regressive, vulgar, capitalist force will deny China’s status as socialist no matter the degree of socialization, because they treat socialism as something pure and simple, and capitalism as something multi-faceted and complex.
This, but it’s even worse. Proceeding from the basis that China is fully capitalist, they treat western capitalism as multi-faceted and complex and Chinese capitalism as pure, simple, and evil. Hence the support shown in the linked meme for British Hong Kong over Chinese Hong Kong.
Yep, the assumption is that the west is evil but the best there is. Any idea that anyone could be better than the west is immediately denied, because western exceptionalism is intrinsically tied to their self-worth. Hong Kong is seen as “free and democratic” as a colony only.
You are spitting fire, could not have said it better myself.
Thanks, comrade!
Pure and simple literal historical revisionism from a KKKanadian radlib in defense of Br*tish colonialism on the leftymemes comm. Just another day on the fediverse, I suppose.
Edit: I think a lot of this is honestly historical cluelessness, see my edit to the post body.
When you replace “democracy” with “white supremacist rule” it fits pretty much every single westerner’s claims about other countries lacking “freedom and democracy” perfectly.
