Talk:People's Republic of China

From ProleWiki, the proletarian encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There is no neutral point of view in ProleWiki. We are in the process of making our principles clear, as to not risk any misunderstanding. But I shall be clear now:

WE FULLY SUPPORT CHINA'S SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM

We will not present any criticism on our main articles on China, the DPRK, Cuba and Vietnam, because we believe these nations are already attacked by imperialist propaganda, and for that reason, we will not abide by the point of view of our enemies, as this makes us aligned with them.

The user User:H. Vilaverde has been blocked from contributing to ProleWiki based on ultra-leftist deviations from Marxism—Leninism. This user promotes the idea that the export of capital by China is a proof of imperialism in itself, and according to the user, "by Lenin's definition", which shows how profoundly ignorant that user is. The export of capital alone is not a sign of imperialism, and the user seems to forget other important, if not more important, features of imperialism, mainly the presence of a financial oligarchy. This is absolutely not the case of China, because the Chinese bourgeoisie has no control over the country's economic destiny. China lives a visible dictatorship of the proletariat, which has lead the White House to desperation. The White House, differently from the ultra-leftists, has already acknowledge the Chinese Communist Party is a Marxist—Leninist organization. I quote the White House:

America, under President Trump’s leadership, has finally awoken to the threat the Chinese Communist Party’s actions and the threat they pose to our very way of life. For decades, conventional wisdom in both U.S. political parties, the business community, academia, and media, has held that it was only a matter of time before China would become more liberal, first economically and, then, politically. The more we opened our markets to China, the thinking went, the more we invested capital in China, the more we trained PRC bureaucrats, scientists, engineers, and even military officers, the more China would become like us.

It was under this premise that we welcomed China into the World Trade Organization in 2001 with vast concessions and trade privileges. We downplayed China’s gross human rights abuses, including Tiananmen Square. We turned a blind eye to China’s widespread technology theft that eviscerated entire sectors of the American economy.

As China grew richer and stronger, we believed, the Chinese Communist Party would liberalize to meet the rising democratic aspirations of its people. This was a bold, quintessentially American idea, born of our innate optimism and by the experience of our triumph over Soviet Communism. Unfortunately, it turned out to be very naïve.

We could not have been more wrong—and this miscalculation is the greatest failure of American foreign policy since the 1930s. How did we make such a mistake? How did we fail to understand the nature of the Chinese Communist Party?

The answer is simple: because we did not pay heed to the CCP’s ideology. Instead of listening to what CCP leaders were saying and reading what they wrote in their key documents, we closed our ears and our eyes. We believed what we wanted to believe—that the Party members were communist in name only.

Let us be clear, the Chinese Communist Party is a Marxist-Leninist organization. The Party General Secretary Xi Jinping sees himself as Josef Stalin’s successor. In fact, as the journalist and former Australian government official John Garnaut has noted, the Chinese Communist Party is the last “ruling communist party that never split with Stalin, with the partial exception of North Korea.” Yes, Stalin – the man whose brutal dictatorship and disastrous policies killed roughly 20 million Russians and others through famine, forced collectivization, executions, and labor camps. As interpreted and practiced by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, communism is a totalitarian ideology.[1]

The US wanted control of China through bourgeois liberalization. But the Reform and Opening Up of China fought exactly that. Now I mention Deng Xiaoping, which the user might believe is a "capitalist roader" just like some Maoists do. I quote:

This question is vital: here we can make no concessions. We shall continue to struggle against bourgeois liberalization throughout the process of modernization, not only in this century but in the next. However, precisely because this will be a long-term struggle, instead of launching a political movement we shall use mainly the method of education. Education and persuasion are also a form of struggle. But only our achievements in economic development can eventually convince those who do not believe in socialism. If we can become comparatively prosperous by the end of this century, they will be partly convinced, and when we have turned China into a moderately developed socialist country by the middle of the next century, they will be completely convinced. By that time most of them will have recognized their mistake. I think it will be possible for us to reach that magnificent goal.[2]

This does not mean China, Vietnam, Cuba and DPRK are not deserving of criticism. They are. Denying the weapon of criticism is denying Marxism. But this criticism shall not happen in our main articles. We are free to criticize between ourselves, but our public stance is of full support against imperialist propaganda.

This user has also tried to remove citations of Stalin from our main articles,[3] under the false premise that we should "cite primary sources" and "preserve encyclopedic/academic tradition".[4] It seems this user meant bourgeois academia, perhaps. This is a Marxist-Leninist encyclopedia, and we do not abide by the bourgeois academia standards, we are making an effort to promote knowledge to people. And this user, for some reason, wouldn't consider Stalin a primary source? What is, after all, the criteria for a primary source, according to the user, when referencing Marxist—Leninist works? Does that mean we shouldn't cite Mao's On Contradiction, because the understanding of contradiction is first found in Hegel, then? Citing Stalin is a political stance against liberal revisionism of history. It is our duty to uphold the works of leaders who were buried under a pile of rubbish by imperialist propaganda. The winds of history shall clean this pile of trash, and we shall blow these winds.

ProleWiki is a fight against ignorance. We have invited our comrades to discuss with us in our Telegram group, which has helped us unite as one collective force improving our encyclopedia. This user has ignored our announcements and preferred to act individually, following their own isolated egocentric reason. We won't fight this individual's ignorance, as it's their own responsibility to do so. Once this user doesn't help themself, this user becomes a force of ignorance, and at some point, we have to fight them too. It's sad to witness a situation like this, but we shouldn't feel sorry, because by doing this, we are preserving the quality of our work.

Supreme Comrade Felipe Forte (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2020 (-03)


References

I've removed the conclusion

In the interest of transparency, I've removed the conclusion. I do not disagree with the conclusion, but I think a conclusion would be best for an essay, in the essay namespace.

I don't think an encyclopedic reference needs a conclusion section towards the bottom, and if anything we should put "conclusions" in the introduction section before the rest of the article.

Here is the text:

Conclusion

The People's Republic of China is undoubtedly the world's leading socialist state, and it is essential for all socialists to understand it. While there are many legitimate criticisms that one can make of China (from past economic errors to current human rights violations), it has made enormous progress in improving life for the people, as well as providing investments in developing countries in a mutually beneficial way. For this, it deserves the respect of all socialists and communists.

Hope this comes across in good faith, comrades. --— Comrade Jucheguevara (talk)

Do not use external links, use references

As of February 1st, the current article instead of using references, uses external links, and this is not adequate for an article. I'll try to clean it up — Comrade FelipeForte (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned most of it up. The current article is still a quotefest and often repeats "according to a study", which is not ideal, considering that the references already show the study is being used. The references currently have no title, just links, and this ought to be fixed eventually. The quotefest must be reduced to a proper paragraph resuming what the studies and quotes say instead. Quotes should be used only when extremely necessary. — Comrade FelipeForte (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)