Whether it prevents bourgeois propaganda or western propaganda, it’s not worth it when the people aren’t free. I also find it to be very opposite to Marx implying that the Chinese government wouldn’t try to control their people if they could.
Here’s a paper covering the topic from a few years ago.. It goes through the history, motivations, and effects of the Golden Shield Project. It also briefly covers the opinions from people on both sides of the firewall and tries to remain neutral as it’s a research communication. Download the PDF to read.
What the paper doesn’t cover deeply is what information the CPC has chosen to censor and why. Materials subversive to the stability of their country. From whom? Of what nature? What historical precedent exists that would have made them want to do this in the late nineties?
Exploring the history of interactions between socialist countries and liberal countries will shed light on this. I’d also suggest looking into examples of censorship in western liberal countries and contrasting them with censorship in China.
Your reply pointed to a lot of assumptions from the Western liberal perspective, which is actively antagonistic and hostile towards China. If the only perspective you ever consume is from states who consider China a threat to their power, then of course you will hold a negative bias towards China.
The more you study, the better you will understand. If you approach the topic wanting to demonize China, you won’t learn anything. There’s a lot more to unpack here including Western media bias and leftist theory beyond Marx. This is just a stepping stone to understanding.
If you don’t know the purpose and goals of the project that the firewall is part of, then you don’t understand why China has a firewall.
Tell me, are you really free or do you assume you are free because you’ve always been told you are free and you’ve only ever heard one definition of freedom? To me, the illusion of freedom of speech, the illusion of freedom of choice, and being told to choose between a handful of shitheads who don’t represent or act according to how I would like to see our society run is not freedom. It’s just authoritarianism from a different source. It’s who has power that matters to me. I’d rather be held accountable by my peers than by a bunch of chucklefucks who only see me as an expendable resource.
This weak ass liberal may not be reading anything, but I am eating up all these sources. Thank you, everyone. Also, God damn it, now I have hours more of reading any to do. At least I’ve covered some of these topics before, so some of them might be review.
Marx said that the state was inherently oppressive. But I guess I missed the part where he said that it doesn’t matter if the party brands itself as communist.
If you bake a cake and you have this magnificent idea in your head; do you gather all the ingredients and then presto magic you have a beautiful cake in front of you? Or is there some sort of process that’s missing? Some sort of transitionary period?
There’s a reason it’s called Marxist-Leninism too, older works can be superseded or reanalyzed by newer works in a more refined context.
Yes it does. A name inherently defines the characteristics of whatever it’s being used for. For example, the names your mother calls me during sex defines the intrinsic nature of our relationship, that is me being the oppressive dom authority figure (because I’m a tankie), and her the submissive proletariat.
While this quote does not encapsulate marx’s entire view on the state, it shows that Marx sees that the state is bourgeois and therefore antagonistic to the proletariat.
it shows that Marx sees that the state is bourgeois and therefore antagonistic to the proletariat.
Yes. The German state at the time was antagonistic to the proletariat. The Feudal state in Germany was in the process of transferring power to the bourgeoisie and that process didn’t end up happening until after WW1 because the German revolution failed. The goal of the manifesto was to solidify that the new German state post revolution would be worker controlled and not controlled by the new German industrial bourgeoisie.
This quote says nothing about “The State” as a concept or entity being bourgeois, only that the state is an opressive/antagonistic force that is currently bourgeois.
If you want to try and claim that Marx said “All States are Bourgeois”, you’re going to need to dig a lot deeper than the Manifesto and you’ll not find any consistent answer as his views on that changed throughout his life and after the revolutionary movements in Germany (Revolutions of 1848 the first failure and when the Manifesto was written), America (Civil War 1865 see The Civil War in the United States), and France (Paris Commune 1871 see The Civil War in France).
As he saw how the bourgeois power structures maintained themselves through these successive revolutions, he began to become much more clear on the role of a workers state in maintaining the revolutionary movement.
The state is inherently antagonistic to the proletariat, because their controlling society gives rise to them creating their own class within the bourgeoisie.
Ehhhhhhhht wrong. What did Engles say about the state in On Authority? There’s literally a whole ass book called State and Revolution that you definitely haven’t read.
Lol “creating their own class within the bourgeoisie” 😭 I bet the smug was on a milli when you typed that out
That very out of context quote is saying that under capitalism the state is used by the bourgeoisie to advance their common interests, not that the state “is inherently oppressive”.
The hurdle a lot of illiterate liberals have to get over when they read Marx is that his use of oppressive isn’t a moral assertion, it’s a dialectic.
Yes, a state is opressive. It is the oppression of one class for the benefit of another. As long as a state exists, there is an existing class divide in the place that state exists.
Do you think the bourgeoisie care that the state is oppressive? No. Because the current form of the state serves their interests. Should workers care that a bourgeois state is opressive? Yes. Because a bourgeois state will actively sabotage any attempt by the body of labor to free itself.
As long as this dynamic exists (either domestically or internationally) states will continue to exist, and the form of that state will take on the character of the class that controls it.
In “The Civil War in France” Marx directly condems the revolutionaries (though respects their lofty aims) for not taking over the State in Paris. For not opening the banks, exploiting the existing power structure, and then destroying the bridge behind them. The Paris Commune is one of the first direct examples of a suddenly stateless society failing in the face of an organized bourgeois state.
If you want a socialist project to survive, you have to learn from the mistakes of the Parisians and take hold of power and use the oppressive nature of the state to cement the new order or you risk reactionary movements that aren’t afraid to wield that oppressive power destroying all you’ve built.
And this is a hard thing for liberals to get their heads around because it’s something that Marx changed opinions on the second he saw what had happened in Paris. Unlike most liberal political economists who are dogmatic in their beliefs and theories, Marx was driven primarily by the state of things and analysis of reality. His theories changed as he saw them practiced.
Whether it prevents bourgeois propaganda or western propaganda, it’s not worth it when the people aren’t free. I also find it to be very opposite to Marx implying that the Chinese government wouldn’t try to control their people if they could.
Here’s a paper covering the topic from a few years ago.. It goes through the history, motivations, and effects of the Golden Shield Project. It also briefly covers the opinions from people on both sides of the firewall and tries to remain neutral as it’s a research communication. Download the PDF to read.
What the paper doesn’t cover deeply is what information the CPC has chosen to censor and why. Materials subversive to the stability of their country. From whom? Of what nature? What historical precedent exists that would have made them want to do this in the late nineties?
Exploring the history of interactions between socialist countries and liberal countries will shed light on this. I’d also suggest looking into examples of censorship in western liberal countries and contrasting them with censorship in China.
Your reply pointed to a lot of assumptions from the Western liberal perspective, which is actively antagonistic and hostile towards China. If the only perspective you ever consume is from states who consider China a threat to their power, then of course you will hold a negative bias towards China.
The more you study, the better you will understand. If you approach the topic wanting to demonize China, you won’t learn anything. There’s a lot more to unpack here including Western media bias and leftist theory beyond Marx. This is just a stepping stone to understanding.
If you don’t know the purpose and goals of the project that the firewall is part of, then you don’t understand why China has a firewall.
Tell me, are you really free or do you assume you are free because you’ve always been told you are free and you’ve only ever heard one definition of freedom? To me, the illusion of freedom of speech, the illusion of freedom of choice, and being told to choose between a handful of shitheads who don’t represent or act according to how I would like to see our society run is not freedom. It’s just authoritarianism from a different source. It’s who has power that matters to me. I’d rather be held accountable by my peers than by a bunch of chucklefucks who only see me as an expendable resource.
This weak ass liberal may not be reading anything, but I am eating up all these sources. Thank you, everyone. Also, God damn it, now I have hours more of reading any to do. At least I’ve covered some of these topics before, so some of them might be review.
How is it opposite to Marx?
“Becuase Carl Mank is whatever I say he is. Have I ever read his work? No. But I’m sure he said something similar to my position somewhere.”
I’ve come back to this thread like five times and this makes me crack up every time
Marx said that the state was inherently oppressive. But I guess I missed the part where he said that it doesn’t matter if the party brands itself as communist.
If you bake a cake and you have this magnificent idea in your head; do you gather all the ingredients and then presto magic you have a beautiful cake in front of you? Or is there some sort of process that’s missing? Some sort of transitionary period?
There’s a reason it’s called Marxist-Leninism too, older works can be superseded or reanalyzed by newer works in a more refined context.
Baking doesn’t cook down the ingredients and claim it’s heating them up.
In that case, why do they call it oven when you of in the cold food of out hot eat the food?
You could call any machine anything, yet it doesn’t become the thing.
Yes it does. A name inherently defines the characteristics of whatever it’s being used for. For example, the names your mother calls me during sex defines the intrinsic nature of our relationship, that is me being the oppressive dom authority figure (because I’m a tankie), and her the submissive proletariat.
😭😭😭💀💀💀
You cooked him with this one 😭😭😭💀💀
Demolished
Where did he say that? Can you quote the passage?
Where in that quote does it say that, to use your words, ‘the state was inherently oppressive’?
While this quote does not encapsulate marx’s entire view on the state, it shows that Marx sees that the state is bourgeois and therefore antagonistic to the proletariat.
chatgpt answer if I’ve ever seen one.
Nice response to the content there!
Yes. The German state at the time was antagonistic to the proletariat. The Feudal state in Germany was in the process of transferring power to the bourgeoisie and that process didn’t end up happening until after WW1 because the German revolution failed. The goal of the manifesto was to solidify that the new German state post revolution would be worker controlled and not controlled by the new German industrial bourgeoisie.
This quote says nothing about “The State” as a concept or entity being bourgeois, only that the state is an opressive/antagonistic force that is currently bourgeois.
If you want to try and claim that Marx said “All States are Bourgeois”, you’re going to need to dig a lot deeper than the Manifesto and you’ll not find any consistent answer as his views on that changed throughout his life and after the revolutionary movements in Germany (Revolutions of 1848 the first failure and when the Manifesto was written), America (Civil War 1865 see The Civil War in the United States), and France (Paris Commune 1871 see The Civil War in France).
As he saw how the bourgeois power structures maintained themselves through these successive revolutions, he began to become much more clear on the role of a workers state in maintaining the revolutionary movement.
I bet you can’t even tell us what that actually means lol
The state is inherently antagonistic to the proletariat, because their controlling society gives rise to them creating their own class within the bourgeoisie.
Ehhhhhhhht wrong. What did Engles say about the state in On Authority? There’s literally a whole ass book called State and Revolution that you definitely haven’t read.
Lol “creating their own class within the bourgeoisie” 😭 I bet the smug was on a milli when you typed that out
Power = authority is wild. Was freeing slaves authoritarian because the majority didn’t support it?
Watch out, we got a marxist ova’ here!!
It’s okay, I know you disagree with them.
That very out of context quote is saying that under capitalism the state is used by the bourgeoisie to advance their common interests, not that the state “is inherently oppressive”.
The hurdle a lot of illiterate liberals have to get over when they read Marx is that his use of oppressive isn’t a moral assertion, it’s a dialectic.
Yes, a state is opressive. It is the oppression of one class for the benefit of another. As long as a state exists, there is an existing class divide in the place that state exists.
Do you think the bourgeoisie care that the state is oppressive? No. Because the current form of the state serves their interests. Should workers care that a bourgeois state is opressive? Yes. Because a bourgeois state will actively sabotage any attempt by the body of labor to free itself.
As long as this dynamic exists (either domestically or internationally) states will continue to exist, and the form of that state will take on the character of the class that controls it.
In “The Civil War in France” Marx directly condems the revolutionaries (though respects their lofty aims) for not taking over the State in Paris. For not opening the banks, exploiting the existing power structure, and then destroying the bridge behind them. The Paris Commune is one of the first direct examples of a suddenly stateless society failing in the face of an organized bourgeois state.
If you want a socialist project to survive, you have to learn from the mistakes of the Parisians and take hold of power and use the oppressive nature of the state to cement the new order or you risk reactionary movements that aren’t afraid to wield that oppressive power destroying all you’ve built.
And this is a hard thing for liberals to get their heads around because it’s something that Marx changed opinions on the second he saw what had happened in Paris. Unlike most liberal political economists who are dogmatic in their beliefs and theories, Marx was driven primarily by the state of things and analysis of reality. His theories changed as he saw them practiced.