There are other sources. Including China itself. What do you think ethnic unity is? Like I said I can understand people not trusting it explicitly. That's fair. What's truly frustrating, is the way I see so many especially here hand wave away and dismiss such things. Coming from a group that has experienced this it resonates personally.

Another thing to understand. Is that even if something is a propaganda outlet. Propaganda is typically based around something that is at some level true. The propaganda might misrepresent it. Or use it to imply something else. But just because someone uses it as propaganda doesn't make it not true.

I wish we could have more nuanced discussions of China here. But we can't. Because everything negative about China is automatically false propaganda. It's like talking to magats. And big well-known sources are always lacking because of China's lack of press freedom and access. Something which is not specific to china. It's getting pretty bad here in the United States as well.

"Communist" China, the country with the fastest growing population of billionaires and rapidly growing wealth inequality while the proletariat toil away in terrible working conditions. Slavery with extra steps.

Love how you tankies shout about the imperial west while casually ignoring China's own imperial nature.

Wait, the other day I read over in c/Europe it's perfectly fine for Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia to suppress the Russian language for their Russian minorities in their schools.

So, in the end it's not about any freedom values whatsoever, but about whether it's against our enemies? Shocking.

Let's play a game:

Tankie argument or LITERAL psychology textbook examples of narcistic abuse justification.

IDK... It's really hard. I struggle to tell the difference sometimes.

I hope you know that in the stories online of family members defending or minimizing abuse or molestation from other family members, you would be the ones defending the rapist or the abuser.

You would benefit from studying historical materialism. You wouldn't say such silly things if you had the education.

China has billionaires and private equity under state capitalism, a perfectly normal component of any state transitioning out of capitalism. The bourgeoisie in China have no political sway, are subject to so many regulations it would make your head spin, and actually pay taxes. If a billionaire in China betrays rhe working class they get executed.

To say that China has the "fastest growing population of billionaires" but to not recognize what being a billionaire means under socialist states with working-class parties running their government is to be dishonest intentionally. Saying China isn't socialist because of billionaires is a very silly stance.

As for terrible working conditions, you just made that up. Because you're weak. China is a nation of 1.5 billion people with strong workers rights. Your sinophobia doesn't matter when we are looking at the material, historical record of the economics of China.

Socialism is a mode of production characterized by a working class dictatorship, workers owning the means of production, and the government having a principle interest in public ownership.

At no point does socialism not have bourgeoisie. They just do not control government and get executed for their social murder schemes. Youre conflating communism, a mode of production without classes, with socialism, a mode of production that empowers workers.

The CCP/PLA and the Russians constantly do this when they illegally occupy a country.

The CCP/PLA took Tibet for the exploitation of natural resources and strategic location. Liberation? Are you telling us murdering over 70 million people, from the 1920's to the present, who disagreed with the CCP is liberating? Get lost. That's why the good folks in Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan and the rest of 1st World Asia despise you.

That’s some mighty fine propaganda you bought into. It’s no wonder you are spreading it, it must have come at a great loss of your common sense.

Everything about them is. They’re gross.

And how many were closed in order to erase their cultural education?

List them if you will. Preferably alphabetical if you don’t mind.

EDIT: yeah. I thought so.

The Russians invaded and colonized Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, shall I continue or we gonna stop here?

Yes, they did. And today those are free states. Which now punish their Russian (Russian speaking, mind you) minorities.

Look, I don't even care that much whether some states decide to suppress languages of their minorities. I care about the messaging. If the virtue signalling is "it is bad to try to suppress language and culture of a minority in the state school system", I can get behind that. But it needs to be a universal concept, then. Especially around our allies. Like, of course China is doing evil shit, I don't expect them to do stuff differently. But I expect my allies and friends to do better.

I'll never understand in these kind of discussions how that concept of using the same scope is difficult, but here we are ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Okay, let’s actually read past the headline and look at what the article itself admits versus what it wants you to believe.

First, the “schools are being shut down and kids are abandoned” narrative. The article buries the fact that Gangjong Grassland Girls' School (one of the three “closed” schools) was already a government-affiliated institution with a curriculum following the state system. So the “closure” is a restructuring of an already integrated school, not the sudden eradication of an independent Tibetan institution.

Second, the “where did the children go?” question. RFA doesn’t tell you. But public reporting does: Golog has 63 boarding schools where rural students get free accommodation, food, and tuition. The reason is geographic. Golog is at an average altitude above 4,000 meters with scattered pastoral populations; daily commuting is not realistic. Boarding is voluntary, decided by parents and students, and kids go home on weekends and holidays. This is logistics, not a plot.

Third, the “language is being erased” claim. The article cites an “expert” saying kids will be forced into Chinese-only schools. Here’s the actual data from Xizang (Tibet): there are over 30,000 bilingual teachers, and the number of full-time Tibetan language teachers grew from 5,800 in 2018 to nearly 8,300. Tibetan language is a core compulsory subject, and in Chamdo, about 94% of ethnic Tibetan students take the Tibetan language exam for college entrance. If that’s “erasure,” it’s the most incompetent erasure campaign in history.

Fourth, the “Ethnic Unity Law is a weapon against Tibetan” line. The law that RFA says is the legal cover for closing schools explicitly states the state shall “encourage all ethnic groups to appreciate each other’s exceptional traditional cultures, and learn each other’s languages and scripts.” That’s Article 29, in black and white. RFA’s “researcher” either didn’t read the law or hopes you won’t.

Fifth, the new schools are invisible in this article. The same month RFA claims schools are vanishing, a brand-new Golog-Xining Ethnic High School (built with paired assistance from Shanghai) was operating with nearly 1,000 students, mostly from herding families. Earlier, the Golog Middle School in Xining received 122 million yuan in investment, largely funded by Shanghai. These aren’t secret facts. They just don’t fit the “cultural genocide” template.

So the next time you see “China closes Tibetan schools,” ask the questions RFA didn’t answer: Were the schools already government-run? Where did the students go? Are there more Tibetan-language teachers now than before? The answers usually make the headline look less like journalism and more like a press release for a very specific political agenda.

You know that annexation happened almost 70 years ago right?

Indigenous lands in north america were taken hundreds of years ago

a region that had 97% illiteracy rate and is now 28% remained the same

Literacy rates improved vastly for indigenous people in the Americas. Does that make that colonialism acceptable to you?

Messaging is nice in a black and white world. Russians invaded, annexed and colonized parts of countries with the intent of becoming the majority / russifying. It was used as an element of cultural genocide (similar to what we are seeing in China with Tibetans and Uighurs.)

Even today, we can literally point at the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an ongoing example of "protection of Russian minorities" as a pretext for an unnecessary war on an independent and sovereign state separate from Russia. So yes, ideally, we should be able to say that ALL minorities in all countries regardless of historical precedent should be properly protected, but we live in a reality where that goodwill and weakness will be exploited by a Russia with imperial ambitions as casus belli for invasion of the Baltics. Forgive me if I take the Baltic's fear of invasion at face value, they were still occupied 36 years ago.

And finally, just to flip the script here a little, the Russians are not exactly saints when it comes to protecting minority languages. Go read about Karelia for gods sakes. It was Finnish less than a hundred years ago.

Everyone who doesn't agree with me is bad, uneducated, and ignorant. Only what I say has any relevance, ever, and I'm also smarter than all of you are.

Why the fuck are we letting 10 year olds on Lemmy?

Never ponder what happened to indigenous inhabitants of Ingria :v

edit: I'm confused as to why you upovted this if you disagree with the premise of west applying double standards

Yeah, because Russia will immediately cease to threaten the Baltics, if they have eradicated the Russian language in some 6-8 generations.

Go read about Karelia for gods sakes.

Nowhere did I say that it is good when e.g. Russia does it?!

It's strange, because it's just so incompatible with how I feel. Like, I have higher standars for my friends and me than for strangers, but in politics it's the other way round, where friends and allies can do whatever and are never called out.

Begging people to not blindly believe the CIA 😭 People really will just nod along as long as it's in line with their preconceived notions...

Tibet was liberated from a feudal mode of production that used slavery.

Funny, that's the exact same argument nazis use on native americans for white people civilizing them.

But you can't call out China's actions, that's CIA propaganda!

Have you read Lenin’s work on the subject?

Clearly you haven't.

Same energy as "Free the Confederacy"

China is claiming territory in the south china sea far beyond its internationally recognized borders. That is imperialism.

Don't worry buddy, I have enough education to see through the bullshit of the Chinese system. You're outright dismissal of my points as "silly" or "sinophobia" without any real counterpoints however makes me question your intelligence.

China has billionaires and private equity under state capitalism, a perfectly normal component of any state transitioning out of capitalism.

This is your excuse for billionaires, easy to say this when you are making it up as you go along. How can you claim something is "perfectly normal" when it has not been done before? Wealth inequality in China is increasing every year, doesn't sound like the transition to communism is going very well.

The bourgeoisie in China have no political sway,

You say so little in your reply and what you did say is easily disprovable. Less than 1/3 of the CCP is made up of workers and farmers with the majority over 2/3 made up of well educated and well paid educated elites and professionals. Before you say they are all workers, they do not share the same interests. A doctor in Beijing earns $150,000 a year and lives very comfortably on this salary. A factory worker struggles on an annual salary of about $7000. The majority of the CCP has a vested interest in the status quo and any transition to communism would require them to vote against their own self interest. All the while more and more billionaires gain more and more power and control in the country that is rife with corruption to begin with. China has similar levels of corruption as the Ivory Coast or Ghana.

You then claim I made up the terrible working conditions in China because I am "weak"? Huh? What kind of argument is that? China is the country of the 996 work week, that still goes on despite weak crackdowns. The country of the Foxconn suicides, the Hukou system creating an underclass of employees and forced labor of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

I could go on all day but there is no convincing you because you believe what you want to believe. Facts don't get in the way of your feelings, you live in the land of delusion and fantasy. You give China a free pass because the ruling party has "communist" in its name. Next you will tell me the Democratic Republic of Korea is a vibrant democracy. The truth is China has just figured out a way to exploit the surplus labor of it's workers to fuel its export machine. They are never actually going to transition to full communism, this is the lie they tell the workers while the rich in China live well. "Keep working there little guys and at some unknown point in the future we will reach the promised land, I swear!" As I said earlier, it's just slavery with extra steps. You say I am the "silly" one.

I am once again pointing out to you that both the factory worker and medical worker would benefit from pursuing development and collectivization. Both have surplus value stolen from them, as is the basis of wage labor under a capitalist, and for those in the public sector they would also benefit from greater collectivization as is the basis of their shared prosperity.

You keep repeating the nonsense idea that communism is when everyone gets paid the same amount, but this has never been true. Not only is it a horrendous misreading of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs," as everyone has unique needs, but the point at which that becomes reality is the point at which all labor is interchangeable and scarcity no longer exists for the majority of produced goods. Until that point, distribution is largely according to labor, meaning more skilled and more strenuous work is paid better.

You deliberately refuse to understand these basic points and keep retreating to the most nonsense attacks on communism possible.

Well I'm in the US, and we have a sordid history of forcing natives into certain types of schools.

So I'd just be curious to hear about how many Tibetan language schools have been closed specifically, and where all of those people now need to go to learn (that now specifically doesn't include their culture at all).

Sino-russian french republic... or sino-russian scandinavian social democracies... or sino-russian poland.

Wait what was that?? Must've been the sino-russians...

Sorry, how are literal CIA propaganda blogs accepted as a source?

It's funny, you'd think being on Lemmy for several years as an anarchist with an interest in understanding the perspectives of fellow revolutionaries would lead me to have more of an appreciation for MLs. Instead I'm just 98% convinced y'all are in a cult.

Oh, you again. I am not deliberately refusing to understand these basic points, I am pointing out that these basic points, while nice in theory are unworkable in reality. You are making the same mistake that has plagued economics since its inception, trying and failing miserably to make economics more like the hard sciences by incorporating the constant of the "rational man". There is no such thing as this, especially when you are dealing with large numbers of people, history has proved time and again that this concept is ridiculous and that crowds are irrational.

You are treating the doctor, who is close to the top of society in terms of living standards the same as the factory worker near the bottom. You are reducing them both to the same constant because it fits your narrative. You argue that both are the same because their surplus labor is stolen yet the factory worker can't afford a house and the doctor goes home to their luxury apartment to sleep on silk sheets. At least in this scenario, the doctor is relatively well compensated for his skilled labor, in a full communist society the doctor's labor is devalued to the point where it is equal to that of the factory worker.

You keep repeating the nonsense idea that communism is when everyone gets paid the same amount,

I do not keep on repeating this, I fully understand the concept of a communist society in its most evolved form going beyond the need for money. It is essentially the same thing as everyone being paid the same amount because there is no additional compensation for the highly skilled brain surgeon over the street cleaner. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". If this came into place tomorrow I guarantee you that there would be no doctors or dentists left in the country because their skills are in high demand worldwide. There is no point at which their labor is interchangable, the farmer in the field can't just scrub in for surgery after all the doctors leave. In all of our interactions you have never answers this point.

You're still not getting it, even though you're more than smart enough to. It is impossible to implement "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" tomorrow, because agricultural labor and medical labor are too distinct. We do not have sufficiently advanced means of production and distribution as well as polytechnical education to where we would not need to compensate skilled labor higher yet. That's the entire reason why no socialist society has ever implemented what you're talking about.

5 centuries ago, textile work, carpentry, smithing, and logistics all required dramatically different skillsets. Today, most production relies on tools that share in common means of operation. They all have their own characteristics, but the specialization of labor is eroding. This is also true across fields like engineering, where tools like CAD are industry standards. Barriers to job switching are lowering. In the far future, this process will continue, until no individual field needs more strenuous study than others.

I refuse to believe you are incapable of understanding this. I understand it as you deliberately refusing to. Do better, be serious.

You just wrote an entire paragraph attributing arguments to me that I've never made. And you have the nuts to question my intelligence for accurately observing material reality.

"996" "Xinjiang" "workers don't share interests" yeah buddy you're a sinophobic moron. I deal with people like you virtually every day of the week. The reason I don't engage with the stuff you say is because you're parroting lines from people like Adrian Zenz without having a clue who he is or why that matters. You're not interesting enough for me to coach.

It must be so easy to be a capitalist. Every communist success never happened, and those that did weren't communist.

Like a box of rocks.

Communist success has never existed because there has never been a true communist state. No country has even gotten past the half way stage. Do you not even understand the communism you claim to preach? Tell me all about some of the "communist success", come on then buddy!

. It is impossible to implement "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" tomorrow, because agricultural labor and medical labor are too distinct.

Exactly my argument, the destination is fantasy land, there is no predicted timeframe on a future where this state is achieved so until then exploit the workers because we have supposedly have good intentions?

They all have their own characteristics, but the specialization of labor is eroding. This is also true across fields like engineering, where tools like CAD are industry standards

5 centuries ago, textile work, carpentry, smithing, and logistics all required dramatically different skillsets

This is all absolute BS, specialisation of labour is increasing across all fields as these fields increase in complexity. Your example of engineering displays a hilarious lack of knowledge of the field, just because they all use computer aided design specialisation is eroding? Ridiculous statement, I don't even know where to begin but I will try and keep it simple for you. 100 years ago people studied engineering, today there are 6 main types, chemical, biomedical, civil, mechanical, electrical and materials engineering each of these main groups has dozens of sub specialities contained within. The same is true of medicine, science and just about every single other degree level course. You are displaying a profound lack of understanding here, as time goes on and out knowledge expands this specialisation will only increase, your argument here is null and void.

Do better, be serious.

Right back at you big guy.

I didn't ask for coaching buddy, certainly not from the likes of you anyway. I have the nuts to question your intelligence because you keep making a fool of yourself.

996" "Xinjiang" "workers don't share interests" yeah buddy you're a sinophobic moron.

I have put several points to you but your only response to these points are ad hominem attacks because you have no responses. Just admit you're in over your head.

I deal with people like you virtually every day of the week.

If this was true I would have thought you'd have better answers than this rubbish. If you are dealing with people like this every day maybe find something better to do with your time. I regularly get in discussions with your type also and it always ends up this way, with you spluttering and raging, unable to answer my points and resorting to ad hominem attacks because beyond a certain point it's all you have. Sit down and take your "L" little dude, there's a good boy!

You keep making the moralist argument that private property is a sin. This is not Marxism. Marketization is useful in underdeveloped production, when planned economy is better in centralized production. Markets inevitably transition to centralized production. There is no specific timescale, but this general process is observable fact.

As for the fact that you can "sub-specialize" in engineering, I'm well aware. However, the idea that it takes a tremendous amount of time to train an experienced engineer in one field on another field is also incorrect. Knowledge increases, yes, and so too does our ability to standardize and simplify what we know. An engineer that works in automotive can quite easily transfer to home appliances, and vice versa. The processes and actual work at hand are more uniform across the board.

You also entirely ignored that fields like textile work, smithing, etc. have all largely been taken up by tooling with similar means of operation. The time to train for these jobs is lowering as time goes on.

Do better, be serious.

You keep making the moralist argument that private property is a sin.

Where did I make that argument? I see no sin in private property ownership.

However, the idea that it takes a tremendous amount of time to train an experienced engineer in one field on another field is also incorrect

Wild statement, you are going to need to back that up. You are discounting years of specialist training just to qualify and then the years of experience required to actually become useful in the field. You are simplifying something you don't understand to fit your argument. Are you aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect, this is the perfect example of that. The same goes for my own field of dentistry or the field of medicine which I also have knowledge of the time it takes to train or even the field of legal specialisation.

Do better, be serious.

I can't believe you ended your uninformed rant with this, you are too funny dude :)

You believe Marxists see private property as a sin, rather than something becoming gradually outdated as production advances. This is the crux of your "Marxism."

As for Engineers needing less training to swap from industry to industry, yes, this is a simplification. However, the fact of the matter is that within branches of engineering, transferability is high. Solidworks is a common engineering software, and its incredibly standardized. Engineering drawings used to be entirely by hand, and thus had no automated error catching. They also varied far more by industry. Now, a mechanical engineer can take their solid works experience and transfer it to another industry, like automotive to home applicance, and it's relatively simple.

Of course, said engineer will have to understand the new standardization for BOM structure, how part numbers are handled, and company culture. However, it is gradually standardizing how work is done for mechanical engineers, making it a field that is increasingly generic among those trained in mechanical engineering. This is all oversimplified, but again, you entirely ignored the points on smithing, textiles, and carpentry, which all falls into the same point.