Thanks for the ping @GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml .

Chinese in China here, I think a better question than "Do you support your government" would be: "If the US government were to replace the CPC and current government tomorrow, would you approve?" Sorry to folks in Nordic countries (another stereotype propelled by liberals) because the US is the "beacon" that liberals use mainly.

If people from any country have no experience with living in other countries, they might be more inclined to topple their own government if their living conditions aren't great and someone were to advocate for the toppling. Even if people read about how bad some foreign governments are in the news, some people would just brush it off as "propaganda", they would have to see it for themselves to believe. This goes both ways for both the people of the US and China.

Comparison is a powerful tool, but some people whip out the "whataboutism" card when you try to do that, they tell you to address the problem instead of finding worse examples from other places. Indeed it's always better to address the problem at hand, but people who scream "whataboutism" in relation to China's issues are really saying "don't look at worse places to make yourself feel good, overthrow the SEE-SEE-PEE regime now!"

Do I support the CPC and Chinese government? Yes and yes.

Does China have problems. Yes.

Do I need to hear from egotistical maniacs in other countries on how to handle issues in my country? No.

Shifting the topic from anti-capitalism to anti-"insert gender/race/colour/nationality/other biological/natural-born traits here" is just helping the capitalists.

Capitalists are happy to incite division based on anything, even ideology, this helps to keep the exploited divided and not a threat to their rule, which is what happens if people keep bickering about issues like the ones in question.

No need to waste time when you see someone mention these three events together:

Famine, Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution.

It's the Chinese liberal equivalent of that "TIANANMEN MASSACRE. ORGAN HARVESTING. UYGUR GENOCIDE" trope.

(Hint: It's aimed at Mao Zedong and the CPC)

What a hot mess of a person. I see these type of people roaming the Internet acting like they have no idea that actual Chinese people living in China are on the Internet. Yes most people can't access a lot of content due to Internet regulations, I wonder what Microsoft did to be allowed in China, oh I know, comply with the local laws and regulations!

These people think that society will improve just by being "compassionate", but look at all the hateful things they spew.

I'm saying this also as a reminder that capitalists will allow anti-capitalist ideology to exist, to a certain degree, because anti-capitalist can mean anything from Marxism to anarchism or worse. More time spent on debating the right path is less time spent on putting theory into practice, which is more time for capitalism to live on.

Division is what capitalists employ to break the unity of the proletariat, which is why they emphasize individualism and demonize collectivism. Capitalists want a monopoly on unity and democracy, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie rather than the proletariat.

This is not to say that we should all forget the wrongdoings of certain people and groups and join up in fake-unity, hold on to those thoughts, but keep in mind the fundamental enemy that is capitalism.

Thanks for pinging me @GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml (sounds like what people on Zhihu, the Chinese Quora, would say).

Points 1/5/6 about quality control, nepotism and mannerisms are about the same thing, that is whether you can generalize a few bad eggs to the entire group. My personal experience isn't going to be the same as someone next door, let alone someone from a different province, so the right place to look for answers is in statistics. I've heard the things you mentioned in these three points at least a decade ago, things have definitely become better is what I can tell you.

Point 2 about population, I'm part of the "young people who do not want to have kids", I strikeout the want to because I don't think people who don't want kids really mean it. I'm not a population expert so I'll pass on trying to estimate population numbers. Personally I think the cost of raising kids that some people mention mostly refers to the quality of education (which I'll mention below in point 4), and cost of living.

Point 3 about unemployment. "20% unemployment" is bogus talking point cooked up by Chinese liberal economists, here's the actual statistic they conjured this "data" from: http://www.stats.gov.cn/...

Specifically, the surveyed unemployment rates of population aged from 16 to 24 and from 25 to 59 were 21.3 percent and 4.1 percent respectively

To anyone who can read, 21.3% unemployment refers to a narrow range of people from ages 16 to 24, but some liberals intentionally generalized it into the entire working population. Some economists went further and found a way to turn this 21.3% into around 50% unemployment.

Point 4 about education. Due to the large population of students and not enough resources to go around, there is definitely fierce competition among parents who want a better future for their kids. Note that I mention parents and not students, because I don't think most kids have the mental capacity or experience to understand what a better future is. Some parents go the extra mile and pay for tutoring outside of school to try to improve their kids' grades, this is understandable. But if all parents think like this, it's just going to come down to who is rich enough to employ better tutors on the market. Families who are not as well-off won't be able to compete if they also try to find tutors for their children. This is one of the reasons why tutoring for core subjects is banned, because the quality of education should not depend on how much capital a family can muster. There are also policies to reduce the amount of homework from school, can't comment on the effects as I don't have kids.

You don't need to have a positive impression of China, you can come here personally to see for yourself if you haven't, then form your own conclusions.

We call it the "BBC/nether filter", referring to how BBC turns all pictures and videos of China darker than original.

By "democratic capitalism" they actually mean bourgeois democratic dictatorship, as opposed to people's/proletariat democratic dictatorship.

I read the article from KKE and thought maybe they changed their mind as it was published in 2010, then I went to their homepage and saw this: https://inter.kke.gr/.... This is the last line:

The Chinese dragon with its economic and political resources is claiming what it believes to be its rightful place, including at the heart of Europe.

In China there are:

• 98 million members of the Communist Party of China (7% of the population)
• 73 million members of the Communist Youth League (there is overlap in membership with the CPC as the age requirements are 14 to 28 years old for the CYL, so do not just add the numbers from the CPC and CYL)
• 114 million members of the Chinese Young Pioneers (ages 6 to 14)

Joining the CPC is about taking on a responsibility to the Party and people, which is different from just believing in the principles of communism as a non-Party member.

The rest of the population can certainly "identify as communist" without being members of the CPC/CYL/CYP, but it depends on how you define it.

Here are some common "criticisms" of Xi from different angles (not meant to be serious):

• West (imperialists, neoliberals, anarchists, racists): Xitler
• Ultras: revisionist, nationalist
• Maoists: Dengist, revisionist, pacifist
• Dengists: Maoist

Jokes aside, I think Socialism with Chinese characteristics focuses more on how to maintain and build upon a socialist country, rather than how to become a socialist country (Mao's great achievement). That doesn't mean other countries can't learn from China's experience, but it means keeping in mind China's historical background when researching. This includes its 5000 year-old history as a civilization with some setbacks but still going strong today. If you learn Chinese, you'll be able to read text from ye olden days. Ancient Chinese philosophies still have influence in modern-day China, like how people still read the works of ancient Greek philosophers.

How is any of this relevant to Xi's ideology? Xi Jinping Thought is the latest theory of the CPC put into practice, it includes new theory, but also builds upon tried and tested theory from past leaders. Xi is an important foreman of this period (since 2012), but also part of the collective leadership of the CPC. Collectivism doesn't exclude individual ideas, but is more resilient to corosion from individualism. The CPC upholds a long list of theory from Marxist-Leninism, Mao, Deng, Jiang, Hu and now Xi, so when we talk about "Xi's ideology", do not forget the collective body of knowledge and people surrounding it in the background.

Haven't heard that one, but here's an example, on the left is BBC's Chinese version, on the left is the English version:

Original article: BBC sparks uproar in China for 'underworld filter' on Wuhan video https://www.globaltimes.cn/...

Anti-authoritarians have no future, one either supports an existing authority or tries to become a new authority. Everyone can have a say in a democracy, but when it comes down to decision, whether through majority vote or expert opinion or other methods, the decision then becomes authority.

Even if someone claims to hate all forms of authority, this person will become the authority on "hating authority" if a following is gained. That's how anarchists are doomed for failure.

Note that out of the 96.7 million CPC members (as of 2021), there are

• 25.9 million farmers/herdsmen/fishermen
• 15.5 million technical personnel
• 10.9 million in management positions
• 7.8 million party/government workers
• 6.6 million skilled workers
• 3.1 million students
• 7.5 million in other professions
• 19.4 million retired personnel

Not saying that private entrepreneurs don't have any voice, but they are a very small minority in both political representation and political power.

Two people in this thread say that with the internet, we can move away from "big public figures"/"big thinkers". While I appreciate this optimism, it just sounds very anti-authoritarian, and I quote from Engels On Authority:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

There are anti-government and anti-"big corp/business" tendencies in the US/West, which I will call "anti-authority" for now. The essense of "anti-authority" in capitalist countries is anti-capitalism, or anti-"dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", but there is a gap in this logic that stops people from turning into marxists right away, as they might instead become anarchists. This gap in logic will not be closed just by having everyone have access to free information through the internet, as there is too much information to digest, and imperialists will also interfere with the propagation of marxist ideology.

"Anti-authoritarian" sentiments do have positive outcomes, like decentralized technologies (think internet, bittorrent, p2p, fediverse etc.), the open source software movement, but these only serve as tools, they are the means and not the end.

allowing members of the bourgeoisie to hold political power is pretty much the definition of revisionism

I'm also curious as to where this is defined.

The amendment to the consitution of the CPC in 2002 allowed "any advanced element of other social strata" to join the party, this was and still is controversial even among party members.

Private entrepreneurs do not equate to capitalists, though they do attract the same negative sentiments due to capitalistic tendencies. There are party rules and regulations, and country laws that to prevent both party leading cadres and civil servants to hold posts in private entreprises.

From Law of the People’s Republic of China on Civil Servants:

Article 59 Civil servants shall abide by disciplinary rules and laws. They shall not commit any of the following acts:

(16) Engaging or participating in for-profit activities and concurrently holding a post in enterprises or other for-profit organizations in violation of relevant regulations;

The first phrase, "sand sculpture" or 沙雕 is a homophone (similar pronunciation, different meaning) for 傻屌 (literally means stupid dick), but just like how "fuck" is censored/filtered, people use homophones to evade such censors. By the way, "沙雕" is interpreted as "sand eagle" (one might even say desert eagle) rather than "sand sculpture" when using it to call others stupid.

As for the other two, I'm not quite sure what you're looking at.

I'm not sure which videos have this, but when I see this I expect to see cynical content that may be used to defame China.

It's like saying "I don't mean to be disrespectful, but *says something disrespectful*".

I remember this being brought up in the regular press conferences of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China for three days in a row, here are some Q&As related to cybersecurity:

2023-06-16

AFP: The US cybersecurity firm Mandiant on Thursday published a statement related to a cyberattack. It says that suspected hackers backed by China have broken into the networks of hundreds of public and private sector organizations globally. Are you aware of this report and is it accurate?

Wang Wenbin: The cybersecurity firm that you mentioned has repeatedly sold disinformation on so-called Chinese hacking attacks. The stories are far-fetched and unprofessional. The Chinese cybersecurity agency published in April the “Review of Cyberattacks from US Intelligence Agencies”, which disclosed that US intelligence agencies have been intruding on, dividing and suppressing foreign cybersecurity vendors through the Project CAMBERDADA. You might have noted that nowadays, global cybersecurity vendors rarely disclose cases of cyberattacks by the US government, but by making up reports about so-called foreign cyberattacks, US cybersecurity vendors have become accomplices in the US government’s smearing campaigns against other countries. 

2023-07-12

Bloomberg: Last night or early this morning, Microsoft said it found a China-based group that was targeting government agencies in western Europe. Does China have any comment on this report and have you had any contact with governments in western Europe asking about this?

Wang Wenbin: We noted the reports saying that the spokesman for the White House National Security Council claimed that US officials found hackers linked to China took advantage of a security weakness in Microsoft’s cloud-computing to break into unclassified email accounts of the US, and the US has notified Microsoft about this. I would like to say that in the past, it was usually the world’s No.1 hacking group—the US National Security Agency, which also serves as the US Cyber Force Command, that released such kind of disinformation. This time, it was the US National Security Council that made a public statement. Whatever agency spoke, it does not change the fact that the US is the world’s biggest hacking empire and global cyber thief.

Since last year, cyber security institutions from China and elsewhere in the world have issued reports to reveal US government’s cyber attacks against China over the years, but the US has yet to make a response. It is high time that the US explained its cyber attack activities and stopped spreading disinformation to deflect public attention.

2023-07-13

AFP: I have a question on the report by Microsoft this week, which said a China-based hacking group was targeting Western government data. Does the Chinese foreign ministry have any further details on the origin of these hacks?

Wang Wenbin: I have answered relevant questions yesterday. The US needs to give an explanation for its own cyber attacks as soon as possible, instead of spreading disinformation and deflecting attention.

2023-07-14

CCTV: Yesterday, Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Wang Yi met with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken upon invitation in Jakarta, Indonesia. A US official said that the US side said at the meeting that the US government network was hacked and the US will hold the hackers accountable with proper measures. Do you have any comment?

Wang Wenbin: Director Wang Yi made clear China’s principled position on the issue of cyber security. The Chinese government agencies face numerous cyber attacks every day, most of which come from sources in the US. We’ve shared relevant facts with the international community on multiple occasions. China is the biggest victim of cyber attack. The US needs to stop slapping false labels on China.

2023-07-19

Bloomberg: A US energy executive has told lawmakers in the US that China represents an increasing threat to the US power grid. The executive also called China’s activities regarding cyber hacking quite alarming. How does the foreign ministry respond?

Mao Ning: China is a victim of cyber attacks. We firmly oppose any form of cyber attacks. The US has carried out indiscriminate, large-scale cyber attacks against other countries over the years. The US Cyber Force Command blatantly declared last year that the critical infrastructure of other countries is a legitimate target for US cyber attacks. Such moves have raised concern.

Cyber security is a global challenge and requires joint response from the international community. Some in the US must not smear other countries with groundless narratives to serve their political agenda. The US needs to stop cyber attacks against other countries.

2023-07-24

Dragon TV: According to reports, on July 20, CIA Director William Burns while attending the Aspen Security Forum said that progress has been made in rebuilding the US spy networks in China and they are working hard to build a very strong human intelligence capability to complement what they can acquire through other methods. What’s China’s comment?

Mao Ning: We’ve noted the reports. This is rather concerning. The US on the one hand keeps spreading disinformation on so-called “Chinese spying and cyber attacks”, and on the other hand tells the public about its large-scale intelligence activities targeting China. This in itself is quite revealing. China will take all measures necessary to safeguard national security.

2023-07-26

Global Times: Today, the Wuhan Municipal Emergency Management Bureau issued a public statement and the Wuhan Public Security Bureau put up a bulletin. According to them, the Wuhan Earthquake Monitoring Center suffered a cyberattack, which was detected by China’s National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center and Chinese company 360. Global Times reported that preliminary evidence indicates that the cyberattack had come from the US. What is your comment?

Mao Ning: According to the statements from relevant Chinese agencies, a hacker group with overseas government background launched a cyberattack on the Wuhan Earthquake Monitoring Center, which is a serious threat to China’s national security.

We condemn the irresponsible attack. China will do what is necessary to safeguard our cybersecurity.

China Daily: Lately, US officials, including National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce and spokesperson for the White House National Security Council have commented on the so-called “Chinese cyberattacks against the US.” Officials from the US National Security Agency even said that espionage is what nation-states do. Are the statements released today by relevant Chinese agencies a response to US remarks?  

Mao Ning: The statements from China are objective and professional. They simply stated a fact. This is inherently different from the accusation and smear against China from the US. The US government is engaged in malicious cyber operations against not just China but countries around the world, while blaming China for so-called “hacking attacks.” This is textbook double standards and political manipulation.

Cybersecurity is a common challenge. By politicizing and weaponizing cybersecurity issues, the US is disrupting the global effort of jointly addressing the challenge through dialogue and cooperation and hampering the mutual trust among countries. The US needs to immediately stop its wrongdoing and work with the rest of the world to make common rules through dialogue and cooperation and abide by these rules, and safeguard peace, security and stability in cyberspace with a constructive and pragmatic attitude.