Strikes are not the main way workers fight for better conditions for themselves in socialism, the society as a whole is oriented in a fashion where this is achievable by reform and referendum, democratic institutions. Strikes can and have been used by western, anti-communist groups against socialist systems, and this is what’s illegal. You’re again falsely pretending the PRC and US Empire have the same economic system, and thus mechanisms like strikes have the same utility in each, but that’s not the case. Strikes are more useful in capitalist economies where the state is on the side of the capitalists.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
Thats not what i am saying though. Again strikes are an example of workers expression of their collective power. If they are almost always done against the will of the state they it seem like the worker collective will has some serious opposition to the will of the state.
If it was a low number of legal strikes that would signs of a healthy system. Nothing is perfect there are going to be disagreements and complaints, if you dont see those there is a much more serious problem if you see an overwhelming amount there is a problem.
Again this is just one litmus test that to me lends credence to the critics ive seen layed out before (was removed in this thread…).Just like the “actually they were terrorist” for Uyghurs mass detention or “but their illegals” for the US detention doesnt hold much weight to me. Kind of a stance that you can call a jar of piss lemonade but it will still taste like piss.
It’s exactly what you’re saying. Workers wield collective power through the state in the PRC, that is their primary means. Tracking strike numbers isn’t an accurate assessment of the health of the economic system or the support workers have for socialism. Instead, looking at metrics I’ve shared like worker confidence in the system and support for it directly state that people broadly support the system overall.
Your comments about Xinjiang were removed because they were Fox News-style conspiracy theory, not actual grounded analysis. I already linked what I recommend you check out.
There aren’t. The system isn’t perfect, of course, but overall the working class supports their socialist system, and believe it represents their interests. Strikes are largely against capitalists when they do happen, not socialism. You’ve been shown several times that the system is consistently and overwhelmingly supported by over 90% of people, far higher than western countries, yet you continue to hem and haw around that while vaguely gesturing towards the fact that strikes exist in China, as though that alone is a point.
Strikes are not illegal in China. Strikes are regulated. Again, the people support their system broadly, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, capitalists are regularly executed by the state. You keep affirming a view of China that does not exist, ie one where capitalists are empowered at the expense of workers, when the opposite is true, and is why the studies you’ve been shown reflect extremely positive views of society and the direction China is going in among the working class.
Strikes are not the main way workers fight for better conditions for themselves in socialism, the society as a whole is oriented in a fashion where this is achievable by reform and referendum, democratic institutions. Strikes can and have been used by western, anti-communist groups against socialist systems, and this is what’s illegal. You’re again falsely pretending the PRC and US Empire have the same economic system, and thus mechanisms like strikes have the same utility in each, but that’s not the case. Strikes are more useful in capitalist economies where the state is on the side of the capitalists.
Thats not what i am saying though. Again strikes are an example of workers expression of their collective power. If they are almost always done against the will of the state they it seem like the worker collective will has some serious opposition to the will of the state.
If it was a low number of legal strikes that would signs of a healthy system. Nothing is perfect there are going to be disagreements and complaints, if you dont see those there is a much more serious problem if you see an overwhelming amount there is a problem.
Again this is just one litmus test that to me lends credence to the critics ive seen layed out before (was removed in this thread…).Just like the “actually they were terrorist” for Uyghurs mass detention or “but their illegals” for the US detention doesnt hold much weight to me. Kind of a stance that you can call a jar of piss lemonade but it will still taste like piss.
It’s exactly what you’re saying. Workers wield collective power through the state in the PRC, that is their primary means. Tracking strike numbers isn’t an accurate assessment of the health of the economic system or the support workers have for socialism. Instead, looking at metrics I’ve shared like worker confidence in the system and support for it directly state that people broadly support the system overall.
Your comments about Xinjiang were removed because they were Fox News-style conspiracy theory, not actual grounded analysis. I already linked what I recommend you check out.
Then why would there still be so many examples of workers effectivally saying otherwise despite the legal risk?
There aren’t. The system isn’t perfect, of course, but overall the working class supports their socialist system, and believe it represents their interests. Strikes are largely against capitalists when they do happen, not socialism. You’ve been shown several times that the system is consistently and overwhelmingly supported by over 90% of people, far higher than western countries, yet you continue to hem and haw around that while vaguely gesturing towards the fact that strikes exist in China, as though that alone is a point.
The fact that strikes are illegal and against capitalists implies the state is protecting capitalist intetests and not worker interests.
Strikes are not illegal in China. Strikes are regulated. Again, the people support their system broadly, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, capitalists are regularly executed by the state. You keep affirming a view of China that does not exist, ie one where capitalists are empowered at the expense of workers, when the opposite is true, and is why the studies you’ve been shown reflect extremely positive views of society and the direction China is going in among the working class.