Things I have been told:
-
Chinese sources about Chinese elections being democratic, which to me is like American sources telling me America is good.
-
That Venezuela’s election was legit.
-
That I’m too propagandized from the West.
-
That any protests against said goverments are CIA-made.
-
That democracy is a bourgeoisie invention to control the proletariat.
-
That Ukraine is full of Nazis/Russia is threatened by NATO
-
That the EU is a bourgeoisie organization that should be dissolved “to give power to nations again”, something that Elon said too, and in neither case I do believe it was said genuinely.
-
That all states are authoritarian, as if China’s or NK’s authoritarianism was better than Spain’s or France’s.
-
That authoritarianism is just an insult to throw to socialist states.
-
That freedom of press is a bourgeoisie invention to control the narrative.
-
That LGTB and racism are irrelevant to the movement (which I don’t really think is the general feeling, but still have been told several times)
-
That I just don’t get working for the collective good instead of individual goals, or even that human rights are less important than the collective good (not straight up said, but heavily implied stuff like “the common good is more important than personal freedom”…)
Things I have observed:
-
Chinese elections, which I had researched about before and, with due respect, seemed like fascist Italy’s “pre-approved deputies Yes or No” election.
-
North Korean elections, which I also researched, and seemed even more restrictive than China’s, with a single ballot you can give as is, or ask for a pen to cross out names (which usually comes with consequences).
-
Venezuelan elections being rigged by Maduro through the government-controlled national electoral council declaring him victorious even though the found voting tallies from polling stations showed victory for González.
-
Opression in supposedly socialist or communist states is seen as neccesary to keep capitalists in check, but a lesser degree of oppression in capitalist states is seen as a reason to follow the type of socialism of the supposed socialist states.
-
The means of production are owned by the state, but the state isn’t really owned by the people, only by itself, therefore the means of production aren’t owned by the people either.
-
There are still billionaires in China. I’m told they are kept in check by the CPC, but still, how the hell are there billionaires in a supposedly socialist country? Which ties with the next point
-
“Socialist china”, but there are still lots of sweatshops making stuff that’s sold to the west, which is how I guess there are billionaires…
It makes me feel like either
- A lot of people romanticize authoritarian communist states like that “Thing VS Thing, Japan” meme, something like “Authoritarianism VS Authoritarianism, Self-proclaimed Communist State”, which I find rather concerning as we aim to get rid of the exploitation of the workers, not just change who does it.
OR
- A lot of bad actors are co-opting marxist movements in general to whitewash the image of their authoritarian states, create divisions in the west to de-estabilize it, or push certain parties that will help them one way or another, which I very obviously don’t want to fall for.
Could someone explain it all to me? It has made me incredibly wary of nearly anything that’s “China says their elections are democratic”, “western propaganda”, etc. –
First: the meta-issue (important)
This post comes off as bad faith and distinctly Western-liberal in outlook. Not because it asks questions, but because it assumes Western liberal norms as the neutral baseline and then judges everything else against them while pretending to be “just asking.”
Repeated patterns:
Treats Western media narratives as default unless proven otherwise, while demanding non-Western states meet impossible purity tests.
Claims to have “researched” but clearly relies on headline-level liberal sources, NGO talking points, and election-observer discourse produced by imperial states.
Frames socialist states as needing to justify themselves morally, while capitalist states are treated as flawed but legitimate.
Uses “authoritarian” as an aesthetic judgment, not a material analysis.
This is not neutral skepticism. It is liberal ideology pretending to be critical thinking.
Now, point by point.
“Things I have been told”
1. “Chinese sources about Chinese elections being democratic are like American sources saying America is good”
False equivalence.
US elections are dominated by private money, lobbying, media monopolies, and elite candidate filtration.
China does not define democracy as periodic multi-party spectacle. It defines it as mass participation, cadre accountability, and material outcomes.
Chinese elections operate through people’s congresses, where local representatives are elected and then elevated based on performance, supervision, and recall mechanisms.
You are judging Chinese democracy by liberal electoral aesthetics, not by whether the masses can influence governance.
2. “Venezuela’s election wasn’t legit”
Assertion without evidence.
Venezuela has more elections, more parties, and more audits than most Western states.
Their electoral system includes paper trails, audits, international observers, and machine verification.
Western claims of fraud emerge only when US-aligned candidates lose.
If your evidence is “Western media said so,” that is not analysis.
3. “I’m too propagandized by the West”
Likely true.
Westerners are immersed in:
Corporate media
NGO narratives aligned with foreign policy
“Human rights” discourse weaponized selectively
Read Parenti’s Inventing Reality. Western propaganda works precisely because it claims not to exist.
4. “Any protests are CIA-made”
Strawman.
No serious Marxist claims all protests are CIA. The claim is:
The CIA funds, steers, amplifies, and weaponizes protests where it serves imperial interests.
This is documented fact (Iran 1953, Chile 1973, Hong Kong, Ukraine, Venezuela, etc.).
Rejecting this is historical illiteracy.
5. “Democracy is a bourgeois invention”
Incorrect framing.
Liberal democracy is a bourgeois invention.
Proletarian democracy means democratic control over production, the state, and society.
Voting every few years for capitalist managers is not democracy.
6. “Ukraine is full of Nazis / Russia threatened by NATO”
Factually true, whether you like it or not.
Ukraine has institutionalized fascist formations (Azov, Aidar, Right Sector).
Bandera collaborators are state-celebrated.
NATO expanded eastward explicitly against Russian security assurances.
This does not make Russia socialist or morally pure. It makes Western narratives dishonest.
7. “EU is bourgeois and should be dissolved”
Correct.
The EU is:
A neoliberal treaty structure
Enforces austerity, privatization, and capital mobility
Suppresses popular sovereignty (see Greece, Italy)
That Elon Musk says something similar is irrelevant. Class analysis does not depend on who accidentally agrees.
8. “All states are authoritarian”
Yes, materially.
The question is authoritarian for whom.
Capitalist states repress workers and protect capital.
Socialist states repress bourgeois power and imperial subversion.
Pretending Spain or France are “less authoritarian” ignores:
Police violence
Anti-strike laws
Surveillance
Repression of migrants
9. “Authoritarianism is just an insult against socialist states”
Often true.
Liberals use it as a moral label, not an analytic category. No material analysis follows.
10. “Freedom of the press is bourgeois”
Yes.
Press freedom exists only for owners.
Journalists do not decide narratives; advertisers, owners, and state interests do.
Whistleblowers (Assange, Manning) show the limits clearly.
11. “LGBT and racism are irrelevant”
This is reactionary nonsense (often nazbol garbage).
Correct Marxist position:
Oppression is material and real
It must be analyzed through class, not liberal identity fetishism
Ignoring it alienates the masses
12. “Collective good over individual rights”
This is where liberalism fully collapses.
Under capitalism:
“Individual rights” protect property and capital.
Under socialism:
Rights are material guarantees (housing, healthcare, education).
Unlimited “personal freedom” for exploiters is incompatible with emancipation.
No society prioritizes all individual desires. Liberalism just hides whose desires matter.
“Things I have observed”
1. Chinese elections resemble fascist Italy
This is historically ignorant.
Fascism:
Preserved private capital
Crushed unions
Served monopoly interests
China:
Executes corrupt capitalists
Controls capital flows
Plans development
Eliminated extreme poverty
Superficial form ≠ class content.
2. North Korean elections are fake
You admit:
You rely on Western sources
NK is hyper-isolated
So you know nothing reliable.
Western media has lied consistently about:
Haircuts
Executions
Daily life
Serious Marxists suspend judgment where evidence is contaminated or non existent.
3. Venezuela rigged elections
Again: assertion without sources.
Western NGOs ≠ neutral observers.
4. Oppression justified in socialist states but criticized in capitalist ones
Correct, and this is not hypocrisy.
Class oppression is not morally neutral. Oppressing exploiters ≠ oppressing exploited.
5. State owns production but people don’t own state
This ignores:
Class character of the state
Mass line
Party–mass integration
Read Lenin. Read Mao. The state is not a metaphysical entity.
6. There are billionaires in China
Yes. And this is not a secret.
They exist because:
Market reforms were necessary to survive imperialist encirclement
Capital is subordinate to the state
Billionaires are routinely jailed, exiled, or executed
Capital exists on a leash, unlike in the West, where it rules.
7. Sweatshops in China
Industrialization under global capitalism is not optional.
China:
Used export manufacturing to build productive forces
Lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty
Is now reshoring, automating, and repressing capital
You are judging a process as if it were an end state.
Final diagnosis
This post reflects:
Liberal moralism
Western arrogance
Shallow “research”
Fear of committing to class analysis
It is easier to say:
“Everyone is lying, therefore I remain skeptical”
than to accept that:
Imperial propaganda is systematic
Socialist states operate under siege
Democracy is class-based, not aesthetic
If you genuinely want answers:
Read Lenin (State and Revolution)
Read Mao (On Practice, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions)
Read Parenti
Drop the assumption that Western liberalism is neutral
Right now, the posture is not critical. It is comfortable disbelief dressed up as skepticism. You come off as an arrogant, well-off Western liberal content with social-democratic stability while the periphery is super-exploited by the largest immiseration machine in human history so you can keep your treats. A treatlerite.
Great comment comrade and very thorough too! 🫡
I was just going to answer that OP’s post was bad faith but that comment won’t be necessary anymore thanks to you tackling that as well! 🤩
Thank you I try my best.
My response is mainly for interested third parties I hold no illusion of being able to meaningfully connect with a liberal debate bro coming in bad faith just to argue.
Although the optimist in me still hopes they may actually try engage in good faith if the facts are laid bare in front of them.
It is a 2 day old account with no other posts except this. But the points they bring up remind me of what the MLs were saying in response to this thread so I don’t think we should conclude this person is 100% acting in bad faith. It could be someone who sympathizes more with the libertarian/anarchist strands of leftism but saw that there were many points raised by Marxists and wants to engage more, but is presenting things that they’ve absorbed through osmosis as if they have actually done research.
You may be right but the post undeniably reeks of bad faith, liberal arrogance and debatebro posturing
As you said yourself, it’s always worth trying to lay things out clearly for any bystanders. It’s also nice to engage with liberal talking points online and practice what one would say IRL because that’s just part of being a socialist and making socialism happen.
I’m clearly not against replying for the benefit of a possible interested good faith third party at the same time however I see no need to try soften the edges of op or pretend they are anything other than what they present themselves to be, a bad faith actor.
deleted by creator