Communist China rolls out "Smart" school uniforms 'experiment' - Sensationalist Headlines

Yes, but just because they're authoritarian, doesn't mean they are communist, just as not all right-wing dictatorships are fascist. And why would China denounce communism? They're an authoritarian regime trying to maintain the illusion to their people that they are communist as the people are supposed to be loyal to communism. The prime example of this is that when they introduced free market econonmics, they didn't say it was a free market but chinese style socialism. They have no incentive to denounce communism when they've spent over 70 years making people be loyal to the chinese communist ideas. Also, persuading the general public is completely irrelevant. Whether they believe it is communist or not has absolutely no bearing on the ideological reality of the situation. Acaedmia isn't about convincing the public that x = y, but finding out the reality, and in an academic reality, China is an authoritarian state that abandoned communism under the policies of Deng Xiaoping.

Let's just all agree the mainland is just an authoritarian hodgepodge, arguing over strict definitions is wasteful and not exactly relevant to the thread anyway.

China: Bringing the dystopia one great leap forward at a time.

I feel like China's government has stockpiles of western dystopian novels and movies and just peels ideas off and implements them in real life. So it's only a matter of time before China pretends to destroy an entire district ala Hunger Games because they were too powerful to quash but simply wanted to be left alone.

While China is not in any sense advancing some revolutionary ideology and has degenerated in that respect, it would be stupid to deny the traditions the state descends from and continue to guide it. The best description of China is as one of the 20th century socialist states outside of the West that managed to survive the collapse of communism through a mix of reform and repression. It's possibly for it to be simultaneously true that the gap between Western liberalism and China is informed by the latter's history of communism while also understanding either the Western far-left or more orthodox communists have a problem with it.

Relying on what people call themselves is dumb. We have categories for a reason. The Nazis do not fall under a "Socialist" metric. if you just go by what they call themselves, then sure, but we have more sophisticated and accurate ways of thinking then that.

Implying that China is "informed by" or "descends from" communism is simply an admittance that China is no longer of communism as it relies of communism as being part of its history as opposed to contemporary influence

Ehh, elementary school is full of learning about our basic freedoms and coming to terms with a simplified idea of what America is ideally. I can't think of -anyone- I know who doesn't have a strong opinion on our constitutional freedoms one way or the other. I'm from New Hampshire so maybe this is just a new England thing but there's definitely a big push for that shit up here

what an amazing start to the dystopia era.

I mean that's fair but most of the former second world was never really trying to be communist either. I guess Cuba was kind of trying for a while, maybe. Also since the days of Deng Xiaoping? Isn't he responsible for capitalism in China?

Is it time to deem China "Soviet Union 2: Electric Boogaloo" then?

You kvetch about things considered perfectly acceptable there - it's no different than getting an aneurysm because your neighbor likes the color red and you like the color green

I probably phrased that poorly but what I meant was that until Deng Xiaoping gained power, China was at least attempting to pursue communism but Deng Xiaoping changed this.

It's really not. It's saying China has been under the control of the right wing of the party since the late 70s and gets its legitimacy from party traditions. They still frame things with socialist and Marxist language, just with quite a bit of revision. The USSR did the same though. Words do have meaning, including national socialism and democratic peoples' republic. Their thinkers aren't that opportunistic, there's some logic to it

if they don't stop soon, reagans dead body will come back to life, fueled by bottomless anger and dedicated to destroy another superpower

Oh my god no. This is the exact opposite of the truth. The Nazi party officially adopted the name "National Socialist German Workers' Party" in 1920 to appeal to socialists who were disillusioned with the current government. Anton Drexler, the party's founder, was openly anti-Marxist, and Hitler was highly against the name because he fucking despised Socialists.

The Nazis invented the term 'National Socialism' in an attempt to redefine socialism to mask the fact that they were fascists. They didn't agree with any socialist agendas. They wanted to nationalise because they were hard line Nationalists, not because they were Socialists. The German Worker's Party was founded y Anton Drexler as an expressly anti-Semetic party. It precedes the Nazis trying to usurp the term Socialism by over a year. From the beginning the Nazis were blaming the Jews for Germany's economic and social woes and calling for their ostracisation and expulsion. They became a dictatorship by subverting the democratic process. It was a very deliberate series of actions which included intimidation and deceit. The extermination of Jews was always a party ideal, it only expanded to other groups as the Nazis started to need more 'others' to blame to keep up public support. So they went after gypsies, Muslims, homosexuals, and other outcasts of the time. The only thing you've shown is that you know fuck all about the Nazis, how they gained power, and what they believed. The Nazis were not socialists as they did not believe in the socialisation of Germany. They believed in a very traditional view of how German society should be, with strict roles for men and women and no place for outliers. They believed that Aryans, or 'pure' Germans, were superior to others and were the rightful rulers of Germany, who others should follow. They also believed in The Nazis wanted as much industry under government control as possible to run their war machine, as they intended from the very beginning to expand Germany's borders to 'restore' the German Empire, which is why they called themselves the "Third Reich", and they wanted to control all Germanic cultures under one rule. The Nazi were anti-capitalist but they were not at all socialist. There were socialists in the Nazi party for a time. Notably Ernst Rohm wanted to push the Nazi party to enact socialist policies and tried to cause what he called "the second revolution" in changing the Nazi party into an actual socialist party. You know what happened to him? He was killed, along with all other known socialists in the party, during the Night of the Long Knives. It wasn't just a time where the Nazis opened their attacks on the Jews, it was also an excuse to purge unwanted elements from the party and consolidate power. You want to "look at these things objectively" and "examin(e) the sequence of events", you should read a history book or two first, because you clearly don't know shit about the Nazis or how they rose to power.The fundamental issues isn't a lack of skepticism, it's a lack of historical knowledge. Also, this is a thread about China placing tags on children to register their attendance. Why the fuck are we talking about the Nazis?

They adopted the name in order to define a third position in between bourgeois liberalism and more proletarian, revolutionary variations of socialism that was middle class and integral in nature. Both Italian fascism and German national socialism have a loose but indisputable relationship to the broad tradition of socialism.

Marx believed that when you change the economic system, change in the social system will follow. A basic diagram of the substructure-superstructure relaiton can be seen below. It shows that, at its core, Marxism and Communism are economic theories that see social change as naturally following from economic change and thus social policy within Marx's literature isn't the focus. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/112976/685d2ae3-b82d-4c0e-9cd9-e8d5216247d4/1024px-Base-superstructure_Dialectic.png