You know what, I'm going to refer you to your fellow .ml comrade and you can discuss whether this is or is not genocide. If what happenend in Eastern Ukrain was genocide, then what is happening to the Uygurs is definitely also genocide. But if what is happening to the Uygurs can't be genocide, then what has been happening in Ukraine also can't be genocide. Please keep me updated on any results you two produce :)

lemmy.ml/comment/15069887

Has there ever been a genocide in history where no one was killed?

Honestly, if we’re going to use such standards and definitions that a “nonviolent genocide” is possible, then I’m not sure I understand what makes such a thing wrong. In Japan, the number of people who believe in and practice Shinto is in decline, and more and more people are paying for Western style weddings, so temples are struggling to keep their doors open. Is that an inherently bad thing? Is that genocide? How about in the context of the Allies pressuring the emperor to renounce his claims to divinity, undermining a major aspect of Shinto beliefs? Because it seems to me like that did more good than harm. Does that mean I support the (mostly) “nonviolent genocide” of Imperial Japanese culture?

Honestly, if we’re going to use such standards and definitions that a “nonviolent genocide” is possible, then I’m not sure I understand what makes such a thing wrong. In Japan, the number of people who believe in and practice Shinto is in decline, and more and more people are paying for Western style weddings, so temples are struggling to keep their doors open. Is that an inherently bad thing? Is that genocide?

Come on, you can do better than that.

People changing their culture on their own volition is obviously different from people being forced to by those in power.

How about in the context of the Allies pressuring the emperor to renounce his claims to divinity, undermining a major aspect of Shinto beliefs? Because it seems to me like that did more good than harm. Does that mean I support the (mostly) “nonviolent genocide” of Imperial Japanese culture?

That's a slightly better point. The main argument for genocide though is, that a whole population is forced to erase their culture. The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing, even if it is struggling like many other religions are.

That quote is extremely hinged on context in which it was made, and it would serve you well to internalise that context before throwing this quote around pretending it to have been something Marx lived by.

Correct, Marx wasn't just randomly terrorizing people. He was referring to the Proletariat making no apologies for revolution and taking up arms against the bourgeoisie and their enablers, something Lenin and the people of the USSR carried into reality. Lenin descibed what you're doing to Marx and Engels right now quite well:

"What is now happening to Marx's teaching has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the teachings of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes struggling for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their teachings with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to surround their names with a certain halo for the "consolation" of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time emasculating the essence of the revolutionary teaching, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. At the present time, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the working-class movement concur in this "doctoring" of Marxism. They omit, obliterate and distort the revolutionary side of this teaching, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now "Marxists" (don't laugh!). And more and more frequently, German bourgeois scholars, but yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the "national-German" Marx, who, they aver, educated the workers' unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of conducting a predatory war!"

• Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution

That was not my claim, but thank you for so generously misinterpreting what I said. Lenin implemented the violent oppression of dissenters and opposition in a socialist system. That was carried further by Stalin, under whom ‘counter-revolutionary’ became an extremely malleable term that could mean anything not fully aligned with his ideas. The fact that you think political violence and terror is a core tenet of Marxism tells me that you’re the one who might need to brush up on their history a little bit.

Lenin implemented the world's first Socialist state, and this state violently oppressed the bourgeoisie, fascists, the White Army, rebels, and so forth. The fact is, political violence is often sadly necessary against those who would crush the Socialist state, like the 14 Capitalist countries that jointly invaded the USSR after its founding. A Marxist project that rolls over and dies the second fascists and the bourgeoisie fight against it isn't Marxist. Blackshirts and Reds is a good quick read on the tangible benefits AES states achieved despite brutal opposition from the outside.

In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels. The people we have to thank for creating the violent authoritarianism that pervaded communist countries in practice are Lenin and Stalin. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” may have been a phrase used by Marx, but he never fully elaborated on what that should or could look like. And fascism as created by Mussolini and unleashed upon the world by Hitler didn’t even exist during Marx’s lifetime. Even Marx’s views on religion were a lot more complex and multifaceted than what Marxist-Leninist governments turned them into.

This is nonsense. First of all, what separates "authoritarian" Socialism from "non-authoritarian" socialism? All Marxist-Leninist states practice democracy and allow more participation in the way society is run than Capitalist states for the average person. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is a good resource on this. Secondly, the idea that Marx and Engels never had a clear idea of what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would look like is further nonsense - Marx described the Paris Commune as the first implementation of the DotP in reality. Marx and Engels knew quite well that violent suppression of bourgeois elements was required.

Furthermore, whether Marx or Engels really observed fascism is utterly irrelevant, unless your point is that they would not have been anti-fascist, which is nonsense.

I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand. That’s my pedestal. How’s the weather up there on yours?

A non-sequitor. Spending early childhood in an AES state does not mean you know how it works, nor what it deals with on a daily basis. Even people who live their entire lives in Capitalist states go without knowing how they function.

Eastern Ukrain was genocide, then what is happening to the Uygurs is definitely also genocide.

Except in Ukraine people did die and their heritage and language were being actively suppressed, etc. We know this because it is documented all over, even in pictures on the net. These specific things are readily confirmable. It was even a large impetus for a broader war, as hopefully you're aware. There is zero question that Ukrainian nazis were shelling Russian-speaking civilians in the Donbas and that Ukraine as a state was passing laws detrimental to Russian speakers.

In Xinjiang, no such evidence exists because nothing of the sort happened. It's based on a lie dreamed up by one Christian fundamentalist Adrian Zenz. Every source on this "genocide" traces back to him, and none of the claims are confirmable. Even to the UN! In fact you, yes, even you if you have the means to travel, can go there today and see for yourself that the Uyghur population is thriving and they will laugh if you tell them they're being genocided. I'll leave the academic discussion for exactly where to draw the line for the definition of the term genocide to others for now. But based on how you were defining it, Ukraine was committing genocide, but no, China was doing quite the opposite by encouraging ethnic diversity. Again, go see for yourself like this person did: Oh yeah, just look at all that genociding going on!

Thats cute, to compare both as if they are identical. Because one country definitely isn't 100x larger than the other, with its concentration camps deep inside, where no one can see them.

Because the level of censorship in Israel is definitely comparable with that of China right? They definitely have cameras with AI face detection everywhere, a completely walled out Internet, and definitely dissappear journalists and critics (inside their territory, in palestine they do awful shit to journalists in palestine)

Israels' "most advanced security apparatus" definitely uses most of its time to censor such information right? They definitely are not rather focused on sabotage, assassinations and espionage of their geopolitical rivals. Because surely there doesn't exist a tiny amount of one, and massive amount of other.

And of course, there is no evidence of the starvation camps, forced abortions, rapes, forced sterilisations, yep definitely no evidence, you can't just fucking Google outside your Chinese and ruzzian propaganda sources. I definitely didn't investigate myself and definitely didn't learn this in my fucking modern history class.

But who am I to argue, against a fucking tankie like you? It's like talking to a wall.

Go ahead and go call me a fascist, or a NATO shill or something, and please continue denying genocide when it's your daddy dictators who do it. I couldn't care less.

You may call me crazy but this doesnt sound like it all traces back to just one guy

bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-…

Several countries, including the US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands, have accused China of committing genocide - defined by international convention, external as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

The declarations follow reports that, as well as interning Uyghurs in camps, China has been forcibly mass sterilising Uyghur women to suppress the population, separating children from their families, and attempting to break the cultural traditions of the group.

The US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, has said China is committing "genocide and crimes against humanity".

The UK parliament declared in April 2021 that China was committing a genocide in Xinjiang.

A UN human rights committee in 2018 said it had credible reports that China was holding up to a million people in "counter-extremism centres" in Xinjiang.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, external found evidence in 2020 of more than 380 of these "re-education camps" in Xinjiang, an increase of 40% on previous estimates.

Analysis of data contained in the latest police documents, called the Xinjiang Police Files, showed that almost 23,000 residents - or more than 12% of the adult population of one county - were in a camp or prison in the years 2017 and 2018. If applied to Xinjiang as a whole, the figures would mean the detention of more than 1.2 million Uyghur and other Turkic minority adults.

The UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said the files contained "shocking details of China's human rights violations".

Earlier, leaked documents known as the China Cables made clear that the camps were intended to be run as high security prisons, with strict discipline and punishments.

People who have managed to escape the camps have reported physical, mental and sexual torture. Women have spoken of mass rape and sexual abuse.

Also, yes I am aware of the reasons putin brought forward to start an attack on ukraine with the goal of erasing that country from the landmap. Go ahead and tell me he wouldn't pass laws "detrimental" to the people of Ukraine if he succeeds with his invasion.

The point about you knowing these people online or in person was secondary to my point about organizing. Individual people considering themselves Communists but unaffiliated with an org vere frequently misunderstand theory, develop strange and contradictory stances, and otherwise fail to bounce their ideas off of actual, practicing Communists who daily test their theory and refine it. That's why "Party Lines" exist. These "Party Lines" generally form around specific tendencies within Marxism, because there do exist right and wrong answers when faced with material reality and consistent frameworks of analysis. No, a Communist shouldn't automatically support anything, they should test their theory and keep what works and toss what doesn't. The fact that the overwhelming majority of actual practicing Communists do support the PRC and USSR does not mean they are doing so thoughtlessly. Blackshirts and Reds is a good book.

The most major tendency of Marxism is Marxism-Leninism, as it has had the most direct proof of validity and consistency with theory and practice. ML organizations have had numerous successful revolutions, and most AES states follow an ML line. As such, the vast majority of Communists worldwide support the PRC and USSR.

Maoists, generally, reject Deng's reforms that returned the PRC to a more traditional Marxist understanding of economics, and see him as a right-deviationist. Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, a more fringe ideology popularized by the Communist Party of Peru, are less consistent on this matter.

The only other major current of Marxism is Trotskyism, which has produced no real revolutions and no real results. Trots are common in the Western Left because it fits with the West's overall anti-AES stance, and thus is easier to come to from a Western perspective. Outside of tiny pockets mostly in Latin America, Trots do not exist in the Global South. Trotskyism is a misanalysis of Socialism, Marxism, and Revolutionary Theory, and as such I was not including them as actual Communists. A good article is Trotskyists Don't Believe Anything.

Seeing as how you've admitted to a European point of view, everything coincides with what I've said. I have been speaking internationally, you've been speaking from a Trot-heavy Euro-centric point of view. Again, the Western Left's tendency to reject actual Socialism is more to do with compatability with existing world views. I recommend Jones Manoel's Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, But Not Real Revolution.

I appreciate you taking the time to read my write-up. I want to ask, why do you claim the PRC isn't Socialist? 50% of the economy is in the public sector, a tenth in the cooperative sector, and the Private Sector is run with strict central planning and oversight from the government. Socialism doesn't refer simply to a fully publicly owned economy - it's a transitional economy towards Communism. In the PRC, the Public Sector further controls key heavy industries and infrastructure that the Private Sector relies on, so the Private Sector is subservient to the demands of the Public. The presense of Markets is not enough to claim an economy isn't Socialist. From Engels himself:

Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

The reason Marxists believe Socialism comes after Capitalism is because Markets have a tendency to centralize in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, which naturally forces the development of strategies and tools for internal planning. This naturally prepares the way for Central Planning. In the PRC, Capital in the Private Sector is trapped in a birdcage model, and the CPC increases ownership as these markets do their job and centralize. This is Marxism in action. I suggest you read the articles What is Socialism? as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.

Also, as a side note, "Stalinism" isn't a thing. Stalin was not much of a theoretician, the proper term is Marxism-Leninism, as it is founded on the writings of Marx and Lenin primarily.

Additionally, you need to analyze who was happy to see the fall of the USSR. The answer? The West. In the vast majority of the post-Soviet populace, Capitalism brought death and destruction, 7 million people died due to it, and most long for a return to Socialism. In the Global South, the fall of the USSR was seen as an immense tragedy. The only ones benefiting were the Imperialist Capitalists that swooped in and looted the USSR's former state structures and industry for profit at dirt cheap prices.

Ultimately, I think you have a lot of research to do if you want to hold a truly internationalist perspective, and not one tainted by Western bias, which is notoriously adversarial to Communism and the Global South in general, as the West relies on export of industrial and financial Capital to the Global South to super-exploit for super-profits. This is what Marxists call Imperalism.

People changing their culture on their own volition is obviously different from people being forced to by those in power.

Is it? Genocide doesn't necessarily have to be conducted by the state. If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we're allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I'm not sure it's obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don't meet your definition.

The main argument for genocide though is, that a whole population is forced to erase their culture.

"Forced," but not through killing.

There's often a disconnect between first generation immigrants and their kids, who often end up adopting the culture they live in over their home culture through various social pressures. The fact that the US has road signs only in English forces people to learn English, doesn't it? Are those road signs genocide? If public schools fail to make accommodations in terms of language, if they teach history from a different perspective than what their parents grew up with, is that genocide?

It's absurd. What a coincidence that the first "nonviolent genocide" in history happens to come from the US's chief geopolitical rival. It's a dilution of the word for political reasons that attempts to put much less bad things on the same level as the mass extermination of a people. The primary reason that genocide is wrong is the violence accociated with it.

The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing

No, they did not. The emperor's divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.

If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we’re allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I’m not sure it’s obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don’t meet your definition.

I think it is pretty obvious. Is force involved, e.g. making it punishable to use your inhereted language, incarcerting people for praying to their god, taking your kids away for teaching them about your culture, ...? Then it might be a genocide. Force does not need to be lethal to still be able to eradicate a culture.

Are other cultures influencing your culture by existing and interacting with your culture and the cultures change because of that? Then no, this definitely isn't genocide. Which should answer the other "questions" you posed. If you are a minority in another culture you might have a harder time keeping your culture alive. But as long as there aren't any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn't a problem there.

The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing

No, they did not. The emperor’s divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. They didn't have the option? They didn't do it? And if the divinity of the emperor wasn't the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?

I did not give an extensive definition because the self-description of liberalism, by liberals, is at odds with the historical actions of liberalism. It could be distracting and take a while to get the point across.

For example, liberalism self-defined with maximizing individual liberty while it also advocated for the "freedom" of corporations to work you as many hours as it could while shitting down your unionizing effort with violence. Liberalism also self-defined as favoring democracy and everyone having a say, but implemented this in a racist and sexist way that placed capital in charge while also colonizing others and depriving them of self-determination.

The common thread is really just that it is the dominant ideology of capitalism, its function is to extoll the virtues of capitalism and tying it to an illusion of liberation and self-determination while actually working against both of those things, as under capitalism, capital works against both struggles. The person that liberals have you read as foundational to liberalism, John Locke, worked to support an American settler colony and its slavery rules and explicitly supported child labor. Then, as today, there is a difference between how political figures present themselves and what their advocacy actually entails.

So they were able to continue to live their culture without being individually forced to do anything?

Well, that depends on your interpretation. If you were a Shintoist who did consider the emperor's divinity to be a central tenant, then no, from that perspective, your culture has been eradicated and the current form is a deviation. You're playing fast and loose here with your standards, in any religion, there are various sects which consider themselves to be the true, correct interpretation, and certain others to be false. You yourself thought Shintoists would have to ignore the emperor's renunciation to continue practicing their beliefs. There were Japanese people who saw it that way. And I'm not sure about this but I'm pretty sure you couldn't go around postwar Japan proclaiming the imperialist interpretation of Shinto with the implication of returning to the imperialistic ways, in the same way you couldn't go around waving swastikas in postwar Germany.

The better analogy would be to allow the chinese government to force one person to say “I am not divine”. Let’s say they were able to revive the prophet and make him say these words.

Well, that's interesting, because surely the intent in that case would be to get people to stop practicing Islam. I thought intent was the crucial defining aspect that made mass incarceration not genocide when the US does it but be genocide when China does it.

These standards seem completely incoherent to me. It seems like you're just adopting whatever stance allows you to thread the needle to include the things you want to include and exclude the things you want to exclude.

(Btw, small correction here, but I don't think Muslims consider Mohammad to be personally divine.)