Never thought i would see mainstream reddit talk about surveillance as a means of defending the people’s revolution and not get downvoted to hell.
Wild
the wind is blowing in a good direction…it’s a good time to remember that matrix scene
Which one?
you guys have to realize that the average person really does lean communist because most people have to work. before the cold war, being socialist was just common sense.
It kind of reminds me of the notion that you can easily convince someone of communist ideals, but the second you bring up the word, alarm bells go off.
If those redditors could read they’d be pissed.
We are entering into the Chinese Century.
Mashallah
Honestly surprising. Reddit of all places is the last place I’d expect someone to agree that the PRC is actually a people’s revolution, and that surveillance is a matter of who’s interest it’s being used for.
Don’t get your hopes up, such comments are few and far between. Reddit is still very much a liberal/reactionary shithole.
As an outsider can someone help me understand the idea of surveillance being used to defend the peoples revolution?
All things have a class character. In the PRC, surveillance is used to keep the people and the streets very safe. In the US or UK for example, surveillance is used to protect the property of the rich, and imprison poorer peoples. The only reason for skepticism, is because people see how these things are used against the people in the west, and not for them.
You can walk around in nearly any city in the PRC and feel completely safe, and the cameras are definitely a part of that. You can watch videos on youtube with westerners walking around at night in any given city in the PRC, and they’re stunned at how safe it is. Even from a liberal perspective, security and personal safety is liberty / freedom. From a proletarian perspective, its a very non-intrusive way to prevent street crime on a mass scale and make sure cities stay walkable and safe.
at its core, any state is a monopoly on violence. while capitalist states use said violence to harass and repress workers’ and other progressive movements, socialist governments should aim to utilise it against reactionary elements instead.
thus, repressive organs end up serving a generally progressive role in socialist democracies, though this should obviously not serve as an excuse for any mistakes or violations comitted by them.
Thank you for the explanation, I appreciate it. As I learn more about things I think I feel drawn to anarchist approaches to things but its very helpful to understand what people are talking about
Thanks for your time and energy!
May I ask what it is that draws you toward anarchist approach vs. alternatives?
I wonder because there are some in these kind of spaces who at least toyed with anarchist-like views at some point in their political evolution, but came around to recognizing the value that “socialism under siege” has produced (countries like CPC China, the DPRK, Cuba, etc.), as well as the necessity of their power structures for standing up for themselves against the violence of imperialism. Anarchism can seem more appealing, at least in the abstract, if your only experience with a “state” is imperialism and capitalism; but it also struggles to accomplish anything under the weight of that same imperialism. Sometimes it’s hard for people to decouple the nature of the state under empire/capitalism from the nature of the state as a more general means of large scale organizing and logistics.
no problem, glad i could help!
