One solution is for someone from hexbear to comment that they're against this new rule, and then people from hexbear can upvote that comment.
qwename
joined 4 years ago
This is the /c/China community on Lemmygrad.ml, not hexbear.net.
What does it mean to be a Marxist-Leninist? Answer this question first.
The population of China in 1949 was around 542 million, there were about 4.5 million CPC members at the time, around 0.83% of the population. Is every CPC member a Marxist-Leninist? How many people were MLs but not CPC members? Are you automatically ML if you support the CPC's policies? Are there MLs who aren't CPC members and don't believe in Marxism?
The population of China as of 2023 is about 1.41 billion, there are 99.185 million CPC members, around 7% of the population. The same questions asked above can be asked here. How many MLs are there in China?
Here's a long Chinese article about what it means to be a Marxist according to Mao Zedong: http://dangshi.people.com.cn/n/2013/1225/c85037-23943401.html
Emphasis on "liberal" in when I say "decent Chinese liberal analysis", because the author is still using a binary leftist/conservatism against "reformist"/liberal mindset throughout the paper. This same mindset is shared by ultra-lefts, or left-deviationists, so really these are two extremes in ideology.
In China, reformers include both those who seek to get rid of the Chinese Communist Party and make the country a liberal democracy, as well as those who believe in the necessity of economic marketization, opening up to the outside world, and allowing some limited political reform that falls short of challenging the party’s supremacy. Conservatives oppose a market economy and political liberalization, usually in the name of safeguarding socialist orthodoxy, i.e., an economic system based on public ownership of property or economic assets, class struggle, and the party’s absolute control. In this paper, China’s conservatives are also interchangeably referred to as “leftists,” whereas the reformers are usually regarded as being on the right side of China’s ideological spectrum.
This binary categorization is why the author concludes that leftists won over reformists and China is now going down the path of "Maoist conservatism". The author is unable to deal with dialectics as he views the following as policy contradictions:
First, if Xi was empowered by an elite consensus, what explains the policy contradictions during his early years in power? The party called for deepening marketization while further empowering the state-owned enterprises. It also advocated the rule of law while at the same time emphasizing the party’s unrestrained leadership and tightening up political control. In short, conservative and reformist policies coexisted in a confusing way. Such confusion raises the question of whether there was a unified collective patron who entrusted power to Xi.
My view is that Deng's reforms and thus Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is socialist reform at its core, and ideological struggles within the party are not class struggles (socialism vs capitalism), they are instead debates on how to develop socialism. Mao vs Deng is a false antagonism, Mao was never ultra-left, as much as ultras and liberals wished he was. The "complication" with China's politics as viewed by outsiders arises because they tend to associate certain tools with certain ideologies, like linking markets to capitalism, linking government planning and regulation with socialism. All confusion surrounding China's politics comes from a lack of dialectical thinking.
I wouldn't call this "western academia", because the author's name is "Lin Le", an unambiguous Chinese name that suggests a mainland China education background. The fact that the author provides hundreds of references to Chinese articles, and is aware of nuanced political language is also evidence of this.
Thus I would say that this is a decent Chinese liberal analysis of Chinese politics, that goes beyond simple factionalism-based analysis.
Why hasn't China cut ties with the US or Japan, why did China build diplomatic relations with them in the first place back in 1972? Why does China not have diplomatic relations with countries that "recognize" Taiwan province as an "independent country", but still maintain ties with a genocidal Israel? Why hasn't Russia cut ties with the US?
What does it mean to cut ties, for all official communication between two governments to stop? For all trade between two countries to stop? Cutting ties will not stop Israel from continuing its war crimes. I think China wants to be more of a mediator between Israel and Palestine as it supports a two-state solution, so cutting ties with any side will work against that.
According to this Wikipedia page:
As of 28 May 2024, 145 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states officially recognize the State of Palestine (Israel is recognized by 165).
The Bloomberg article cited (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-09/china-says-cracked-apple-s-airdrop-to-identify-message-sources or https://archive.is/XnvO8) once again doesn't mention the relevant institute by name, but here's the Chinese article from Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice: 2024-01-08 司法鉴定：司法鉴定揭开“隔空投送”匿名传输的神秘面纱 https://sfj.beijing.gov.cn/sfj/sfdt/ywdt82/flfw93/436331732/index.html
This paragraph reveals how they found out the AirDrop sender's email and phone number:
北京网神洞鉴司法鉴定所的司法鉴定技术专家们通过深度解析iPhone设备日志，明确传输原理，找出了与AirDrop 相关的记录。经检验发现发送者的设备名、邮箱和手机号相关字段，其中手机号与邮箱相关字段是以哈希值的形式记录，且哈希值部分字段被隐藏。为实现快速破解该字段，技术团队制作了一张详尽的手机号与邮箱账号“彩虹表 ”，能够将密文转换成原始文本，快速锁定发送者的手机号与邮箱账号。
Basically the sender's phone number and email addresses were stored as hash values, but the hashes were just partial values. The judicial appraisal institute "北京网神洞鉴" created rainbow tables (precomputed table for caching the outputs of a cryptographic hash function, usually for cracking password hashes) to bruteforce the information.
As Chinese mobile numbers follow certain formats (11 digits, starts with 1, known list of prefixes etc.) it is probably very easy to generate a rainbow table for this. Though the article doesn't mention if the phone numbers and email had separate hash values so this is just one way to do it.
From Apple's "AirDrop security" page we can see that this matches up: https://support.apple.com/guide/security/airdrop-security-sec2261183f4/web
AirDrop uses iCloud services to help users authenticate. When a user signs in to iCloud, a 2048-bit RSA identity is stored on the device, and when the user turns on AirDrop, an AirDrop short identity hash is created based on the email addresses and phone numbers associated with the user’s Apple ID.
When a user chooses AirDrop as the method for sharing an item, the sending device emits an AirDrop signal over BLE that includes the user’s AirDrop short identity hash. Other Apple devices that are awake, in close proximity, and have AirDrop turned on, detect the signal and respond using peer-to-peer Wi-Fi, so that the sending device can discover the identity of any responding devices.
This article is about the AirDrop receiver finding out the sender's information, but doesn't mention if the reverse is possible. But if we look at the same AirDrop security page, it is probable that in AirDrop "Everyone mode" an attacker could find out the information of Apple devices around them:
In Contacts Only mode, the received AirDrop short identity hash is compared with hashes of people in the receiving device’s Contacts app. If a match is found, the receiving device responds over peer-to-peer Wi-Fi with its identity information. If there is no match, the device doesn’t respond.
In Everyone mode, the same overall process is used. However, the receiving device responds even if there is no match in the device’s Contacts app.
For people using Apple devices or even other brands, especially in the US, take caution as this is a finding one Chinese local government published, who knows how many vectors of attack the US intelligence agencies is aware of.
I will paste this old comment of mine to see what real anarchists like yourself think about it, I may have conflated anarchists with anti-authoritarians, so correct me if I'm wrong:
Anti-authoritarians have no future, one either supports an existing authority or tries to become a new authority. Everyone can have a say in a democracy, but when it comes down to decision, whether through majority vote or expert opinion or other methods, the decision then becomes authority.
Even if someone claims to hate all forms of authority, this person will become the authority on “hating authority” if a following is gained. That’s how anarchists are doomed for failure.
This is the second time I'm seeing the Cultural Revolution put in a good light in this post, get off your high horses you naive idealists!
The Cultural Revolution was hijacked by ultras, Lin Biao tried to assassinate Mao.
This is the Constitution of the CPC in 1969: https://fuwu.12371.cn/2014/12/24/ARTI1419387596442272.shtml, it includes this paragraph in the preamble:
林彪同志一贯高举毛泽东思想伟大红旗，最忠诚、最坚定地执行和捍卫毛泽东同志的无产阶级革命路线。林彪同志是毛泽东同志的亲密战友和接班人。
(DeepL translation) Comrade Lin Biao has consistently held high the great red flag of Mao Zedong Thought and has most faithfully and resolutely implemented and defended the proletarian revolutionary line of Comrade Mao Zedong. Comrade Lin Biao is Comrade Mao Zedong's close comrade-in-arms and successor.
Utterly disgusting.
I've transferred the community to GrainEater and left the mod team, I will now apply for mod again.
Here are some reasons why I want to be mod:
Here are some reasons why I might not be suitable for mod: