Global Times is not China. It’s one news source so statements made by Global Times, especially in the editorials aren’t inherently statements made my China. They are run by individuals who sent the articles in. To claim that China made this statement is ridiculous and would be akin to saying that the US made a statement on something because of a single article NPR ran or that the UK made a statement because of a single article run by the BBC.
Absolutely. For example, I have played baseball when I was very little and have watched professional baseball games a few times. But I am not qualified to give advice to professional ball players based on this very limited experience. Likewise, an individual who has not educated themselves on history and read extensively on philosophy, economics, politics etc etc is not qualified to be speaking on this matter. I find many liberals wish to speak about everything under the sun even when their own knowledge of the matter is very limited. I see this tendency often in leftist circles as well unfortunately when it comes to even portraying one’s own views of something as what was intended by an author. I think this tendency is foolish and must be avoided and corrected. Equally as this tendency can come about as a result of not reading at all, it can also come from just placing theory on a pedestal and ignoring actual material conditions.
Mao said “A Communist Party’s correct and unswerving tactics of struggle can in no circumstance be created by a few people sitting in an office; they emerge in the course of mass struggle, that is, through actual experience. Therefore, we must at all times study social conditions and make practical investigations. Those comrades who are inflexible, conservative, formalistic and groundlessly optimistic think that the present tactics of struggle are perfect, that the ‘book of documents’ of the Party’s Sixth National Congress guarantees lasting victory, and that one can always be victorious merely by adhering to the established methods.“ I think that this issues come about both from ignorance of the world around individuals but also on neglecting the duty to study history and culture. I like what you are saying about trying to avoid this in personal life and I think everyone (myself included) would do well by keeping this in mind as well.
I think perhaps the best summery of what I saying also came from Mao, who said, “Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together with a group, to ‘find solution’ or ‘evolve an idea’ without making any investigation.” (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm)
Recently I find myself thinking of Mao’s oft-quoted concept that one has no right to speak if they have not investigated the subject matter. I find so many liberals commenting on the affairs who, quite simply, lack even a cursory understanding of history. I’ve come to see most liberals as egoists at this point: everyone thinks they have something to say even when their education and knowledge on the matter is limited to an extreme degree. Having thoughts are one thing, but if you do not know what the Nullification Crisis is, or your historical understanding precludes any thought from before 1900 than I quite simply do not wish to hear what you have to say.
It reminded me of an interesting article (albeit I ought to state that the article has anti-Soviet ridiculousness in it) I read not too long ago in The New Yorker. (https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-historians-under-attack-for-exploring-polands-role-in-the-holocaust) which seems to indicate Poland’s and the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum have completely downplayed and attempted to suppress, through legal means, any historical discussion of any Polish individuals who contributed to and helped the Nazis.
The museum, following this article put our statements attacking the author and claiming any discussion of Polish collaborationism during the Holocaust downplayed German responsibility. So, in the end, the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum might not be exactly what one would hope (or even, to some extent, expect) when it comes to historical memory of the Holocaust.
I think that the truth is that people would just as easily become scared on anything that was the same. I mean, as Juliet said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” If the substance of it is the same, propaganda against the name would just as surely be propagated (not to mention confusion regarding the usage of a different name).
History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) states that “The Marxist Party is a part, a detachment, of the working class. But the working class has many detachments, and hence not every detachment of the working class can be called a party of the working class. The Party differs from other detachments of the working class primarily by the fact that it is not an ordinary detachment, but the vanguard de-tachment, a class-conscious detachment, a Marxist detachment of the working class, armed with a knowledge of the life of society, of the laws of its development and of the laws of the class struggle, and for this reason able to lead the working class and to direct its struggle. The Party must therefore not be confused with the working class, as the part must not be confused with the whole. One cannot demand that every striker be allowed to call himself a member of the Party, for whoever confuses Party and class lowers the level of consciousness of the Party to that of ‘every striker,’ destroys the Party as the class-conscious vanguard of the working class. It is not the task of the Party to lower its level to that of ‘every striker,’ but to elevate the masses of the workers, to elevate ‘every striker’ to the level of the Party.” (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch02.htm)
I see this as most likely arguing against the idea that we should change our terminology because people are scared of it. Rather than that, it is preferable to alter the public’s reaction to the concept of socialism in the first place. Deciding to use a term like ergatocracy is much more confusing and would only lead to then that being the term that was feared. A different term used would also make all education and research far far more difficult as most texts would not refer to this term. I, for one, just don’t think another term is the solution to fear regarding socialism.
Would the idea of an ICE tracking site be a good idea? Something where you used Facebook to make listing of ICE employees, something like the Canary Mission. Discourage them people from working for them.