By Glen Wallace                                                                                                                                                                                   October 24, 2022

I've recently watched a number of videos whereby the commentator would attempt to debunk criticisms of the Chinese government by using a number of spurious sophistry techniques such as ad hominem. In the case of ad hom, the commentator would argue that because some criticisms of the CCP came from the deep state, an untrustworthy entity, therefore all criticisms of the CCP must be false. They have failed to realize that just because a source may be untrustworthy that does in no way guarantee that everything coming from that source will necessarily be false. For instance, that source may also claim that “2 plus 2 equals 4”; that of course would still be a true statement regardless of how untrustworthy the source is. Statements can and should be judged as objects that exist outside of the nature of the entity that placed that object before the world for examination. The source of a statement is the entity placing before the world a premise and any argument supporting that premise or conclusion reached given that premise or premises before the world for examination. That source may be smart or deficient in intellect or mentally unstable or highly corrupt, but all that becomes irrelevant once an argument, evidence or premise is put out into the world for the rest of the world to examine to determine the veracity of that argument, evidence or premise put forward.

So what is the evidence that the Chinese government is behaving in a tyrannical manner? There is a great deal of video evidence of draconian lockdown measures along with forcible removal and relocation of residents to Covid quarantine concentration camps; sometimes merely for having been found to have been in close proximity to someone who has tested positive for Covid. There is also eyewitness testimony by victims of Uyghur concentration camps who were detained in those camps.

Once support is presented for my position that the Chinese government is behaving in a tyrannical manner, some may then attempt to counter that it is none of my business how a government foreign to mine behaves. It is something of a red herring argument, but I will address. There are two separate issues here: there is the one issue of military intervention in another country based on that country's behavior towards either their own citizens or another country other than my own. In that case, I tend to agree that it is none of our business and we should keep out of it militarily. But, the other issue is one of making a normative judgement about the treatment of the citizens by a government of a country other than my own. As a political philosopher, it is my duty, really the duty of any citizen of the world, whether they consider themselves a philosopher or not, to judge the actions of the government of any nation regardless of whether or not it is their own government. Otherwise, I don't know what my detractors are claiming. Are they claiming I'm being impolite for calling out injustice where I see it happening in a foreign land because I'm not a citizen of that land? Now that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Or other times they may claim that given all the many problems in my own land, I should focus on those and stop poking my nose where it doesn't belong. What are they claiming here? Are they claiming a mutual exclusivity here where it is somehow some impossible act of juggling to both criticize my own government's actions and those of another country. I and man others are living proof that it most certainly is possible to do both. So, why not exclusively focus on my own government's actions?

Since the time of Socrates some 2400 years ago, we have been struggling with the question of how to govern. In order to answer that question, we need to combine armchair theorizing with noting the effects of political philosophy theories applied to real world situations; that is, how countries use theories of political philosophy to govern their nation. In the case of China, they are primarily using the theories of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. My contention is that China and other countries, including the former Soviet Union have definitively proven the failure of Marxism through its application in their countries in sufficient varieties and forms to come to that conclusion. And yet, the politicians of nations continue to attempt to utilize the Marxist system and many around the world defend those nation's attempts while advocate for adopting Marxism in their own country if their country hasn't already done so. They keep repeating the same action and expect a different result. During the Cold War era there were reports coming out of Russia of brutal forced labor camps filled with political prisoners in the Siberian region of Russia. At the time, many leftists in the Western nations dismissed those accounts and continued to advocate for the adoption of Marxism in their home nation. Even today, despite the massive amount of eyewitness accounts of Gulag survivors along with physical Gulag remnants and document evidence, there seems to be a movement to erase from history the existence of those forced labor camps.

The importance of judging any government lies in a recognition of what works and what doesn't. Marxism doesn't work because it doesn't recognize the human individual as a special, precious spirit being that has an inalienable right to find their own way in the world. But Marxism treats the individual as a mere cog or pawn in the machinery of the Hegelian movement of history. Marxism, ironically, is an esoteric ideology based on the philosophy of Hegel, that likely has little appeal to working class plebs that it is largely directed towards appealing to. The typical working class citizens does not give a flying rat's rear about Marx's vision of how the worker citizen relates to Hegel's historical paradigm. And the intelligentsia who do care about that sort of thing knows the working class don't. So the intelligentsia try to flimflam the proles by portraying Marxism as merely a progressive socioeconomic system trying to get the worker a fairer shake of the fruits of their labor. So then, the worker now has in their mind how, once Marxism is implemented, they will have a more comfortable existence and be able to afford more niceties on the capitalist marketplace. But of course, the intelligentsia have something entirely different in mind; they envision a world without any capitalist marketplace; maybe it will be a world with some luxury communism, but it will be the government who gets to decide what luxuries those will be, not the common worker. The intelligentsia have in mind fulfilling the vision of Marx and Hegel of achieving the historical end to the cycle of thesis, antithesis, synthesis; achieving universal history, the end of history.