Tibetan sources who spoke to Radio Free Asia linked the closures to the Chinese government’s education policies and its promotion of the Ethnic Unity and Progress Law, which took effect on July 1, 2026. They said the shutdowns could further limit opportunities for Tibetan children to learn their mother tongue and cultural traditions.
Exactly my argument, the destination is fantasy land, there is no predicted timeframe on a future where this state is achieved so until then exploit the workers because we have supposedly have good intentions?
This is all absolute BS, specialisation of labour is increasing across all fields as these fields increase in complexity. Your example of engineering displays a hilarious lack of knowledge of the field, just because they all use computer aided design specialisation is eroding? Ridiculous statement, I don’t even know where to begin but I will try and keep it simple for you. 100 years ago people studied engineering, today there are 6 main types, chemical, biomedical, civil, mechanical, electrical and materials engineering each of these main groups has dozens of sub specialities contained within. The same is true of medicine, science and just about every single other degree level course. You are displaying a profound lack of understanding here, as time goes on and out knowledge expands this specialisation will only increase, your argument here is null and void.
Right back at you big guy.
You keep making the moralist argument that private property is a sin. This is not Marxism. Marketization is useful in underdeveloped production, when planned economy is better in centralized production. Markets inevitably transition to centralized production. There is no specific timescale, but this general process is observable fact.
As for the fact that you can “sub-specialize” in engineering, I’m well aware. However, the idea that it takes a tremendous amount of time to train an experienced engineer in one field on another field is also incorrect. Knowledge increases, yes, and so too does our ability to standardize and simplify what we know. An engineer that works in automotive can quite easily transfer to home appliances, and vice versa. The processes and actual work at hand are more uniform across the board.
You also entirely ignored that fields like textile work, smithing, etc. have all largely been taken up by tooling with similar means of operation. The time to train for these jobs is lowering as time goes on.
Do better, be serious.
Where did I make that argument? I see no sin in private property ownership.
Wild statement, you are going to need to back that up. You are discounting years of specialist training just to qualify and then the years of experience required to actually become useful in the field. You are simplifying something you don’t understand to fit your argument. Are you aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect, this is the perfect example of that. The same goes for my own field of dentistry or the field of medicine which I also have knowledge of the time it takes to train or even the field of legal specialisation.
I can’t believe you ended your uninformed rant with this, you are too funny dude :)
You believe Marxists see private property as a sin, rather than something becoming gradually outdated as production advances. This is the crux of your “Marxism.”
As for Engineers needing less training to swap from industry to industry, yes, this is a simplification. However, the fact of the matter is that within branches of engineering, transferability is high. Solidworks is a common engineering software, and its incredibly standardized. Engineering drawings used to be entirely by hand, and thus had no automated error catching. They also varied far more by industry. Now, a mechanical engineer can take their solid works experience and transfer it to another industry, like automotive to home applicance, and it’s relatively simple.
Of course, said engineer will have to understand the new standardization for BOM structure, how part numbers are handled, and company culture. However, it is gradually standardizing how work is done for mechanical engineers, making it a field that is increasingly generic among those trained in mechanical engineering. This is all oversimplified, but again, you entirely ignored the points on smithing, textiles, and carpentry, which all falls into the same point.
No I don’t, I understand the differences between Marxism and Georgism. Marx did actually call for the “abolition of private property” which includes land. I believe that Henry George had a better understanding of this than Marx who was very timid when it came to confronting the landed class.
You are missing my point that as our human knowledge increases, professions are becoming more and more specialised, not less. You are also discounting the experience these professionals gain from years of practice, there is no shortcut to gaining experience, this takes time and practice. Engineering is but one example, brain surgeons do not transfer to being heart or orthopedic surgeons or oncologists. These are highly specialised fields that take decades to gain proficiency .
Smithing, textiles and carpentry are simpler fields to retrain in sure but proficiency and mastery in those fields take years. You have also not answered how in this advanced stage of communism you are going to get all of the experienced doctors to stay in the country when their skills can earn them a better quality of life in a market based economy?
The only answer to this is of course authoritarianism. Close the borders and force these citizens to work. Authoritarianism is the glue that holds China together.
How is advocating for the eventual abolition of private property count as being timid towards landowners? It involves sweeping collectivization of land, something easily achievable and already done at scale in most socialist countries.
Regarding increased specialization alongside human knowledge, this is true at the level of the profession, not at the level of the worker. Work is designed to be as readily replacable as possible, wherever possible. An RF engineer working at NASA may have a learning curve, but the underlying basics of how to perform their job can be transfered to similar roles elsewhere. Practice and proficiency is helpful, yes, but we must consider these socially, not individually.
You entirely missed the point on carpentry, smithing, etc. These are almost entirely performed by machines in factories. Artisinal creation is step by step being abolished in favor of automated and machine assisted labor in large factories. So too will this apply to engineering, medicine, etc.
The idea that an advanced communist society would be unable to outcompete a market-based society in standard of living is as laughable as the idea of a feudal society outcompeting a capitalist society. For starters, communism must be a global system. Beyond that, communism rests in highly advanced productive forces too large in scale for markets to function to begin with, so even if we had a hypothetical communism in one country, there would be no need to go to a market-based society just like there’s no need to go to feudal societies for a higher standard of living.
The necessity for these advanced productive forces is exactly why communism does not yet exist, just like nuclear fusion as an energy source at scale does not. It needs to be built up, not simply willed into existence at the stroke of a pen.
You have no clue what you’re suggesting, no matter how many times I state it.