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.
Oh, you again. I am not deliberately refusing to understand these basic points, I am pointing out that these basic points, while nice in theory are unworkable in reality. You are making the same mistake that has plagued economics since its inception, trying and failing miserably to make economics more like the hard sciences by incorporating the constant of the “rational man”. There is no such thing as this, especially when you are dealing with large numbers of people, history has proved time and again that this concept is ridiculous and that crowds are irrational.
You are treating the doctor, who is close to the top of society in terms of living standards the same as the factory worker near the bottom. You are reducing them both to the same constant because it fits your narrative. You argue that both are the same because their surplus labor is stolen yet the factory worker can’t afford a house and the doctor goes home to their luxury apartment to sleep on silk sheets. At least in this scenario, the doctor is relatively well compensated for his skilled labor, in a full communist society the doctor’s labor is devalued to the point where it is equal to that of the factory worker.
I do not keep on repeating this, I fully understand the concept of a communist society in its most evolved form going beyond the need for money. It is essentially the same thing as everyone being paid the same amount because there is no additional compensation for the highly skilled brain surgeon over the street cleaner. “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”. If this came into place tomorrow I guarantee you that there would be no doctors or dentists left in the country because their skills are in high demand worldwide. There is no point at which their labor is interchangable, the farmer in the field can’t just scrub in for surgery after all the doctors leave. In all of our interactions you have never answers this point.
You’re still not getting it, even though you’re more than smart enough to. It is impossible to implement “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” tomorrow, because agricultural labor and medical labor are too distinct. We do not have sufficiently advanced means of production and distribution as well as polytechnical education to where we would not need to compensate skilled labor higher yet. That’s the entire reason why no socialist society has ever implemented what you’re talking about.
5 centuries ago, textile work, carpentry, smithing, and logistics all required dramatically different skillsets. Today, most production relies on tools that share in common means of operation. They all have their own characteristics, but the specialization of labor is eroding. This is also true across fields like engineering, where tools like CAD are industry standards. Barriers to job switching are lowering. In the far future, this process will continue, until no individual field needs more strenuous study than others.
I refuse to believe you are incapable of understanding this. I understand it as you deliberately refusing to. Do better, be serious.
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.
It must be so easy to be a capitalist. Every communist success never happened, and those that did weren’t communist.
Like a box of rocks.
Communist success has never existed because there has never been a true communist state. No country has even gotten past the half way stage. Do you not even understand the communism you claim to preach? Tell me all about some of the “communist success”, come on then buddy!