Recently, I’ve seen Chinese and Brazilian users discussing Brazil’s election on Twitter, or X. Some of the exchanges turned into arguments, and I think the disagreement is worth looking at.
Some Brazilian leftists are friendly toward China. They appreciate its socialist orientation and opposition to American dominance. They seemed to expect Chinese users to agree with their other positions too.
Then they started discussing drugs, crime, and LGBTQ issues.
Suddenly, the comrades had a problem.
Chinese commenters expressed support for harsh drug enforcement and socially conservative views. Some Brazilian leftists pushed back. Meanwhile, some right-wing commenters found positions they liked. One repost even joked about starting to feel like a communist.
I found that funny. But it also exposed an assumption: if China is socialist, Chinese people must accept the entire political package somebody associates with the left.
Who decided that?
China did not sign your ideological contract
I see China as a socialist country, or at least a country moving toward socialism. Its socialist orientation emphasizes public ownership, state-led development, and reducing poverty. Its constitution recognizes both the state sector and private businesses.
China also pursues technological development while retaining many conservative cultural attitudes.
You can call that “economically left, culturally conservative.” It helps explain the mismatch. But building advanced technology does not automatically make a country socialist. The question remains who owns, who controls, and who benefits.
Economic positions and cultural positions do not always arrive in one package.
Supporting public ownership does not require tolerating drug traffickers. Wanting safe streets does not automatically make you right-wing. A society organized around ordinary people still has to protect them.
China’s hostility toward narcotics also has a history. Opium is bound up with imperial coercion and national humiliation. China’s narcotics-control white paper invokes that experience. I see it as one reason drug control carries meanings of sovereignty and collective protection.
You cannot understand that history by handing Chinese people a Western political checklist.
Workers have to live with the consequences
I recognize this argument from my own audience.
I talk about socialism, imperialism, and workers getting screwed, and many people agree. Then I support harsh punishment for drug traffickers, including the death penalty in serious cases, and punishment for serious criminals.
Suddenly, some of those same people disagree.
I believe punishing those criminals is part of protecting workers and ordinary people. Get them caught and convicted. Make the organizers and financiers face consequences too.
Why the hell would protecting working people stop at their front door?
A woman finishing a late shift needs to get home safely. A parent needs their child protected from people profiting from addiction. A family living near violent gangs needs protection they can actually count on.
They still have to live there tomorrow.
People with money have more options. They can move away or pay for security. Workers with rent due cannot simply buy an exit.
Housing, healthcare, wages, and safety are all part of material reality. Poverty needs action. Addiction needs treatment. Understanding how someone entered criminal activity does not erase the people they hurt.
Enforcement has to work. The U.S. National Institute of Justice’s research summary finds that the likelihood of being caught generally deters crime more effectively than increasing punishment. I want consequences backed by competent investigations and fair trials, reaching the powerful people behind the business.
The revolution cannot stop at your wardrobe
This is where I think some liberal leftists get badly confused.
They spend so much time discussing universal values and woke culture that class exploitation gets pushed aside. Supporting LGBTQ rights is fine. Those rights do not settle who owns the company, who controls your working day, or whether you can afford a doctor.
Women’s wages, unpaid care work, and discrimination against gay workers are material issues. Those workers need actual power and protection.
I expected at least some of the anti-imperialist, working-class politics associated with Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution: confronting foreign domination and challenging ownership.
But when your socialism amounts to fashionable labels while corporate power goes untouched, you become a recycling depot for the U.S. Democratic Party’s secondhand political garbage.
You wear “communist” like a designer jacket. Edgy. Fashionable. Looks great on your profile. Meanwhile, the shareholders still own the company, the boss still controls your work, and your revolutionary vocabulary has cost them nothing.
What power have workers gained? What ownership have you challenged?
That is my test. Class exploitation. Ownership. Ordinary people’s material lives.
Brazil has its own labor and anti-dictatorship traditions. I am criticizing the shallow politics in this argument, not pretending a few accounts represent its entire left.
And I have no interest in making Chinese commenters Brazil’s political schoolmasters. China’s experience gives other countries things to study, adapt, challenge, or reject. Brazil needs its own road.
China does not owe anyone obedience to a foreign cultural checklist.
Who owns? Who benefits? Who pays? Keep those questions at the center. Your landlord collects the rent regardless of which cultural argument you win.
