QinShiHuangsShlong__dup_67153

Perception != reality Correct. Which makes it strange that you ignored everything I explained in this reply to you and just went back to the same checklist again. Functional democracy needs: Opposition No. That is the liberal electoral model, not the universal definition of democracy. Democracy means political authority comes from the people and that they participate in governance. China’s system does this through whole-process people’s democracy. People directly elect local People’s Congress deputies, those bodies elect higher congresses, and the system scales upward to the National People’s Congress. Most representatives come from those directly elected levels. Officials advance after years working through those layers. It is a different institutional design. Pretending it does not exist because it is not your familiar Western party circus is not an argument. Free media Again you should read Michael Parenti on “inventing reality.” In the West media is not magically independent. It is owned by a tiny number of massive corporations and billionaires. Those owners decide what gets covered, what narratives dominate, and what perspectives disappear. Calling that “free” while pretending ownership power does not shape information is extremely naive. Open voting / Free elections China holds direct elections at the grassroots level where the majority of representatives originate. Higher levels are elected by the bodies below them. Again, a hierarchical representative system instead of a national campaign spectacle. Different design. Not absence. Same law for everyone This one is especially funny coming from systems where billionaires routinely dodge consequences while corporations treat fines as operating costs. Civil liberties China prioritizes social stability and development as core measures of legitimacy. Over forty years it lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty and massively expanded infrastructure, education, and living standards. You may not like that model. Fine. But dismissing it with slogans while ignoring the outcomes is not serious. As far as I’m aware Yes, that part was obvious. Your entire argument is basically “it doesn’t look like my system therefore it isn’t democracy,” plus a “citation” from the eagle burger institute of goodness democracy index in your other comment made it abundantly clear.

I’ll assume the typical leftist political context of it’s use implying an ‘aspirational’ view of my fellow humans they would often fall short of due to material concerns. That’s not the typical leftist political context? In a leftist political context idealism posits that ideas are the driving force of history, as if thought creates reality rather than reflecting it. This flips the actual relationship: material conditions shape consciousness, not the other way around. When we start from abstractions instead of concrete social practice, we end up justifying the status quo or chasing illusions. Real change comes from engaging with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.

🫡

I don’t mind engaging even without the audience if someone is directly replying to me. Best case it’s an interesting conversation worst case I get to laugh at the idiocy of your average bigot.

Allegations from Montefiore famous for lying about having access to unreleased Soviet archives, being a rabid anti-communist and being best friends with Ghislaine Maxwell. Certainly not the most reliable source.

It does have a meaning you’re unfamiliar with, and it’s not word salad. Through a materialist analysis, looking at the concrete material conditions of history and the present, you see that superstructures like voting systems are subordinate to the mode of production. That is my entire point. Changing the ballot mechanism is irrelevant so long as the mode of production that maintains the current superstructure remains intact. In capitalist countries under the dictatorship of capital, you have bourgeois democracy. Your vote is limited to those who work for capital, who will never permit a challenge to private ownership or imperialist power. Under a socialist mode of production, where the means of production are socially owned, your vote carries real weight over the direction of society. That is what I call socialist democracy. As it flows from the different class content of the state. Socialism is the transitionary period towards communism, not a stable endpoint. Contradictions remain, but now under the dictatorship of the proletariat they can be analyzed and synthesized through collective practice, not hidden behind the fiction of neutral institutions. The beautiful part of democracy, even flawed ones, is that it can’t stop you once you gather enough support, it will bend to your will Democracy as a form cannot stop you, but the capitalist superstructure absolutely can and will. Look at how even centrist Bernie was contained and defeated within the US party machine. Look at what was done to Mossadeq in Iran, Lumumba in Congo, Allende in Chile. All democratically elected, all pursuing reforms within the system, all removed by coups, assassinations, or imperial sabotage the moment they threatened capital’s core interests. The ballot box does not disarm the ruling class. They hold the state, the media, the courts, the police, and the economy. When votes threaten those, the mask comes off. Peaceful transition is a hopeful thought, but it assumes capital will accept its own expropriation if enough people ask nicely. History shows the opposite. Capital concedes only when forced, and takes back when it can. Growing communist sympathy in the imperial core is great, but the question is whether that energy will be channeled into building independent working-class power or diluted into electoral cycles that change faces, not foundations.

Didn’t the US make one of your prime ministers disappear for criticising pine gap? Isn’t Australia part of five eyes? Isn’t Australia an “Enhanced Opportunities Partner” to NATO? I think whether you like it or not you are part of the Euro-Amerikan empires system.

place where the 996 work schedule is the norm Wrong. It was never the norm across China’s economy. It was concentrated in roughly forty large tech firms during the 2016-2019 boom cycle. In August 2021 the Supreme People’s Court explicitly ruled 996 illegal, stating it violates statutory working hour limits and mandatory rest periods. The 2025 Consumption Boost Plan tightens this further with concrete measures against invisible overtime and stronger rest-time guarantees. capitalists maliciously withholding wages is commonplace Wage arrears will persist so long as capital exists. That is the unfortunate material reality of the world we live in. What distinguishes China is the enforcement architecture built to counter it. The judgment-defaulter list (失信被执行人) publicly names individuals and companies that fail to comply with court orders on wage payments and debts. Once listed, they face high-consumption restrictions (限制高消费): no business-class travel, no luxury hotels, limits on real estate and vehicle purchases. Combined with the blacklist for owed migrant worker wages and criminal prosecution for willful arrears, this creates real pressure on employers. It is not a perfect system but it is institutional recourse. Compare that to the procedural maze workers navigate in many Western systems when chasing unpaid wages even establishing a union is treated as a crime China’s labor framework operates through the All-China Federation of Trade Unions. This isn’t about silencing workers. It is about preventing fragmentation, foreign interference, and ensuring disputes resolve through arbitration and courts rather than adversarial chaos. Enterprise unions under this system negotiate contracts, handle grievances, and oversee safety. The ban on independent unions reflects a choice for unified, state-coordinated representation. That is a policy position. Debate it if you want. But calling it criminalization of worker advocacy is dishonest at best. those aiding workers in defending their rights are arrested Vigilante action undermines rule of law anywhere. China channels labor disputes through arbitration committees and courts that handle millions of cases annually. When people bypass legal channels to organize unsanctioned actions, it is the method that triggers enforcement. Then is the broader picture you ignored. The CPC maintains over 95 percent public approval according to long-term Harvard Kennedy School surveys. Most mainlanders view China’s system as highly democratic because it delivers accountability through performance: poverty alleviation that lifted nearly one billion people, infrastructure built for public benefit not shareholder profit, and anti-corruption enforcement that reaches from village cadres to top generals. The National People’s Congress includes nearly 3,000 deputies with hundreds of farmers, frontline workers, and representatives from all 55 ethnic minorities. That is structural inclusion. When platform capitalists like Jack Ma pushed financialization models that threatened household debt burdens, regulators restructured those businesses toward consumer protection. Similar scrutiny has applied to ed-tech, gaming, and real estate speculation. Public hospitals, high-speed rail, rural broadband. These are not profit centers. They are working-class infrastructure. If your analysis starts from Western media caricatures instead of documented policy and measurable outcomes, you are not critiquing China. You are performing ideology (and poorly at that I might add).

That’s because the US like pretty much all the western world is a dictatorship of capital why would capital willingly discipline itself. China is a dictatorship of the proletariat hence the constant crackdowns on unruly capital and capitalists that is impossible in the west.

You can dislike it all you want doesn’t make it less true.

Is naivete a sin? No investigation no right to speak is a core part of MarxistLeninist thought as it has evolved. Naivete is not “a sin” but if you haven’t researched a topic you shouldn’t speak on it. As Chairman Mao put it: Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense? It won’t do! It won’t do! You must investigate! You must not talk nonsense!

I wouldn’t be surprised but I am neither amerikkkan nor have I looked into that.

No you don’t understand you can just become homeless and then let yourself die of preventable causes.

So not accepting exaggerated narratives means China is a utopia? Why do people rarely offer ordinary, policy-level criticism? There is plenty of it, but discussion often defaults to cartoonish claims instead of routine institutional analysis. Where is the discussion of the hukou household registration system and its trade-offs? Where is the discussion of local government reliance on land-use financing? Where is the discussion of provincial policy experimentation and uneven implementation? Where is the discussion of state-owned enterprises and their structural advantages and drawbacks? Where is the discussion of demographic policy after the one-child era? Where is the discussion of regional inequality between coastal and interior provinces? Where is the discussion of the property sector’s role in household wealth and local budgets? Where is the discussion of debt accumulation among provincial financing vehicles? Where is the discussion of administrative campaign-style governance and its policy side effects? Where is the discussion of bureaucratic incentives within the cadre evaluation system? Where is the discussion of industrial policy prioritization and capital allocation? Where is the discussion of urban planning constraints produced by internal migration controls? Where is the discussion of education access differences tied to household registration? Where is the discussion of long-term pension sustainability in an aging population? I know where they are, in China because none of you know enough about China to have a proper discussion on any of these. All you know is spouting ridiculous talking points.

Go back to 4chan obergruppenfuhrer. Or provide some evidence/analysis but I doubt you have that capability.

First, let’s be precise about terms: capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, profit-driven accumulation, and wage labor; socialism is defined by social ownership (state, collective, or cooperative), planning mechanisms, and the subordination of remaining market forces to developmental and social goals. They are distinct modes of production, not a binary where anything short of stateless communism “counts” as capitalism. Second, “Western capitalism” isn’t a universal default, it specifically describes the Euro-Amerikan core and its integrated vassals (NATO, Five Eyes, dependent economies). That system is hegemonic, but it is not total. Russia, for instance, operates a distinct sovereign-capitalist model: not socialist, but explicitly de-linked from Western financial architecture and actively contesting unipolar dominance. Third, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are explicitly in the early stages of the socialist transitionary period. Their frameworks (especially China’s “primary stage of socialism”) theorize that underdeveloped socialist states must develop productive forces, utilize regulated markets, and engage globally while maintaining proletarian state power and public ownership of commanding heights. This isn’t “capitalism with red flags”; it’s a materialist strategy to build the basis for higher-stage socialism. Dismissing these distinctions because communism hasn’t been “achieved” yet misunderstands dialectics: transition is a process, not an event. You don’t call a bridge under construction meaningless because it has yet to reach the other side.

“liberal” denotes adherence to bourgeois democracy and capitalist property relations, (pro bourgeois democracy and private property) The critique of certain “anarchists” is that they guise reactionary politics in radical language, which aids capitalism.

Most of the platforms you listed are “banned” largely a result of regulatory and data-governance issues. China requires internet services operating in the mainland market to comply with domestic regulations covering data protection, content management, and licensing, which generally includes managing Chinese user data within the Chinese regulatory framework and cooperating with local oversight. Many large foreign platforms chose not to operate under those requirements, so their services were never integrated into the mainland internet environment. As for Reuters they aren’t banned per say they simply haven’t obtained the licences required to operate in the mainland (to my knowledge).

I meant that internet content in China is governed by formal laws and regulations, mainly enforced by the Cyberspace Administration of China (国家网信办) and related regulators. Chinese rules such as the 《网络信息内容生态治理规定》 classify online information and require platforms to prohibit illegal content and prevent harmful content, including material that endangers national security, spreads rumors that disrupt social order, promotes extremism or violence, or infringes on others’ rights. Platforms are legally required to monitor and remove such content and regulators can order services restricted or removed if they violate these rules.

On the property point, it’s the same principle as the other restrictions. When someone refuses to comply with a court judgment and is placed under high-consumption restrictions (限制高消费), the court can restrict certain forms of luxury spending, which can include purchasing additional real estate or carrying out non-essential renovations until the debt or judgment is fulfilled. The idea is that if someone owes money according to a court ruling, they should not be spending large amounts on luxury consumption before complying. Existing property is not automatically taken just because someone is on the list, although assets can be enforced as part of normal debt collection(just as in every other country). As for Xu Xiaodong’s accounts being wiped, that situation was tied to the series of lawsuits and disputes he became involved in, along with platform moderation rules. That falls under content moderation and legal disputes on private platforms, not the court enforcement mechanism we were discussing earlier. The blocked-website lists you see online are a very mixed bag. Some sites are inaccessible because of political or regulatory issues, but many cases come down to compliance requirements, such as rules around data protection, licensing, and the requirement for companies handling Chinese user data to host or manage that data within China’s regulatory framework. When companies choose not to comply with those requirements, their services often simply do not operate in the mainland market. And that meme about texting someone “Tiananmen 1989” to get them arrested is honestly pretty ugly. It basically jokes about condemning random Chinese people to some vague punishment for the sake of a punchline, which is a pretty dehumanizing way to talk about an entire population. Fortunately it’s also just a meme, sending a phrase like that to someone does not magically cut their internet or get them arrested.

Unfortunately I don’t think ranked choice voting will save you. You need to clear the board so to speak and get some options that actually represent people over corporate interests.

The Xu Xiaodong case actually illustrates the exact point I was making. He wasn’t punished for “criticizing kung fu masters” or for having the wrong opinions. What happened is that he lost a defamation lawsuit and the court ordered him to apologize and pay damages. He refused to comply with the ruling, and because of that he was placed on the judgment-defaulter list (失信被执行人). Chinese reporting describes the reason as “有履行能力而拒不履行生效法律文书确定义务”, having the ability to comply with a court judgment but refusing to do so. Once someone is on that list, courts can impose high-consumption restrictions (限制高消费), which include things like flights, certain high-speed rail tickets, and luxury hotels until the judgment is fulfilled. In other words, the trigger was refusing to carry out a court order, not some general punishment for speech. On the data issue, you’re citing reports from Western government-linked think tanks and security NGOs, which obviously approach the topic from a national security perspective. China’s cybersecurity and data laws (like the Cybersecurity Law and Data Security Law) exist because the state wants control over critical data flows, infrastructure security, and cross-border data transfer. That approach isn’t unique in principle; governments everywhere are tightening control over data because it has become a strategic resource. But those laws are regulatory frameworks about data governance, not mechanisms that automatically “ruin someone’s social credit.” The think-tank papers you cited are describing geopolitical risk concerns, not explaining how the Chinese court enforcement system actually works. On the app point, what the BBC article referred to were tools connected to the court defaulter database, sometimes nicknamed things like a “laolai map.” That’s basically a searchable database of people who have lost a case and then refused to comply with the judgment, which courts use to pressure them to comply. Many countries have debtor registries or public enforcement records; the difference here is mostly presentation. Western coverage often framed it as part of a sinister “social credit” ecosystem when in reality it was tied to a specific court enforcement list, not a universal citizen score. It’s good to have a database of those who have defrauded people. And to be honest, the BBC has a long history of framing Chinese policy in a particular narrative, so it’s not surprising that nuance tends to disappear. The reality is that some of these mechanisms absolutely exist, but how they work, who they apply to, and what they actually do is often somewhere between heavy exaggeration and outright fantasy in viral discussions. What exists in practice is a mixture of court enforcement lists, regulatory blacklists, and sector-specific compliance systems. Turning that into a story about every citizen having a constantly changing “social credit score” controlling their life is a much simpler narrative, but it’s not how the underlying policies are actually structured.

Because cowbee (who you responded to) was talking about how the genocide narrative is bullshit? Are you illiterate?

The social credit system that you know of doesn’t exist.

Every time I make any criticism of China, the responses are apologetic at best. Probably because 90% of your “criticism” is just spreading lies.

You can debate whether the system works well, but it isn’t accurate to say there’s no evidence for the claim that the working classes play a central role in the Chinese state. China’s constitution explicitly defines the PRC as a socialist state “led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants,” with state power exercised through the National People’s Congress (NPC) system. The NPC is the highest organ of state power, with nearly 3,000 deputies drawn from provinces, the PLA, and different social sectors. The makeup of the NPC is not just party bureaucrats or business elites. In the 14th NPC there are hundreds of deputies from workers and farmers and large numbers of grassroots representatives, along with 442 ethnic minority deputies covering all 55 minority groups. Most deputies in China’s people’s congress system (about 95%) serve at the county and township level, which are directly elected and involve hundreds of millions of voters. Higher congresses are elected from these lower levels. This structure is what China calls “whole-process people’s democracy.” Sources explaining the system include CGTN’s Who runs the CPC and the State Council white paper China: Democracy That Works. You can also look at how the state treats capital. China has private capital, but it is clearly subordinated to state goals. When Jack Ma tried to push an aggressive fintech model through Ant Group that would massively expand lightly regulated consumer credit, regulators halted the IPO and forced restructuring under stricter oversight. That is a case of disciplining capital when it conflicts with social stability and the broader economy. Likewise, China has pursued policies like eliminating extreme poverty and building massive infrastructure networks (including projects that are not monetarily profitable) because they are treated as long-term public development goals. That kind of large-scale, socially oriented investment is difficult to sustain in systems where private capital dominates the state. So you can disagree with the Chinese model, but there is actually a large amount of Chinese material explaining how their system is supposed to function and why they claim it represents working-class political power.

That’s a convenient way to exit the discussion after repeatedly asserting things you never actually substantiated. You say you “gave reasons,” but what you mostly did was repeat a set of political labels (“authoritarian,” “fascist,” “genocide”) and then treat those labels as if they were arguments. When those terms were challenged, instead of defining them or engaging with the structural points being raised, you simply repeated them and shifted to saying you could elaborate “if you wanted to.” That isn’t an explanation; it’s a rhetorical placeholder. For example, you called China fascist but never addressed what fascism historically refers to: a specific political formation that emerged in capitalist societies to protect monopoly capital by destroying socialist movements and organized labor. If you think that definition applies to China, then you should be able to explain how a state led by a communist party, with a large state-owned sector and long-term developmental planning, fits that model. Simply asserting the label without engaging with what the term actually means is not an argument. The same pattern appeared with Xinjiang. When the sources behind the genocide narrative were questioned, including the methodological problems with the research that popularized those claims and the fact that organizations such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation have not endorsed the genocide accusation, you didn’t actually address those points. Instead you returned to repeating that there is “geographic evidence” and “testimonies,” without explaining how satellite images of buildings or politically connected exile testimonies demonstrate genocide as defined under international law. You also avoided the broader point about how the term “authoritarian” is used. Every state exercises authority through law enforcement, surveillance, media regulation, and political constraints. The meaningful question is how those powers are structured, what social outcomes they produce, and who ultimately holds political influence. Simply calling one country “authoritarian” while treating others with similar mechanisms as “free” is not analysis unless you actually define the criteria being used and apply them consistently. Now you’re suggesting the discussion is pointless because you assume your arguments will be “reframed.” But nothing that was addressed required reframing, only clarification. If someone challenges the meaning of the terms you’re using and asks you to substantiate your claims with consistent definitions and evidence, that is what debate actually is. Declaring in advance that engagement would be misrepresentation is just another way of avoiding the substance of the discussion. If you genuinely believe your claims are well-supported, the solution is simple: define the terms you are using, explain the evidence that supports them, and address the counterpoints directly. Saying you could do that but would rather not does not strengthen your position; it just makes it clear that repeating accusations was easier than defending them.

There are no concentration camps? There were prisons where terrorists were rehabilitated and vocational schools. Neither of these are concentration camps. When was the last time you were in Xinjiang? Uyghur is widely spoken and all signs are in Uyghur and Chinese. There were some abuses during the crackdown on ETIM and that was bad but that has already been corrected and abuses are not genocide you should stop trivialising the word genocide.

You should stop trivialising the word genocide.

It’s applied to bank accounts. If you owe a debt ordered by the court (99.99% businesses) you can’t use your business accounts to buy luxuries, it is often also applied to the individual owner/management of the company as well so they can neither use personal or business accounts to live a life of luxury while owing debts to people.

It is? Their is no evidence. It’s a fabrication invented by a German evangelical on a self proclaimed “mission from god” to destroy communism.

Chinese fascism Just say you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Authoritarian is a meaningless pejorative. The social credit score isn’t real.

They have a system largely for penalizing corporations and businesses that are caught skirting regulations The core mechanism is the court “judgment defaulter” blacklist (失信被执行人) and related high-consumption restrictions (限制高消费), which are imposed when someone refuses to comply with a legally effective court judgment, such as paying a debt or damages ordered by the court. The penalty mainly restricts luxury or non-essential spending (flights, first-class train seats, luxury hotels, tourism, etc.) until the judgment is fulfilled. In law it applies to any individual or company, and if a company is the debtor the restrictions can extend to its legal representative or responsible managers on top of any accounts registered to the company. In practice 99.99% of cases involve businesses because most court enforcement actions arise from commercial disputes (contracts, loans, wages, suppliers, etc.), so the mechanism ends up being an enforcement mechanism against business owners and managers to push them to settle judgments properly, but legally it’s just a court enforcement tool against anyone who refuses to comply with a court ruling.

You’re conflating Marxist methodology with liberal moralism. Marxists do not offer abstract “pro/anti” judgments based on a regime’s ideology, but analyze states through their structural position in the global system. Contemporary Russia is indeed an oligarchic capitalist state, but its integration into global capitalism is asymmetric and subordinate. Its economy remains heavily dependent on raw material exports rather than high-value capital export, and it lacks the core instruments of modern imperialism: dominance over global financial institutions, reserve currency status, and the ability to enforce structural adjustment. Unlike the U.S., Russia cannot print the world’s reserve currency to finance overseas expansion or weaponize SWIFT-level financial infrastructure against rivals. This material reality limits Russia’s capacity for classic imperialist expansion as Lenin defined it, namely, the dominance of finance capital and the export of capital as the primary mechanism of exploitation. Russia’s capital accumulation model, centered on resource rents and regional security projection, does not replicate this. It lacks the deep financial markets, technological monopoly rents, and institutional leverage that allow core imperial powers to extract surplus globally through “peaceful”(generally far from peaceful in reality) and economic means. Its military actions, therefore, function more as defensive geopolitics or regional balancing than as instruments of systematic capital expansion. Precisely because Russia cannot compete with entrenched imperial powers on their terms, its rational strategy is to undermine unipolarity. Supporting multipolar institutions like BRICS and the SCO, opposing NATO expansion, and backing states resisting U.S. pressure are not expressions of socialist solidarity, but materially rational moves for a subordinate capitalist power seeking strategic autonomy. The objective effect (fragmenting U.S. hegemonic control) creates space for anti-imperialist struggles globally, regardless of Putin’s subjective intentions. Our support is therefore entirely critical and conditional. We recognize that Russia’s structural position leads it, out of self-interest, to back anti-imperialist struggles, and we support those objective anti-hegemonic actions because they weaken the primary engine of global imperialist exploitation. Simultaneously, we oppose its internal reactionary politics, oligarchic structure, and any chauvinist or expansionist tactics that harm working-class solidarity. This is not a logical contradiction, it is dialectical materialism: judging policies by their concrete role in the global class struggle, not by the ideological labels of leaders. Reducing this analysis to “pro-Putin” ignores Marxism’s core method: follow the motion of material forces, not the slogans of statesmen.

citizens should have a right to privacy and not have the sum of their actions turned into a number. That “number” isn’t real. China does not have a single nationwide “social credit score” that rates every citizen. What actually exists is a set of legal blacklists, the most famous being the court judgment defaulter list (失信被执行人). It applies to people who refuse to comply with a court decision, usually things like unpaid debts. If you ignore a court order, the court can place you under a high-consumption restriction (限制高消费). That means you can’t spend money on certain luxury services (first-class train tickets, flights, five-star hotels, or other high-end purchases) until you comply with the judgment. You can still travel normally, stay in regular hotels, work, shop, and live your life. The restriction is specifically designed to stop people who refuse to obey court rulings from enjoying luxury spending while ignoring their legal obligations. The popular idea in the west that everyone in China has a constantly changing personal “score” based on everyday behavior is simply western fantasy.

Scientific socialist theory has a pretty great track record of being proven right and affecting massive positive change throughout it’s history.

Who do you think controls the state in China? Do you know how the Chinese state is structured? Do you know how Chinese democracy and political involvement works? What sources did you use to study China, the Chinese government and China’s democratic methods?

Why do you believe that? Just like how Obama didn’t “intervene” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan? Or Clinton didn’t “intervene” in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo? Amerikkkan imperialism is bi-partisan.

What no theory does to a mf 😭

You are a polish nationalist who has done no research on China and thus should stop speaking on it until you do

Adolf Heusinger was not conscripted; he joined the German Army as a volunteer in 1915 and later became a professional soldier, serving in various capacities during both World Wars. He held significant positions in the Nazi military(Operations Chief within the general staff of the High Command of the German Army from 1938 to 1944 and acting Chief of the General Staff for two weeks in 1944) before transitioning to roles in post-war Germany and NATO. Why are you running ridiculous (untrue) defence for Nazis?

So you’re a troll? You are just saying things, you haven’t investigated at all?

Out of curiosity who do you think controls the state in China? Do you know how the Chinese state is structured? Do you know how Chinese democracy and political involvement works? What sources did you use to study China, the Chinese government and China’s democratic methods?

When you both sides the imperial hegemon slaughtering thousands and the resistance movement born from the slaughter you are doing imperialist propaganda.

Again citation? (Not that I really expect any from a troll like yourself)

Citation? It is known isn’t really good enough. Also who brought up Stalin?

Good things are bad actually because I read a book by a rabid racist, anti-Semite, colonial cop, snitch and rapist that was pushed hard by the CIA. Truly an intellectual titan of our time. You clearly have no coherent ideology underpinning your thoughts beyond what you’ve osmosised from western media and fighting the tyranny of bedtime. Authority is not inherently evil. Fascists and their supporters deserve to have the boot of the people stamping on their face. Also “authoritarian regime”. Authoritarian is a useless pejorative. All states in class society are necessarily “authoritarian”. And “regime” just say what you really mean non white.

sintelins.uk/…/Boer-2023-Socialism-in-Power.-Sing… 99/100 search the name and add pdf at the end then you can just covert to epub if you really need.

A rapist, a snitch, and a colonial cop walk into a bar. The bartender says, ‘The usual, Mr. Orwell?