Also they seem to have 7 likes on a lot of comments, or just above it. Get the feeling there’s some real bot/alt account stuff going on because I cannot imagine anyone liking it lol, let alone a consistent number as you go down the chain.
What more do you want than “I was exaggerating”? Once that was said, this whole BS could’ve just stopped. You then say “ok, now that we’re clear that you were exaggerating, how different are these articles?” But we never got there, because you derailed.
Request an edit if you really think it’s so misleading, I’m sure @[email protected] would’ve initially just edited if you were so concerned that this “lie” would mislead others. Now I doubt it, because you’ve proven to be acting in bad faith by not just accepting the explanation and continuing the initial discussion, but you had that chance.
We all understand how exaggeration works. @[email protected] linked the article, clearly indicating it’s not the same article with the same word as the exaggeration. After that, @[email protected] was willing to be clearer, but you had already removed the thread from being about the topic of whether or not this bias indicator has any value. Now it never returned to the point being obviously initially made
Were getting a bit long here, comrade lol. I can’t reply to all that at the moment, I just threw up in a train and realized I was sick at the same time. (I actually just realized I replied to you in a different threads moments before throwing up lol) About out of posting power for the day. Will respond later better though.
I think you both present a great explanation for the hexbear method as well as simultaneously a tiny improvement: we can follow up the criticisms of the western countries with a quick “so the problems manifests deeper than youre saying”
I’m also fine with how we do it tbh, just trying to always improve when possible.
Fully agree with the description. Fuck that lib. Keep tearing them apart til they apologize and edit. 
In Dutch-speaking communities i still hear the American phrases a lot, but the equivalents in dutch rarely. But in international groups oriented towards my hobbies, dude is still used a good bit. But I’ll just stay alert, just wanted to hear a bit more from a trans-comrade who most definitely would speak frankly to me (I understand that in-person call-outs can sometimes be difficult for such “small” things). Gonna only use it as a phrase of exclamation among friends that know me well I think and continue checking up regularly on my comrades.
My claim in the first part is not a philosophical claim about the possibility of separate questions interacting, it’s that a judgement of existing socialism based on the dividing of some necessary or sufficient conditions as opposed to how these are intended to maximize the democratic process as a whole while integrated over time (meaning that these processes continually allow for the better development of all aspects of democracy. With the most portant being that the interests of the working class and desired results of the people are achieved. Any further division is unnecessary at this stage. Improvements are another, but the way you philosophically divide it is not something that hasn’t already been discussed as infinitum and understood by our Chinese comrades. This is what I intended at the beginning, though I did sloppily present that, including a use of “democratic centralism” without being clear that I meant “it’s against the principles and plans which have been determined best by democratic centralism incorporating the interests of about 18% of the world population.”
The fact that it’s not yet communist and/or fully worker owned is just unfortunately not yet relevant at all. It’s not philosophically incorrect, just divisive and not necessary, because the plan to arrive there has been clearly laid out. Is your critique on that plan then, or just the current state? The plan, unfortunately, currently includes being so protectionist that they can’t intervene against Israel and must include them in the global trading powerhouse they are developing. I say unfortunately, but know that I mean that I wish it could be otherwise but the scientific approach has led to that conclusion based on the failure of other approaches. I find it a conservative (here meaning not radical) approach, but conflict avoidance does currently entail trade with all States which are not currently threatening China, especially those in hotspots of western imperialism to drag them away from american-centric policies. China will eventually hopefully be able to utilize this dominance to push radically, and I will most definitely critique the approach if this doesn’t change once war with america is no longer a giant possibility.
I use immediacy to describe the time-aspect, and I don’t think I made that clear based on your response, so here my response may seem tangential but I think we are just not using the terms the same so I’m going off of my intended meaning and ignoring what I think was a response to something I didn’t mean. We have geographic and time variables at play (which affect each other in pretty obvious ways i think). Russia was presented with both immediacy and directness of the fascists at their border (and the USSR before them, of course). China with Israel has determined that both are not at play, that Israel is not a “becoming” problem for them as a possible war actor and is geographically not direct. “The omnipresence of mediation” how you use it here seems to be an almost trotsky-like position where all issues must be tackled simultaneously, which I can’t see concluding anything except for for the immediate attempt at the overthrow of all capitalist nations by every communist. I’d love it, but Stalin was, i think, proven correct that socialism in one country was necessary in those conditions (pre WW2, though I think we all usually agree he shouldn’t have stopped at Berlin lol) and therefore the omnipresent mediation does not supersede the immediacy or directness aspect.
Good Convo though, even though we’re talking a bit last one another. You seem more knowledgeable about the philosophical terms, and I appreciate your fairly clear usage. Still haven’t read grundrisse lol
Real talk from a very trans-supportive communist: is this universal? I definitely grew up in a conservative environment but definitely was under the impression that I and the trans people I am close to all thought dude was a term of endearment when used amongst friends, including women and enbys. I likely overuse the term from thinking I would be a skater after playing Tony hawk’s pro skater and being into hiking/climbing/camping culture, but is this a universal thing among trans people you know?
Not defending the other person, libs very often hide behind the argument once called out, and I’d never call you “dude,” or pretty much anyone not my direct friend, but I just wanna make sure I’m not hurting people unnecessarily without knowing it. Maybe it’s the “being friends” part that makes the difference, and I hope so. Otherwise I got some trans-comrades to apologize to
Adding here after thinking more, I guess I usually use it to refer to a non-specific thing, like saying “ah dude, that’s cool” and shit like that. Like saying “oh man.” Is this related??? Need some help here lol
Just replying to your splitting it into 3 questions: this is in direct opposition to democratic centralism and is a liberal absurdity to think that these should be considered separately. It doesn’t really impact the rest of your comment though, so that’s below.
Also Marxism is a universalism based in a scientific approach, not based in a set of principles i think. Unless you mean by principles here: dialectical approach and materialist basis.
By direct and indirect, I mean primarily that its immediate. I should use that word, and that’s a good critique of my phrasing for sure. But it’s immediacy does not negate the eventual interest, a direct but not immediate interest, in revolution in Israel. I mean I can forgive eventuality for immediacy if this is part of the scientific learning process of world transition. Why I justify it for China is that I believe there is a clear communist party interested in the highest levels of focus and learning for the sake of communism doing this. I think their track record is clear in this sense despite mistakes.
No, a good understanding of fascism and imperialism includes understanding that countries at the periphery either find a way to do the imperialism to their east/south (geographically right now) or to their ethnic others within or be the ones consumed by it.
Poland got to join the imperialists, though with significant disadvantage of being at the behest of exploitation, in exchange for becoming the people who perform (at least partially) the expropriation towards he east at Russia/Belorussia/Ukraine. The ruling class of capitalists always takes this bargain as long as they continue to benefit
I think that in 30 years you’ll be considered the anti-Semite of this age, honestly. Sartre once famously claimed something like “if the Nazi didn’t have the jew, they would have created him.”
Sartre, for all his faults, understood that fascism always needed the external and periphery, whether defined geographically or ethnically, in order to sustain itself through expropriation. Who this was doesn’t matter as much as that this group is defined as having more than it deserves for bad reasons and is therefore justifiable as a victim of violent expropriation. The values represented have become more progressive™ in that you believe China owns American representatives in order to mistreat Muslims or something. But materially it’s identical to “Judeo-Bolshevik” antisemitism
Here’s a bite-sized analysis from a guy who’s pretty good at this:
https://twitter.com/RodericDay/status/1495054681579692035?t=gmJyzLx5go9hZWcFJkt5fw&s=19
Imagine for a split second that the strongest government in the world is constantly attempting to cause the overthrow of your legitimately popular government, despite it being popular and significantly beloved by almost all people there. This external, most powerful government in the world tried to cause unrest in every possible way, including funding all opposition groups and organizations regardless of their violent/genocidal intent (e.g. Falun Gong, Islamic terror groups) and cause unrest on your borders (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Korea).
What do you do? When good faith polling shows that you’re popular and fulfilling the needs and desires of your country’s working class but a foreign press tries to speak about the terribleness and need for overthrow, do you just let that happen with more money and propoganda than you can possibly provide to support yourself? Or do you censor the BS and report to your population that these images/ideas/orgs are actually subversive and attempting to change the government they legitimately love.
In this hypothetical situation, what do you propose? Allowing the propaganda but claiming it’s wrong has failed in many projects, and resulted in massacres once fascism won (Chile, Indonesia). Just trying to set up a wall of no information works for a bit, but info can cross anyways (USSR). Allowing limited access if you search for it but not allowing it’s widespread propagation is the method of china. A VPN allows you to see it all, but it can’t be spread too widely before it is stopped from being viral.
Do you have a better solution? Because this is how China presents itself and how the Chinese population sees it
Its not about universal values at all but about what the Chinese People want and what the party determined is the interests of their communist goals. I don’t love that China treats Israel as anything other than the fascist government it is, but the biggest difference is locality/direct influence. Russia is directly affected by the fascists at their border, because their fascism is directed eastward. China isn’t impacted by the Israeli fascism and therefore has no direct interests.
Maybe you call this classic liberalism, but the analysis here begins in a materialist position. China just takes the very minimal-conflict path within their material position. This means that great evils occurring elsewhere do not trump their need to develop and become strong enough to become communist. Once those evils are aimed towards them, they react and sometimes not perfectly, but in the way which is protectionist. Hopefully, from their example, we can learn to be better at exporting revolutions like the USSR but without destroying ourselves, like the USSR allowed itself to be destroyed (the phrasing here isn’t meant to indicate systemic intent, but it wasn’t prevented obviously). I hope we can be better at internationalism than China but they’re surviving and influencing the world while every other communist led country has been marred by a sort of irrelevance to the rest of the world if they didn’t get destroyed.
Also one of my favorites. Nia writes really well and is absurdly informed
I think this response is really necessary for this type of person. Work with us and we will try our best to avoid any violence, just like Lenin or most of the historical socialist revolutionaries. We figure out how to less-violently or even non-violently remove the power of the bourgeoisie and we will gladly do it. But the fact is that for libs the discussion of possible needs for strategic violence is itself proof of the impossibility of working together, and for some it’s because they know that this removes all possibility of actually winning and for others it’s because they’re blinded by their ideology and think that reformism hasn’t been tried hard enough.
Bring some new ideas not based in self-defeating liberalism about how we can avoid violence. I’ll listen and try to apply them. But don’t tell us we’re dumb for realizing it hasn’t worked yet, no matter how many people claim it’s the best
Vast majority of the links in similar articles are circular or to “original reporting” from people who weren’t there or reporting based on US government sources. But like the other commenter said, it’s absolutely true and agreed by the PRC that hundreds died in fighting around the city. No lies there are all, but the lead up to it makes clear that the forces which resulted in fighting at all were liberal and imperialist-aligned forces. https://redsails.org/another-view-of-tiananmen/
“for hours” lol fuck off loser it’s the fucking internet, where interactions take a while.
And “gaslight” and “abuse”? Jesus Christ kid, that’s some shit. I’m not replying anymore, so goodbye, you are being ridiculous and pathetic.