Communism isn’t when everyone lives like a farmer from 200 BC.

If he was sent by god, it’s not for the reason they think.

Unironically though, you can see the same pattern going all the way back to Rome.[Michal Parenti’s The Assassination of Julius Caesar]

Something about the history of all hitherto existing society being the history of class struggles.

The Khmer Rouge was never socialist, they were some weird feudal ideology, hence why the CIA supported them and the US recognized them as the legitimate government of Cambodia for like 30 years after Vietnam liberated them and put an actual socialist government in power.

Russia hasn’t been socialist since 1992; Putin’s Russia is what happens when you overthrow a democratic state run by the workers for the workers with a vibrant, multiparty capitalist “democracy”.

“Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is more democratic than the US; the average Chinese person feels they have far greater influence on the government than the average American. They tend to be confused why Americans hate and fear the police and why we aren’t able to vote for politicians who will fix the problem.

There’s also Cuba, who had a referendum on a new constitution a few years ago. After years of debate at the community level, they came up with a final draft that 92% of Cubans voted yes on. Could you imagine if we had that level of influence over our own government?

See the thing you’re missing is that the communist parties of these countries themselves democratic; they’re typically structured such that every member above the rank-and-file is elected, with instant recall and “give us a better candidate” options.

Yes.

It’s called LTSC IoT, but it’s normal windows. Actually much better because it doesn’t automatically install so much bloat.

Windows 10 LTSC is supported until 2032, and is free to pirate.

It is an observation of historical facts, I am not prescribing any particular action.

Running in the woods and trying to wage a protracted people’s war against the local police didn’t put the nazis in their place either, so who exactly would I be calling to arms?

American asylums weren’t exactly shining beacons of human rights during that period either. JFK’s sister had her frontal lobe scraped until she could no longer repeat the lyrics of a song because she said problematic things as a woman.

To be clear, screaming on rooftops didn’t put the nazis in their place, communists with guns did.

Practical.

jk though, most people are in that position; in Cuba, Vietnam, China, Russia, etc before the revolution, the masses didn’t read a bunch of books, decide communism sounded like the best way to run things, then overthrow their oppressors.

Though it’s important to understand the effects capitalism has had on society though are inherent to capitalism, not bad individuals doing capitalism wrong. That is the framing fascists use, since they’ve been privileged by the system, they need to invent reasons for its failing that don’t change it structurally. So you get wild conspiracies, foreigners, or whatever else is easy to believe.

If you don’t support capitalism, you aren’t a liberal.

I wouldn’t say that’s entirely wrong, fascism being a failure mode of liberalism. The phrase “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” or Trotsky’s “Not every exasperated petite bourgeois could have become Hitler, but a particle of Hitler is lodged in every exasperated petite bourgeois” come to mind.

Is Canada planning to go to war with China if they annex Taiwan?

You’re just describing the IMF’s model and pretending China is doing it. When countries were unable to pay back the loans, China has refinanced or forgiven them.

Having good relations and a country that isn’t dependent on the west benefits China a lot more than slightly reduced costs to transport goods to a country, that every other country also reaps when a port or railroad is built.

Not really, it’s more that liberalism contains contradictions between various freedoms it supports, and even contradictions between how the same “freedom” is practiced by different groups, and when those contradictions become unsustainable, the right to property by the dominant group always takes precedence.

It’s important to understand any political philosophy as not an idea floating in a vacuum but as a social tool used by a group in society; liberalism is the philosophy the bourgeoisie use to justify their power.

I mean kinda since fascism is a tool used to buttress capitalism when it’s own contradictions become unsustainable, but that’s not really in the book.

The quality can’t be that much worse than the plane that can’t fly in the rain and has a risk of decapitating pilots on ejection. It’s not as good at killing American soldiers as the Osprey, but it’s not exactly the epitome of quality.

In any case, Chinese manufacturing builds to specification. The reason they’re perceived as low quality is that you’re buying goods designed to be literally as cheap as possible, both in the development and manufacturing costs, and companies wouldn’t make a profit outsourcing if they spent the same amount manufacturing the product in China.

When your cheap electronic fails because a .5 cent capacitor explodes after a month, it’s not because the country with the biggest manufacturing sector didn’t have access to 5 cent capacitors or the country with the most engineers didn’t have the engineering man-hours available to design it correctly.

China has shown its intent in other parts of the world with its ‘belt and road’ initiative

That intent being mutual development so other countries are less dependent on China’s enemy and their economies can’t be leveraged against China?

Here’s a work going through every major liberal philosopher and what liberalism meant to them, and how they dealt with the contradictions. It’s the same definition used in every serious work for the last 200 years or so.

This confuses a lot of Americans whose political understanding is largely dictated by cable news, because since 1980 or so, conservatives started using liberal to mean “far left” as a pejorative due to Reagan calling Carter’s policy too liberal. Later on, the American “left”, social democrats, started using it to mean the same thing, but in a positive context.

The purpose of buying jets from someone other than America is to reduce America’s influence over Canada, why would China sabotage that?

Edit: Why is this controversial? Do you think America tampers with the weapons we send to Taiwan?