Putin literally asked for Russia to join NATO, more than once, and was rejected

These are big shoes to fill and they will of course be filled by Bad Empanada and Vaush.

Taking territory by surprise is relatively easy. Holding it may be more difficult.

so basically don't mix bleach with stuff.

If Stalinism is anything, it's Marxism-Leninism as he was the one who wrote the book on it. People call us Stalinists like it's some massive own. Yeah, our ideology is related to Stalin. That doesn't somehow make it wrong.

this has to be fake. are there really people who don't know the history of armies invading Russia in the winter?

man, screw bananas. if we can't have bananas without absolutely screwing over Guatemala or Colombia or whoever, we just shouldn't have them.

the point is also to actually make us more vulnerable to sexual violence.

Recruitment under capitalism is incredibly inefficient as well. People should not need to apply to hundreds of jobs over months and months, doing absolutely zero real work in the meantime, just to get an interview. There should be some way to automate things so that an average candidate can tell a website they're looking for jobs of certain types, fill in their info once, and then companies who are looking for that type of candidate automatically get an easy, manageable list of 2-5 people who have the qualifications they're looking for. Doing things this way, the automated system can put each candidate on the market for no more than maybe 10 jobs at a time, and if they are picked for none of these 10 jobs, there could be some type of fallback guaranteed job available that you are automatically recruited into if you give the OK.

it's so crazy to me that they can get scabs for a job that doesn't even get any pay.

maybe he wants to be megumin

I'm doing my part.

if this guy read literally any scientific journal in the last year he would not be able to say this

I coulda told you it was a bad idea before you hired all those people, you know

Slow collapse is the most likely scenario and I'd say we're probably in the middle of it right now.

The main reason why I'm so vehemently against the Uyghur genocide narrative is that it's plainly meant to turn the people of the US against China in preparation for a war. You're telling me that the country responsible for a million+ dead Muslim civilians in Iraq gives half a shit about Muslims in China? C'mon. That's obviously bullshit and there must be some other reason why we're going on about it.

Looking into it more the reasons are to destabilize the region to impede the Belt and Road Initiative and to prepare for war with China. I just don't think the US should be involved in the region, full stop, and therefore I am opposed to the US narrative on happenings in Xinjiang. There's no need for overanalysis or splitting hairs on the definition of genocide here.

In every case when a state is saying something you must ask, why are they saying that?

As for use of force against civilian protestors: If these protestors are foreign agents of the US, they should of course be cracked down on so long as doing so doesn't grow popular support for the movement. The US and the "international community" commits acts of color revolution and sabotage at every opportunity and socialist states must defend themselves against these acts or face collapse. Genuine protests with the will of the common people behind them should be listened to and taken into account in policymaking.

classic reddit

All current actually existing socialism is in a defensive stance. This is needed because of the history of bourgeois liberal democracies seeking to destabilize and collapse socialist states by any means necessary. Socialist states that didn't do a good enough job of defending themselves are no longer with us largely because of such actions. This is precisely why government censorship exists in China, to help maintain the social order and ensure stability of the socialist state. Stability is especially valued in China for historical reasons. Other AES countries like Vietnam also censor things like hate speech or misinformation to some extent, including jail time for the worst offenders.

For Tiananmen Square specifically, there's a huge misinformation campaign from Western countries about the events of the protest. If you go up to a random Westerner, show them the iconic photo of the man in front of the tank, and ask them what happened to the man, they will likely tell you that the man was run over. This is, of course, not what happened, and there's video evidence to this effect. But the misinformation in the West is hegemonic and entrenched, and if it got around in the PRC, it would take a lot of time and effort to debunk it and not everyone would believe you anyway. So, for the Chinese government, they prevent people from bringing it up more than absolutely necessary by censorship. It's not the ideal solution but it will have to do for now.

If that is enough to squick you out about MLism you should do some introspection about why that is. If you're truly committed to revolutionary politics you may find yourself needing to do much worse than censorship in the future. It is necessary for revolutionary movements to strike a balance between achieving their goals and avoiding the worst excesses of revolutions. As we know from history, this can be quite a difficult balance to strike, especially if the people have had a boot on their neck for a long time and are full of righteous anger. We need people like you in our movements to rein us in, but not so much that the revolution fails and all of it was for nothing.

🦀

the "blaze your glory" slogan feels rather fascist to me too, which is fitting given who's still left on the site