I’m having a little trouble with the ISIS-US connection. Got any references so I can read more?

“And the Titanic is an international symbol. It’s a symbol of love and peace, really. I mean, the movie, everyone knows the Jack and Rose story. All of us have a Jack and Rose story of our own.”

Did this guy even watch Titanic?

That makes sense, even so we shouldn’t have any delusions about who he is and what he stands for.

This is all hypothetical and speculative. What is actually happening right now? We can’t just assume without evidence that it would be the same.

I thought they were running out of money? Whatever happened to that “aid” package?

Not really what I meant, I was more referring to his attitude towards Russian communists. He might align with China for all sorts of reasons beyond personal agreement with communism.

Not the communists I was referring to, and aligning with states which practices an ideology is not the same as supporting and sanctioning said ideology. He represses communism at home because he likely understand the threat they pose to his power.

Let’s be real, he is not allied with communists.

Can you link to the book you’re talking about? I’m having trouble finding it.

I suspect that China is not truly so controversial outside of the western “left.” It may help to understand that there are more CPC members then there are people in Germany. Marxism-Leninism is the dominant ideological strain of leftist thought, globally speaking. “Maoists,” Hoxhaists, Anarchists, etc. are extremely marginal and don’t even have the power and influence proportional to their minuscule population of adherents. They have no states, irrelevant parties, zero organization, and consequently no capacity for struggle, armed or otherwise. I cannot emphasize enough that these so-called socialists and communists can be safely ignored. They can not help or even meaningfully hinder their own political “projects,” much less those of typical Marxist-Leninists.

As for why they exist, it boils down to an unscientific, anti-dialectical and idealist worldview. They don’t conceive of political and economic systems as containing contradictory elements, but as pure, static forces that only change due to external influence. Notice how the libertarian types will insist that the presence of any public industry, welfare state, or regulatory agency in a capitalist country indicates it has “fallen to socialism/communism” and “isn’t real capitalism” anymore. Likewise, ultras and leftcoms will take the existence of a stock market in China as evidence that the CPC has “abandoned Marxism/communism” and “isn’t real socialism” anymore. Both of these groups will go on to insist that their pure, unadulterated version of their ideal system has “never been tried.” One has to wonder why.

In capitalist/liberal economies, private profit is the guiding principle of all economic and political activity. The presence of “socialist” elements in these systems always serves that purpose, albeit sometimes indirectly. In socialist economies, the guiding principle is social necessity, and likewise, seemingly liberal elements of their systems serve the worker-led state. This is the difference between a Dictatorship of the Proletariat vs a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The composition of these systems will be similar, but will serve different functions. This understanding is essential not just to being a good ML, but for making sense of the world in general and avoiding the purist mindset.

I like how it’s a “show trial” now. Based on what?

Okay, I thought this looked familiar lol. Thank you.

I continue to not be able to tell if they’re doing a bit

How did I go my whole life thinking Stalin did the intervention in Hungary?

Based on?

“But dead Nazis have a cost”

I cannot wrap my head around this, comrade. Stalin being a strong military leader doesn’t necessitate his occasionally reactionary view on sexuality and gender. Of course we should all uphold Stalin’s legacy, but that doesn’t mean making excuses for him when he’s wrong.