Not only are you trying to deflect criticism but you are doing so with a straw-man, pathetic.
The point isn’t any illusion that the Reps aren’t doing those things, the point is that the fact the Dems are doing the same thing shows that they aren’t any better or any less evil than the Reps.
Actually, they were very much planning on and doing mass murders in the streets and abductions to black sites, they just were doing it 1000s of kms away in Palestine instead of doing it at home.
Genocide and mass murder in the streets are Genocide and mass murder in the streets even when they’re not happening at home, the fact that you think who it’s being done to makes one instance “less evil” than the other is just chauvinism and white supremacy.
democratic lawmakers are demanding ICE reform.
Aka they are okay with violent forced deportations as long as it’s done ✨ legaly ✨.
Why do you assume the Democrats wouldn’t build concentration camps as well btw? No, because last I checked, the Dems didn’t do shit about kids in cages, forced prison labor or the US’s torture prisons like Guantanamo and gave more budget than Trump to the Trump border wall not to mention their support and funding of literal concentration camps in Israel. Does that sound like the actions of a party that wouldn’t build concentration in the US to you? Because it sure as heck doesn’t to me.
In my opinion, if the Dems had been elected they would have done it and justified it with their classic pr technique of letting the Reps vote whatever they want in congress while they stand by and pretend like they couldn’t do anything about it despite their candidate being in office and go “well, the law is in the book now so we have to play along” like they did with Roe v Wade.
“LiFe iS fUll Of chOOsIng tHe lEsSer oF twO eVilS.” 
Do you have any actual arguments or just instant noodle armchair truisms?
“Lesser evils” are only worth choosing if the difference between the 2 evils is big enough to have an impact. In this case it isn’t, both parties are genocidal gangs with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The only difference between the 2 is what they say when they know the public can hear them (and even then their rhetoric is getting more and more similar) and what the corporate owned media says about them, but in practice, when it comes to quality of life, repression, violence, wages, legislation, etc… aka metrics that actually matters, there is virtually no difference between the 2.
It’s so funny how even in analogies you’re reduced to splitting hair and grasping at straws desperately trying to find any meaningful difference between the Dems and Reps that isn’t easily debunk-able because as the Dems go increasingly mask-off you have less and less to work with to make your “vote blue no matter who” spiel.
Like, you do realize how utterly negligible a difference what you just said “adds” to the metaphor right?
You heard it here folks, arming and funding a genocide isn’t fascist or totalitarian
no im not, because these basic plots of land would be given to each person by everyone else; making it a novel sort of communism or socialism; it’s a pro-social, communal ownership, overall. the plots are essentially communally owned; if you die it goes to a next person. it’s completely free to you and you don’t pay taxes on it. it’s your private piece of land while you’re alive, but all the land is owned and distributed by all the humans at once, collectively.
Outside of the fact that this isn’t communism or socialism at all, I have several questions.
First, imagine you get your idea in place, the land is given to peoples but it belongs to everyone collectively, great, now how do you enforce that to make sure it stays that way? Or put in an other way, if a group of jackasses with guns decides that their land isn’t gonna belong to the collective anymore and shoot whoever argues, what do you do? Do you have an army or a militia on standby in case something like that happens that you can send? I’m assuming you would still have a court system, so how would it handle the case? What would be the potential sentence in this case? Do the criminals still get a piece of land afterward?
Secondly, if everyone is busy with farming their plot, what about other sectors of production? If I’m a worker at a shoe factory, I need to work at least a minimal amount on the factory so that peoples, shoe factory workers included, can get shoes. But any amount of time I work the factory is time I don’t use to farm my plot, possibly not enough to feed myself. You can’t take part of other peoples’ harvest to help the factory workers because that would be a form of tax and you said no taxes. So what then? Do the shoes factory workers get to go ‘screw this’ and quit factory work to spend all their time farming, and whoever needs new shoes will have to do with what they have or make new ones themselves? And I picked shoes as an example, but what about critical medical substances like insulin? What about the water treatment plants who prevent drinking water from getting contaminated with nasty stuff and poisoning peoples? I suppose you would be very much against forcing these peoples to keep working at gunpoint, so how do you deal with this problem without forcing anyone?
Thirdly, what if a drought or some other natural disaster happens and too few crops survived on each plots to feed their owners? Again, you can’t take from peoples who had a good harvest in an other region because that would be a form of taxes, and see second point for why getting some peoples to spend some of their time working on a communal farm instead of their personal farms would be problematic. How do you feed these peoples then? Where do you get the food they need from? And what about peoples who can’t do farm work even if they wanted to, handicapped, the elderly?
it’s based on the idea that all people have a right to live as a native, if they want, and they should at a minimum be provided with the ability to do this. you should be able to live as a native, at a minimum, without being bothered. this system provides that basic sustenance. i think this is the minimum right of any human, which is a sort of feral animal after all on this planet like any other. the great shame of modern life is that we’ve taken away the ability of anyone to take care of themselves naturally- you have to do a series of other unrelated things just to get food- this takes care of that, from the beginning.
That’s cute and all, but I think you neglected to consider where the sustenance your system provides is supposed to come from, see my questions above.
Also, I would argue that unless you envision peoples digging their farmland with their bare hands, peoples would still need to “do a series of other unrelated things just to get food”, because peoples would need to get tools which means you will need at least a few peoples spending time making said tools.
Further, I think you should consider whether peoples want to “take care of themselves naturally”. I have a lot of respect for farmers but I personally have no desire to become one, and since there are many peoples who do like farm-work, I would rather leave it to them than do it myself. And I’m sure a lot of peoples would agree with that sentiment, not everyone wants to or is able to do harsh physical labor under a scorching summer sun or in the cold of winter for hours on end.
no pressure to compete for a job or to start a gang, just so you can eat. youre an animal. you should be able to eat and live for free, at a basic minimum, on planet earth. you should be able to have a sustenance plot somewhere. in fact, this should be a free, basic right, that you use as basis to reform the world over. it starts with this idea. everyone has a right to be an animal- thats what they are- so everyone should have a right, and an ability, to live off nature in the normal sense. in our society, no one is given land to begin with, and its hard to get, and its all owned, and you have to pay taxes on it, and youre not just given food or this stuff called money that you otherwise need to get food, and to get that stuff called money you have to do x y and z and jump through a series of other hoops, and it becomes distanced from actual survival to a point where people feel insanely pressured, and it ends with them cheating against each other to get ahead because they think life is so unfair and hard. lets make it easy on everyone, no pressure. if you just want to live lets basically equip everyone to do that. then lets rebuild the good stuff about the rest of our society back up on top of this system. if you want to do more than just live, whats good to do? what other activities beside just living should be encouraged? can you admit that more than half the stuff that most people do is total bullshit and a waste of everyone’s collective time? science is worthwhile, art and pleasure are worthwhile. go ahead name something else. science includes all discovery, all exploration, all invention.
With no disrespect, that vision is extremely naïve. You need to think about how you can go from a capitalist world to this, how it would work in practice and so many other factors you have to consider.
Redsails is also not a good source, it’s openly from an ML perspective, so it’s not neutral, which you absolutely have to be when discussing history. It’s also under no pretence to be academic or accurate either, Redsails is ideologically driven rather than factually driven - so it won’t ever be critical of the ML perspective. You can use redsails to talk theory, absolutely, but not as a historical or factual source, it’s dishonest.
There is no such thing as a neutral historian. Every human has things they know and things they don’t even on topics they are experts in, every human has opinions on the things they know (or think they know) that will unavoidably taint what they say, even unconsciously, and therefore, everything written or said by a human is necessarily biased. And that’s saying nothing of financial interests, politics and other things that bias things even further.
This is not avoidable, the most you can do is be aware of biases and work with/around them.
If an historian or a journalist tell you that their work is “neutral” or “unbiased”, they are either lying to you or don’t know how biases work, and in either case you should be very skeptical of them because they are clearly not doing their job correctly.
It’s a list of links that you can click on, you should try it.
Chinese citizens have to tow the line. The company I worked for had operations there, when our guys meet with counterparts then and ask probing questions everyone clams up, and one off to the side says we can’t talk about bad things.
If you go against it you have reprogramming training classes.
So your “evidence” for that is a personal anecdote + trust me bro? Assuming you’re not just making shit (it’s not verifiable, as anecdotes tends to be) can you give examples of the kind of “probing questions” your guys asked? Also, did you personally witness the meeting or were you just told about it by your guys afterward?
Looks to me like your little story is full of holes at best.
We even have Chinese police stations here in Canada and they go knocking on doors because a Chinese citizen has said something negative about the homeland. And coerce them into going back to the mainland. This is not me reading it on the web, this is coworkers at the house when it happens to their room mates.
Ah, yes. China totally has a nation spanning network of secret police stations (with all the 10s of 1000s or more personnel and tons of equipment that would imply) in Canada that Canada either somehow didn’t notice or won’t do anything about for some reason. A guy you know told you, so it must be true! Trust me bro!
If your gonna make shit up or repeat shit made up by someone else, you should at least try to make it not completely nonsensical.
Stop trying to make China a utopia it is not. I agree with Socialism, but not a dictatorship.
No one said anything about China being “a utopia” and you know it.
You know how ridiculous your narrative about China being a 1984 tech-dystopia that will track you down to the end of the world sounds and how badly it holds up to scrutiny, so instead of defending your narrative (since you can’t really) you try to flip the table around and pretend that we are the one with a ridiculous narrative by pretending that we consider China “a utopia” when none of what we have said points to that at all.
I see it, and anyone who isn’t already indoctrinated by you narrative can easily see it too.
It woukd seem you are being paid to promote China propaganda, or you are severely deluded to what goes on there.
“If you believe something other that what I believe, you must either have been paid to say you do or be stupid/insane.” A cheap excuse to dismiss criticism without having to think about it or come up with an actual counter-argument.
A survey of citizens that know they cannot speak ll without retribution to them or their family, will always look positive. Please use some critical thinking here.
That, my friend, is what we call an “irrefutable argument”, and it’s a fallacy. “Chinese peoples aren’t happy with their government, and if they say they are it’s because the government forces them to.” It’s a bullshit excuse to immediately reject any evidence that doesn’t agree with your narrative.
You’re not refuting our point, you’re just coming up with excuses to dismiss it without having to think about an actual reason it might be wrong (because you can’t, and until you do I’ll continue to affirm that you can’t).
Tibet, South China Sea
These are ‘in and around China’ whether you like it or not.
As a European, I can promise you the the EU isn’t good.
It’s a neoliberal cult that purposefully keep its poor eastern members down for the benefit of its wealthy western members; continues to meddle in and exploit Africa by any means at their disposal, including coups, invasions, funding and arming of death-squads and assassinations, even decades after so called “decolonization”; cultivate an attitude of horrific and bloodthirsty racism among their population, especially against migrants despite being the cause of most mass migrations in the first place, in order to keep migrants miserable and their labor cheap; fund and arms a genocide as we speak; has purposefully let overt and covert neo-Nazi factions gain power in every of its member states; stabbed their own economy for the benefit of the US, multiple times; and so on and so forth.
On the scale of “badness” the EU is right behind the US, they’re just more subtle and quiet about their evil than the US is.
Your car could in theory be used to run over 100s of pedestrian and commit manslaughter! THAT MAKES YOU A TERRORIST!!! 
Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, genuinely helping poor countries develop is a pretty good way to gain soft power.
No one here, and I do mean no one, is saying that China isn’t gaining anything from doing that. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad for the other party or hides some nefarious secret purpose either. Diplomacy isn’t a zero sum gain where if China gain from a deal therefore the other party has to lose to compensate, that’s not how international relations work.
And yet you accept anti-communist slander as true without question.
Have you ever, even just once, asked yourself where those accusations come from? Who made them? Who propagated them? Why they did?
No sources for that claim of course, as usual.
To my knowledge the only military base China has in Africa is the one in Djibouti, and literally every country who can afford to have a base there has a base there.
If that isn’t the definition of imperialism, I don’t know what is.
Indeed, you don’t have a clue what it is. Try looking up “unequal exchange”, or better yet reading a book on the subject. Lenin’s Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism and Fanon’s How Europe underdeveloped Africa are good reads on the subject.
Okay, what proof is there China has been making progress on the transition?
There are several. The private sector has never dominated the economy, the public sector always kept a firm hold on banking, raw materials, energy production and infrastructure that the private sector is dependent on to make and deliver what they sell, in other word, a massive leverage the state can use to pressure the private sector.
They can literally starve private companies of financing if they want, which they did when they let real estate speculators go bankrupt after the state voluntarily burst the real estate bubble. Something a bourgeois ruled capitalist country would have never done.
Moreover since a few years ago, the proportion of the economy that is privately owned has been decreasing while the state’s control over them has increased.
Here is a video explaining China’s socialist system in which some such evidences are presented.
That’s approximately the time Xi has been president. Since 2012. I’m not going to place blame on him for regimes before him.
That’s still very arbitrary.
When Lenin attempted to implement this transition he eventually fell ill and was unable to prevent Stalin’s authoritarian takeover.
I’ll let answering this one to someone with more more knowledge on 1922-1925 period. I’ll only say that Lenin never tried to prevent Stalin from taking power. The Lenin testament, assuming you are at least partially referring to that, is most likely forged. We know from Lenin’s numerous letters and other writing that Lenin had an extremely poor opinion of Trotsky and his politics, and as such would have never recommended Trotsky as a potential general secretary of the party. Furthermore, Lenin and Stalin were close friends.
It seems as though there needs to be some time limit on having full state power consolidated in one place because every regime change risks the goals being changed.
If a leader gets in who realizes that having a board seat on powerful companies can benefit them personally, and they decide not to transition, what can be done at that point?
They can be voted out of their position. Literally.
The political system in China, to put it very simply, is a bottom up elected council system. The peoples vote for local administrators like mayors and such, these local administrator vote to elect the rank above them, who themselves vote in the ranks above them and so on all the way up to the congress general secretary (side note: Xi is both the president and the general secretary, but the president is a largely ceremonial role and doesn’t have that much power, Xi’s real political power comes from him being the general secretary, no from him being the president).
And for each rank, the elected officials can be un-elected by the ranks bellow. Even Xi could be un-elected, he won’t because he is very popular among both the peoples and the party members, but he could be. This is one of the rational behind why they removed the terms limit by the way, why have a time limit that automatically end the general secretary’s term when he can be un-elected at any time?
China was the second-largest supplier of the US in 2024, with goods valued at $462.62 billion.
Capitalism will remain the dominant mode of production as long as China continues to play a key role in funding of the American economy and continuing to loan them increasingly more money.
Yes, as I said, in a capitalist world exchanges between countries are done mostly through businesses. So in order to have exchanges of resources and technology and not be cut of and starved like the USSR was, having businesses selling to other countries and businesses coming to sell in yours is a necessary evil.
Although, China has been reducing their exchanges with the US for almost a decade now, and it is only accelerating with Trump’s lunacy. Right now, Chinese money is overall leaving the US, not entering it. China is now a net seller of US treasury bonds instead of a net buyer like it still was until relatively recently. China also banned the export of a lot of dual use metals, especially rare earths, to the US. And since China controls between 30 to 90% of production depending on the specific mineral, the US can’t really get those from anywhere else.
The fact that the transition takes a very long time isn’t proof that it isn’t transitioning. What even is this assumption that transitional periods must last less than a decade? Seriously, where the heck does that even come from?
To answer your question, this transitional state is necessary as long as capitalism remains the overwhelmingly dominant mode of production on the planet because in a mainly capitalist world, transfer of technology and resources mostly happen between businesses doing business.
If you try to go to a higher stage of socialism while the world is still almost only capitalist you’ll end up with all the problems that plagued the soviet union, with the capitalist countries able to very easily sanction and isolate you since they can’t get access to your markets even if they don’t anyway and with you having to re-invent every new technology the rest of the capitalist world create just to keep up since there is no way the capitalists would give you the blueprints among other problems.
Cubans are more satisfied with their political system than americans
According to a bunch of polls, in the majority of former eastern block countries most of the population (as high as 70% and no lower than 40%) think life under socialism was better. Also, you were literally given a big list of sources for the USSR example. But clearly didn’t bother reading any.
You keep saying that but you never provide any evidence that they are. You just take it on blind faith that they are and speak like it’s an obvious and unquestionable fact when it isn’t. Pretty much every single messed up the Republicans did, from kinds in cages and the wall to war, the Democrats have most often followed right in their footsteps and pilled on.
How are they “far less evil” exactly? According to who? To what?
That’s the only point on which we agree.
Again, this is contingent on your blind faith belief that there is a lesser evil of the two, with which I do not agree.
From before the previous elections, I’ve been of the opinion that Trump wouldn’t be able to do worse to the Palestinian than the Democrats did even if he wanted to for the simple reason that the Democrats were already doing the worst that America could afford to do under the current circumstances.
And I’ve been vindicated in that belief, because like it or not, the fact is that the Republicans haven’t done anything to Gaza that the Democrats weren’t already doing or weren’t planning to do. Even the Trump real estate in Gaza bullshit isn’t fundamentally different from what was already planned to be done with the region under the Democrats.
Point is, your narrative that the Democrats did the the Palestinian genocide “less hard” than the Republicans would is objectively false. They have demonstrated themselves to be rabid Zionists and it is extremely naive to believe they wouldn’t do the genocide as hard as they possibly can.
Again, you can’t just claim that they are less evil, you have to show that they are. You haven’t, and you never do.
Where’s the “ten times” comes from Alex? Can you explain that to me? By what metric are they doing these things “ten times harder” Alex?
Again, same thing I keep pointing out in this comment. You keep saying but you never show. You never propose examples. Why? Because you don’t know that the Dems are the lesser evil, you just believe it. That’s why I keep saying that you’re taking it on blind faith, because you are.