The richest country in the world has homelessness, poor infrastructure, malnutrition, terrible education, stagnating wages, etc. Meanwhile China was able to go from an agricultural society to an industrial powerhouse. There are a few lessons to be learned here if we’re willing to learn them.

What the fuck is an anarcho-monarchist? Oxymoron

Do people not known about the ACP (American “Communist” Party) branching off from the CPUSA and pushing for “patriotic socialism”? Do people agree with the ACP? Or is this getting downvotes because people don’t care about leftist spaces?

The exploitation is baked into the very foundations of capitalsm. Another scam is that the workers, who are the ones actually making all the useful commodities we need (e.g., food, clothing, housing, etc.)–as well as the infrastructure that keeps production operational (e.g., roads, bridges, electricity, etc.)–cannot access those commodities without an exchange of money. We create all the necessities of life, we create more than enough to provide for everyone’s needs, but we cannot access those necessities outside of a fucking paywall.

Even worse, the capitalists that produce commodities in search of profits are independent; but the realization of the value embedded in those physical objects depends on an exchange at the market which is outside their control. So the conjunction of the profit motive and the paywall (i.e., exchange-value standing in the way of the use-vale) leads to much overproduction and waste. Even when labor has gone into agriculture, for example, the capitalist would rather dump tons of fresh food than lose money. It’s an idiotic system and yet people will defend it to the death.

The larger point here is that we uncritically agree with US/Israeli propaganda without understanding the context. For example, it was the United States that toppled the first elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh from power in the 1953 coup, and the US then reinstalled the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi back in power. All done for BP oil profits, and to reverse the nationalisation of Irans oil industry. Somehow these nuances always get lost in the conversation.

The US will always prefer a pro-US monarchy to a democracy that guards itself from exploitation/imperalism. The U.S. assassination attempts, propaganda, military posturing, and economic/diplomatic sanctions force hard decisions on regimes that refuse to become a puppet state of the West. This is not to agree with every decision by the leadership in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. but we are often responsible, in large part, for the difficulties these countries face.

Crazy how we can all agree that we’re ruled by a pedophilic jingoistic oligarchy, but when they tell us other countries/regimes/leaders are bad we nod in agreement.

This is what happens in a culture where every success/failure is attributed to the individual and the systems in which individuals live go completely ignored.

“Baby level understanding” is not an objection. You have to say something more specific Dessalines.

Removed by mod

The Communist Party is based in the Leninist principle of “democratic centralism”. This means “debate within the party, unity in action”. It is meant to make the party more powerful by allowing dissent and debates within the party, but when it comes to taking action, all members are expected to follow the consensus even if they disagreed with it.

Since China’s Congress is primarily members of the Communist Party, this means that the decision of the president ultimately originates in the Communist Party itself. After they reach a consensus, the whole party will vote for that consensus in the Congress. While there technically are smaller parties in China’s Congress, they act more as advisors, since it is not practically possible for them to overturn the vote, since the CPC always votes in unity.

Formally, China’s president is elected by the Congress. But the decision of who to elect largely comes back to the CPC itself before they come to a consensus. So the final decision largely originates in the Politburo and the Central Committee.

The president in China is harder to shift on a dime than like in the US. The president is not elected by a nation-wide vote but by the Congress itself. To change who the Congress elects, you have to change the opinions of the largest party in that Congress, you have to change the opinions of the CPC

Xi is not technically a dictator in the same way that Putin is not technically a dictator. He is in control of a governing body that could replace him on paper, but never will. And he has dictatorial powers without real checks/balances. And, to return to my original point, it may appear that this system is fine if it produces a good result, but the power of the government should come from the will of the people.

I’m not sure if it’s intentional, but you’re missing the point

By this logic, a monarchy that keeps the aristocracy in line is better than the US democracy. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

I made this meme a while back. Got downvoted.

These are technical terms. There’s legal protest, then civil disobedience—this is how we ended Jim Crow; a lot of people had to go to jail to fight the system—and then there’s domestic terrorism. If you don’t think civil disobedience is going far enough, then you’re advocating for terrorism.

I’m tired of “being the bigger person”. Four years ago, Trump wouldn’t even admit that he lost the election. They’re hitting below the belt, and we have one hand behind our back.

This is why I agree with Republicans on guns rights. They won’t give up their guns so fuck it, give me one too.

The word you’re looking for is: civil disobedience. Break laws, get attention. Our grandparents did the same thing during Vietnam.

Top should be German. Stasi vibes