Which is why we must support NATO and a Democrat-led United States. Russia is fascist, China is fascist, Republicans are fascist
My friend is some type of anarcho-bidenist and he keeps posting cringe 
Collaborating with America then getting left to the wolves the moment they aren't needed anymore.
Great project idea. You should tell them about Pol Pot or Gonzolo.
No I am not comparing Rojava to /Pol pothead or garbanzo beans.
Fascism has a material base and the claim that a nation is fascist is a provable/disprovable claim. But that requires the person making the claim to understand what base and superstructure are, so it’s generally preaching to the choir.
NATO leftist strikes again. They really are good at convincing people they’re on the left because they say all the right things. At this point I use discussions of China, North Korea, and Cuba as a way to sniff out potential feds.
Ok we need to start demanding people name specific examples of why they think China is fascist or evil or whatever.
They'll just list the classics of Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, suicide nets, and social credit.
The suicide nets one is so weird. Loads of public spaces in the west with large accessible drops have nets or other barriers to deter people. Bridges, building atriums, whatever.
The new one is also claiming that China is a "Han ethnostate", which is directly from fascist mass murderer manifestos
Kinda? But not for the reasons he thinks?
Engels realized here in a particularly striking form the fundamental idea which runs through all of Marx's works, namely, that the democratic republic is the nearest approach to the dictatorship of the proletariat. For such a republic, without in the least abolishing the rule of capital, and, therefore, the oppression of the masses and the class struggle, inevitably leads to such an extension, development, unfolding, and intensification of this struggle that, as soon as it becomes possible to meet the fundamental interests of the oppressed masses, this possibility is realized inevitably and solely through the dictatorship of the proletariat, through the leadership of those masses by the proletariat.
State and Revolution chapter 4, section 2. Having a government where you are nominally, but not actually, in control is a more ripe revolutionary environment than one where there is no illusion of freedom and Kings just get to do King shit.
Please tell me I didn't completely misinterpret and butcher this passage.
Has there been a successful socialist revolution in a democratic republic? So far we've had:
- Russia, overthrew monarchy in the midst of world war 1
- Vietnam, formed amidst anti-colonial struggle against France and US
- Cuba, overthrew gangster dictator state
- Burkina Faso, overthrew government that was previously installed by military coup
- DPRK, formed amidst anti-colonial struggle against Japan then US
China is a bit arguable because the republican Xinhai revolution was in 1911 but the civil war between the republican government and the communists didn't really kick off until 1927, but that doesn't seem like a long enough time in republican democracy to really affect things. At that point you might as well include Russia which operated as a sort of republican democracy for 7 months in 1917.
Any other examples?
Latin America broadly proves that liberal democratic systems can approach socialism, as long as the need to resist imperialism exists. If it can go all the way is yet to be demonstrated.
In Russia the monarchs were already out of power right? I think the provisional government was more similar to other parliamentary systems or whatever. Bourgeoisie dictatorship.
For like seven months in the midst of a war economy yeah. Most people don't even know about the February revolution.
"As a socialist, I think John Bolton makes some great points"
I hate "NATO leftists" more than libs or chuds. Like you went all that distance, just to fucking blow it on the most important conclusion. At least libs have the excuse of just being ignorant & getting high on their own supply.
