Americans:
“praise the supreme leader!” - wow, brainwashing much?
“I pledge allegiance to the flag…” - Yup, this is fine.
nowadays it’s more accurately the same statement for both
people are praising the supreme leader in america
Okay, but tbf, pledging allegiance to the flag/country is much better than to the self alleged dictator.
Is it though? We are currently seeing the forced nationalism be weaponized.
That’s because people confuse nationalism with patriotism. I love my country, which is why I want it to be better. Others love their country because it gives them permission to be worse.
To be clear, it’s still not good. I support any kid that wants to sit out for the pledge or sit or kneel for the national anthem. It should always be non-obligatory. In fact, I don’t love the word “allegiance” to begin with.
But it would be significantly worse if the pledge of allegiance was to Donal Trump. Ultimately, that’s what many people are following, but it’s not default in schools to pledge allegiance to him or anything.
I love my country,
Not even sure how to respond to this kind of vague emotional ideology. When people say this kinda stuff to me in person, I back away slowly.
I want America to prosper and I want to protect American values from right-wing radicals that are in charge. I’m very passionate about it. In fact, I live in a red state and I want it to just be better and no longer radicalized by lies and hate.
I very passionately want America to heal from this illness of hate and apathy.
If that makes me a bad person, then fuck me I guess.
American values
The values of the US settler-colonial project, are native eviction, and genocide.
The values of the indigenous peoples were not considered worthy to the european settlers, so they did their best to wipe out hundreds of peoples/tribes/cultures. You either don’t know that history, or worse, you are proud of it.
I highly suggest reading both An indigenous people’s history of the US by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, or her Not a nation of immigrants.
The US Empire is a genocidal settler-colony. It cannot be rescued from itself, it needs to be overthrown.
I don’t think it can be overthrown today; surveillance of means of communication is now total; their only restriction is the massive amount of data.
It CAN collapse in on itself, that is inevitable.
I would be delighted if I was proved wrong.
Not necessarily bad, but definitely indoctrinated, as many of us once were. The truth is a series of bitter pills, and the government and media aren’t going to offer them to you; they’re going to distract you from them. Which is easy to do, given how bitter the pills are.
I’ve been in the process of making a powerpoint-esque presentation to show to my friends who haven’t read any theory and the thought of framing and organizing it as “bitter pills” is super exciting to me. Starting out the presentation with definitions and history would’ve made them fall asleep.
“American values” are freedom for a few selected individuals, this shit is ass.
The values that you probably want is incompatible with capitalism and never truly existed in America, you love the idea of it not the reality.
I just cannot understand why somebody living in a colonial country can truly say they love their country unless they’re brainwashed or completely ignorant to its history.
I’m from Canada and we are not better, there’s just not as much of an issue of rampant nationalism disguised as “patriotism”. Our countries were built on the graves of the native inhabitants, by the hands of slaves. At no point in the history did they stop abusing natives and the descendants of slaves, they just found new ways to hide it and new names to call it (how does a prison make a profit, anyway?).
I love and am proud of my community, but that is the extent to which my pride reaches. I cannot feel proud of a country that was built on the blood of the innocent.
Absolutely!
Ummm…how though?
Who knows one day you might get it and see they are the same motivators to for gullibles to go to war.
It doesn’t matter if it’s for their leader or the country.
It’s always for the owners of both.
I donno anything about China, but whoever made this meme certainly doesn’t know anything about the USA. The idea that “liberals” or anyone else (??) are high-fiving themselves over a credit score. lol
The only ones celebrating credit scores as a concept are lenders, the true capitalists
WOOOSH!
They’re high-fiving themselves about being able to buy a house. DUR.
Under capitalism basic human needs are allocated only to the most privileged.
Many many libs celebrate their participation in this privilege, especially in terms of housing.
State-enforced privilege is basically the entire goal of liberalism.
People like thay exist. In the same way that 40 year olds high five themselves for still fitting into the pants they wore in hs.
OK but I would hi-five those people. It’s harder to fight capitalism if you’re also fighting health problems!
Removed by mod
No? I’m an ML and I live in a capitalist country. Further, liberals are absolutely worse than anarchists.
Where are progressives on that scale? Oh, and do fascists, I definitely want to know how a fascist stacks up against a liberal!
“Progressive” doesn’t really mean anything beyond “left of establishment democrats.” They range from liberal to socialist. Fascists are a twin of liberalism, worse but fundamentally connected.
If you’re not anti capitalist and anti bourgeois democracy even if you’re “progressive” you’re just a flavour of liberal. Fascists are obviously worse than liberals although they tend to agree on a surprising amount of things when push comes to shove unfortunately. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds is a widespread phrase for a reason.
The formula for a fascist is liberal plus time, multiplied by war
I’ll stand corrected on the anarchist comment. But if one lives in a capitalist country, one inevitably supports capitalism, right? Even if it’s against their will.
This sounds more and more like Original Sin.
Existing within capitalism does not mean you cannot work to overthrow it and must ideologically support it by espousing liberal talking points.
Profoundly wrong statement.
First because that’s not how Marxist-Leninists use the word ‘liberal’, that’s a definition you just made up while ignoring decades of literature. Second, because it implies that is not what the word actually means to literally everyone, not just Leninists or even just socialists, everywhere on the planet with the exception of the US liberal duopoly.
Third, because it mistakenly assumes people are calling you a liberal because of your instance, and not because of your shit takes.
The ML usage of the term liberal comes from Classical Liberalism, right? Please correct me.
Also I hate how y’all think I’m personally evil because I haven’t Read Theory. Y’all are my first exposure to MLs and I don’t have any control over what my society has taught me. (I’m not defending what my society has taught me, I’ve been deconstructing for a long time and not stopping.)
Is naivete a sin?
Is naivete a sin?
No investigation no right to speak is a core part of MarxistLeninist thought as it has evolved. Naivete is not “a sin” but if you haven’t researched a topic you shouldn’t speak on it.
As Chairman Mao put it:
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won’t do!
It won’t do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!
“liberal” denotes adherence to bourgeois democracy and capitalist property relations, (pro bourgeois democracy and private property)
The critique of certain “anarchists” is that they guise reactionary politics in radical language, which aids capitalism.
Removed by mod
This is nonsense. Communism has not been achieved, but socialism absolutely has. Communism has not been achieved not for lack of trying, but because it is a post-socialist system. There’s no psyop.
First, let’s be precise about terms: capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, profit-driven accumulation, and wage labor; socialism is defined by social ownership (state, collective, or cooperative), planning mechanisms, and the subordination of remaining market forces to developmental and social goals. They are distinct modes of production, not a binary where anything short of stateless communism “counts” as capitalism.
Second, “Western capitalism” isn’t a universal default, it specifically describes the Euro-Amerikan core and its integrated vassals (NATO, Five Eyes, dependent economies). That system is hegemonic, but it is not total. Russia, for instance, operates a distinct sovereign-capitalist model: not socialist, but explicitly de-linked from Western financial architecture and actively contesting unipolar dominance.
Third, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are explicitly in the early stages of the socialist transitionary period. Their frameworks (especially China’s “primary stage of socialism”) theorize that underdeveloped socialist states must develop productive forces, utilize regulated markets, and engage globally while maintaining proletarian state power and public ownership of commanding heights. This isn’t “capitalism with red flags”; it’s a materialist strategy to build the basis for higher-stage socialism. Dismissing these distinctions because communism hasn’t been “achieved” yet misunderstands dialectics: transition is a process, not an event. You don’t call a bridge under construction meaningless because it has yet to reach the other side.
Not to mention that western countries are the ones going towards 1984 with thier fucking age verification
Silly proletarian, that’s not even the credit score they use for home loans
In a world where credit is allocated on the basis of trust, all credit is social credit
The Chinese credit system is western propaganda there is nothing like it as described in western media.
Removed by mod
I don’t care what other countries do to a degree where we need to intervene their governance with military or covert actions, I don’t understand their culture, their history, their people, their way of thinking to force democracy across the world. I only care about protecting our country, our people and leaving the world the fuck alone. I feel like that’s how most of the world works.
Not an American or a liberal, and yes, china is authoritarian. Is america better? No. The credit score system in the US is also bad.
Authoritarian is a meaningless pejorative.
The social credit score isn’t real.
You ain’t wrong about the social credit thing! There was only one municipality that tried to implement it in any way that even vaguely resembles how mainstream media hysterics portray, and that city’s administration was punished for it on the national stage.
The only thing the “social credit” system was meant to do is make major public figures accountable for corruption. It was never aimed at REGULAR people!
But yeah nah fuck anyone and anything that opposed democracy especially the two faced single political party of the United States of America. If they actually gave a shit about democracy for real instead of just consuming lives to pay for their pedophilia addictions, we’d have ranked choice voting by now.
Unfortunately I don’t think ranked choice voting will save you. You need to clear the board so to speak and get some options that actually represent people over corporate interests.
You do realize that ranked choice voting is one of the simplest and least violent ways to push forward progressive candidates right? Because it makes people comfortable with voting options that with first past the post would be throw away votes
That makes sense, and then you look at Europe and realise the issues at hand are systemic, caused by material conditions and bourgeois democratic electoralism is never going to fix those issues.
Much of Europe already uses ranked choice or proportional voting, yet remains austerity-ridden and sliding toward the far right because it is still under the dictatorship of capital. The voting mechanism is secondary to the concrete material conditions: capital’s imperative to accumulate, the commodification of labor, and the state’s role as an instrument of class rule. Until that dictatorship is overthrown, electoral reform is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
The core contradictions at hand are:
Socialized production versus private appropriation:workers collectively create value, but capitalists expropriate the surplus
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall: as organic composition of capital rises, profitability declines, forcing capital to seek new fixes
Overaccumulation and underconsumption: capital produces more than can be profitably sold, leading to crisis, layoffs, and austerity
The contradiction between capital’s global mobility and labor’s relative immobility, which fuels a race to the bottom in wages and protections.
As imperialism declines (neocolonial extraction becomes costlier, interimperialist rivalry intensifies, and the Global South resists outright plunder) capital can no longer rely on external superprofits to offset domestic falling rates of profit. The response is internal repression: austerity to slash social wages, union-busting to weaken labor power, surveillance to preempt dissent, and the normalization of authoritarian governance. This is capital’s logical reaction to crisis.
This dynamic mirrors Weimar Germany: economic crisis, delegitimized liberal parties, and a bourgeoisie that ultimately backed fascism to crush the organized working class and restore “order” for capital. Today’s far-right surge is the same phenomenon: capital’s emergency management when consent can no longer be manufactured through bourgeois democracy alone.
Voting under these conditions is not a path to liberation; it is a ritual that legitimizes the managers of decline. For voting to matter, you must overthrow the dictatorship of capital and reach the synthesis of these contradictions: a revolutionary transformation that socializes production, abolishes exploitation, and builds a state that serves human need, not profit. Only then does political power and thereby voting become meaningful.
Ranked choice and proportional voting are 2 very different concepts. You are falsely pretending they’re similar when they’re wildly different concepts. Only Ireland presently uses it from the eu, because they as well have an establishment, and ranked choice voting is anti establishment at its core.
Why are you trying to pretend they’re the same concept?
How do you expect to have a revolution if 90% of people don’t agree with your viewpoint? And I say that as a socialist. Pushing forward the agenda over the course of decades is more likely to be successful than a single revolution, in my opinion.
Yes, they are different, but the point at the core of my argument is that it’s irrelevant as they serve the same purpose at their core.
Whether it’s s RCV or MMP, the outcome remains austerity, imperialist foreign policy, and rising far-right influence because the state remains an instrument of capital. Ballot mechanics don’t override class power. RCV isn’t “anti-establishment at its core”; it’s a procedural tweak that can just as easily stabilize bourgeois legitimacy.
How do you expect to have a revolution if 90% of people don’t agree with your viewpoint?
In my country the revolution has already happened. We now conduct class struggle through party debate and socialist democracy, not bourgeois elections.
Also revolutionary consciousness isn’t a precondition you wait for, it is forged through struggle. The 90% figure is wrong for a start, even in the US communist sympathys are quickly growing, you also assumes static opinions under static conditions, but material crises radicalize people faster than decades of electoral gradualism. Reformism doesn’t build toward socialism, it manages capitalism more palatably and demobilizes movements by channeling energy into cycles of hope and disappointment.
Pushing forward the agenda over the course of decades is more likely to be successful than a single revolution, in my opinion.
History suggests otherwise. Social democracy produced the welfare state only under the unique pressure of postwar reconstruction and Soviet competition, then dismantled it once those pressures faded (and even that was built off massive exploitation and imperialism in the periphery). Capital concedes reforms only when forced and retracts them the moment profitability demands it. Waiting for electoral consensus while the climate burns, fascism rises, and imperialism massacres isn’t a strategy. Bourgeois democracy won’t let you vote through its own abolition. The task for those still under bourgeois democracy is to build dual power: organs of working-class authority that can confront and replace the dictatorship of capital. That’s how you can make voting matter.
Haha, you think the epstein class will allow you to vote away their fascism
It’s an important reform no matter what, even if we have to resort to other methods to take out the class first.
Alas, I fear the US might be too far gone for ranked choice to have an effect.
The problem is quality of candidates. Since Citizen’s United opened the door for unlimited corporate money in elections, literally 90% of candidates are on someone’s payroll. “Grassroots” is a thing of the past. Mass media and name recognition are everything.
It’s quite possible it’s too late for the usa, but I still do want other democracies to push for it. Only 4 odd countries have it worldwide.
Worth saying, while grassroots is less common, it is not gone. Kat in il-9 is somewhat a good example of this though she failed community engagement and came from out of town so she’s unlikely to win. Though it is arguable how grassroots she is. Of course the top priority is revoking citizens united.
It’s one of the simplest ways of helping push countries to the left, because it allows you to have people vote for the leftist politicians without worrying about boosting a right wing politician or party, as first past the post forces, and also not forcing people to vote for parties, which lock out leftist candidates from being able to gain traction as easily such as in proportional voting systems.
As good as preferential/ranked voting is. Compulsory voting would have a much larger positive impact on US’ democracy
Ideally both
Neither can fix the systemic problems caused by capitalism though, democracy in capitalism is democracy for capitalists.
Well then use that amendment that children keep dying for or stop complaining. So pathetic
I already organize with a communist party, I have no intention of simply complaining alone.
What good is complaining amongst a communist org, if your democracy and elections a rlcapitalist?
Please stop financing and enabling the USA, also, and stop using the US dollar for international trade. So lame that you haven’t done that
I actively steal from the USA
Many far right countries (australia, japan, south korea) use ranked choice voting… it doesn’t make a bit of difference. If capitalists control the political system, then they will stack candidates and fund the campaigns that support their interests, and the “democracy” there is nothing but political theatre.
Outside of Marxists, even the ancient greeks knew that representative government is just another name for plutocracy, because only wealthy / landed family have the money and prestige to fund campaigns to get themselves elected. Liberals still haven’t learned this simple lesson.
In what world is Australia far right? Center right/neoliberal today maybe. But not far fight, especially compared to other countries
Also I recommend compulsory voting.
In this world, the world where open support for genocide is bipartisan in Australian politics
I do not and will not dispute that either.
How will compulsive voting improve anything? Now you’re dragging even more uninformed dopes to vote, a lot of them will vote for spite. Far more than you realize, I think
Trump was 100% the vote-for-spite-burn-it-down candidate. That’s how they get you, the old switcheroo
Now you’re dragging even more uninformed dopes to vote, a lot of them will vote for spite.
uninformed defines almost all american voters and the last election showed that 30 million people who voted in 2020, chose not to vote in 2024 instead of spite voting.
That doesn’t happen in reality
deleted by creator
*Everybody disliked that”
You can dislike it all you want doesn’t make it less true.
Removed by mod
Go back to 4chan obergruppenfuhrer. Or provide some evidence/analysis but I doubt you have that capability.
Re: authoritarianism— your opinion.
Some of us aren’t in favour of oppressive regimes that aren’t transparent, surveil, and censor.
“Authoritarianism” is meaningless because all it means is “uses state power.” It doesn’t acknowledge which class controls the state and who it uses state power against. In China, the working classes control the state, and use state power against bad actors and capitalists more than anything else. China is oppressive to capitalists and liberating to workers.
I haven’t much evidence for the claim: “In China, the working classses control the state”
sure you will say that is my western bias from living with china bad propaganda, but you could actually provide something to me read on topic if possible
You can debate whether the system works well, but it isn’t accurate to say there’s no evidence for the claim that the working classes play a central role in the Chinese state.
China’s constitution explicitly defines the PRC as a socialist state “led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants,” with state power exercised through the National People’s Congress (NPC) system. The NPC is the highest organ of state power, with nearly 3,000 deputies drawn from provinces, the PLA, and different social sectors.
The makeup of the NPC is not just party bureaucrats or business elites. In the 14th NPC there are hundreds of deputies from workers and farmers and large numbers of grassroots representatives, along with 442 ethnic minority deputies covering all 55 minority groups. Most deputies in China’s people’s congress system (about 95%) serve at the county and township level, which are directly elected and involve hundreds of millions of voters. Higher congresses are elected from these lower levels. This structure is what China calls “whole-process people’s democracy.” Sources explaining the system include CGTN’s Who runs the CPC and the State Council white paper China: Democracy That Works.
You can also look at how the state treats capital. China has private capital, but it is clearly subordinated to state goals. When Jack Ma tried to push an aggressive fintech model through Ant Group that would massively expand lightly regulated consumer credit, regulators halted the IPO and forced restructuring under stricter oversight. That is a case of disciplining capital when it conflicts with social stability and the broader economy.
Likewise, China has pursued policies like eliminating extreme poverty and building massive infrastructure networks (including projects that are not monetarily profitable) because they are treated as long-term public development goals. That kind of large-scale, socially oriented investment is difficult to sustain in systems where private capital dominates the state.
So you can disagree with the Chinese model, but there is actually a large amount of Chinese material explaining how their system is supposed to function and why they claim it represents working-class political power.
Sure!
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Moreover, the economy in the PRC is socialist, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
The working classes in socialist countries are the ones dictating the state and its direction.
Removed by mod
China is a socialist country, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. Child labor is illegal in China, you may be thinking of the US.
Removed by mod
There is no genocide of Uyghurs. Uyghur genocide atrocity propaganda akin to claiming that there’s “white genocide” in South Africa, Christian genocide in Nigeria, or that Hamas sexually assaulted babies in Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of “genocide.” Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens.
The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.
I also recommend reading the UN report as well as (especially) China’s response to it, which eclipses it in size and detail.These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, Christian nationalist and professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does. Zenz’ work has been thoroughly discredited, yet is supported by western media for its utility in fearmongering. An example is lying about 8.7% of new IUDs as 80%, to back up claims of “forced sterilization,” from this chart:
Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time as well. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this. Has there been mistreatment? Almost certainly to some degree, in a campaign as large as this. Is it genocide, be it cultural or outright? No, Uyghur culture is preserved and there are no mass killings.
Removed by mod
“the world”
Do you have any proof? The OISC disagree with you. And even the UN doesn’t call it a genocide because that’s not what happened.
Please explain how what I said is “bullshit,” I even included the UN report. Why do you like Adrian Zenz?
I’m using the term to refer to suppression of people (which isn’t restricted to workers) in politics, media, etc.
Except by “the people” you seem to mean capitalists and fascists, not the broad majority of society that are uplifted and support the system.
This!
Still better then the baby eating pedo elite
It is possible to oppose all three things. It is possible to simultaneously oppose the Social Credit System in China, the Credit Score system in the United States, and the elites connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
The social credit system that you know of doesn’t exist.
Interesting phrasing. A phrasing that assumes assumptions on my part. So … what social credit system DOES exist.
Is it? You need to think more pragmatically, you are a laborer. Your only bargaining chip is your labour, decide who gets it. Personally, I don’t want to be part of any helping them live their best life.
I am curious, who is “them” in your statement and how does opposing all three of those things inherently cause me to give up my bargaining power?
No don’t, you never will. You’ll always contribute what ever system you’re a part of. Just choose one and the chienese might do a lot of bad things but they aren’t the pedofile baby eating elites.
I am a Chinese minority living in China. You really don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to China. You very clearly have done 0 research beyond maybe reading RFA. You should be quiet until you have done some proper research.
You can’t possibly be a minority in China, what with all those intact organs.
Ad hominem, ad hominem, and mmm, ad hominem. Yeah, nothing to see here.
Least insufferable redditer
It isn’t an ad hominem fallacy to point out that doing little research on a topic and repeating easily disproven talking points isn’t a sound basis of argument.
And I have, and my responses were given little in return from them.
You have not, considering everything you’ve said has been easily debunked, and when encountering hard numbers you reflect to dogmatism.
“Homnum Homnum”- Liberal chimps.
Not an adhominem. You’re not wrong because you’re stupid you just happen to be both wrong and stupid.
Well in the comment I said that you didn’t explain why I was wrong and simply resorted to making a string of ad hominems.
So I’ll reiterate: ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.
Saying you should shut up if you haven’t researched a topic isn’t an adhominem.
Reminds me of the anime PsychoPass.
China institutionalized what USA prefers to make private.
But China is authoritarian.
Lmao Chinese can’t even move to the other cities of their own country.
Removed by mod
