There would be something greatly ironic or at least beautifully poetic to the US imperialism bootlicking alliance (NATO) meeting its end due to US imperialism.

It would almost be comedic if the punchline wasnt obvious from the beginning to anyone who’s done even a little bit of materialist analysis.

“Imagine no burger”

The denizens of the Burger Reich never cease to amaze me with their lack of ability to even attempt to understand anything that doesn’t specifically and directly affect them as an individual.

If the US aren’t careful he might start calling for ex-Amerikkka 🤣

"Anything short of vitriolic hate of the CPC and Chinese people is pro Chinese propaganda. " Washingtons strongest soldier

You are such a typical western chauvanist its actually crazy. You feel you know so much more and better than us subhuman brainwashed Chinese bugs and you just need to come save us the great white saviour to educate us on how terrible we and our government really are. You disgust me and the fact you pretend to be a communist while spitting on us is sick.

Day after day westoid libs and an unfortunate swathe of the western “left” on here and across the internet convince me more and more that the biggest enemy of the global working class is not just the imperial core ruling class but the entire treatlerite people.

They speak with such arrogance on topics they clearly know less than nothing about talking down to us like we’re brainwashed bugs incapable of our own thoughts ideas and experiences and in need of the great white saviours who are so superior not only intellectually but morally. It makes me sick.

While informative I feel it lacks what I was looking for which is fun/drama history such as recurring villains beef between instances and other sort of stuff like that.

Yes, obviously, in the same way they were the first time, though liberals and social democrats bear greater responsibility.

Large sections of the Western left (especially demsocs and anarchists), alongside liberals, treat “neutrality,” “free speech absolutism,” and abstract anti-authoritarianism as virtues detached from material conditions and class power. In practice, this is not neutral at all. When one side is the hegemonic ideology (capitalism, backed by the state, capital, and media) being “against both sides” objectively favors that hegemony.

Liberals and social democrats are more directly responsible because, historically and consistently, they side with reaction against communism when forced to choose. This is not hypothetical: the Freikorps were unleashed by social democrats to crush the German communists; liberal states normalized anti-communism through the Red Scare; and today we see the same logic in the criminalization of communists, the rehabilitation of fascists as “free speech dissidents,” and the alignment of liberals with the far right against AES states and revolutionary movements.

This pattern is structural, not moral. Liberalism and reformist social democracy refuse to confront capital as a system. They manage capitalism, they do not abolish it. When imperialism faces crisis (falling rates of profit, declining global dominance, internal decay) capital does not become more democratic. It turns to repression. Fascism is not an aberration; it is capitalism’s fangs turning inward.

By equating communists with fascists (“extremism on both sides”), by platforming reactionaries in the name of free speech, and by rejecting revolutionary authority while preserving bourgeois authority, liberals and much of the Western left ideologically disarm the working class. Anti-authoritarianism in the abstract becomes a cover for submission to the most entrenched authority of all: capital.

The real question is not “authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian,” but authority of which class, in service of which system. Without answering that, you don’t oppose fascism, you enable it.

History has already settled this. Fascism is defeated not by neutrality, liberal norms, or reformism, but by organized, class-conscious opposition to capitalism and imperialism. Fascists only understand the stick not the carrot and we must never forget that.

I’m clearly not against replying for the benefit of a possible interested good faith third party at the same time however I see no need to try soften the edges of op or pretend they are anything other than what they present themselves to be, a bad faith actor.

You may be right but the post undeniably reeks of bad faith, liberal arrogance and debatebro posturing

Thank you I try my best.

My response is mainly for interested third parties I hold no illusion of being able to meaningfully connect with a liberal debate bro coming in bad faith just to argue.

Although the optimist in me still hopes they may actually try engage in good faith if the facts are laid bare in front of them.

First: the meta-issue (important)

This post comes off as bad faith and distinctly Western-liberal in outlook. Not because it asks questions, but because it assumes Western liberal norms as the neutral baseline and then judges everything else against them while pretending to be “just asking.”

Repeated patterns:

Treats Western media narratives as default unless proven otherwise, while demanding non-Western states meet impossible purity tests.

Claims to have “researched” but clearly relies on headline-level liberal sources, NGO talking points, and election-observer discourse produced by imperial states.

Frames socialist states as needing to justify themselves morally, while capitalist states are treated as flawed but legitimate.

Uses “authoritarian” as an aesthetic judgment, not a material analysis.

This is not neutral skepticism. It is liberal ideology pretending to be critical thinking.

Now, point by point.

“Things I have been told”

1. “Chinese sources about Chinese elections being democratic are like American sources saying America is good”

False equivalence.

US elections are dominated by private money, lobbying, media monopolies, and elite candidate filtration.

China does not define democracy as periodic multi-party spectacle. It defines it as mass participation, cadre accountability, and material outcomes.

Chinese elections operate through people’s congresses, where local representatives are elected and then elevated based on performance, supervision, and recall mechanisms.

You are judging Chinese democracy by liberal electoral aesthetics, not by whether the masses can influence governance.

2. “Venezuela’s election wasn’t legit”

Assertion without evidence.

Venezuela has more elections, more parties, and more audits than most Western states.

Their electoral system includes paper trails, audits, international observers, and machine verification.

Western claims of fraud emerge only when US-aligned candidates lose.

If your evidence is “Western media said so,” that is not analysis.

3. “I’m too propagandized by the West”

Likely true.

Westerners are immersed in:

Corporate media

NGO narratives aligned with foreign policy

“Human rights” discourse weaponized selectively

Read Parenti’s Inventing Reality. Western propaganda works precisely because it claims not to exist.

4. “Any protests are CIA-made”

Strawman.

No serious Marxist claims all protests are CIA. The claim is:

The CIA funds, steers, amplifies, and weaponizes protests where it serves imperial interests.

This is documented fact (Iran 1953, Chile 1973, Hong Kong, Ukraine, Venezuela, etc.).

Rejecting this is historical illiteracy.

5. “Democracy is a bourgeois invention”

Incorrect framing.

Liberal democracy is a bourgeois invention.

Proletarian democracy means democratic control over production, the state, and society.

Voting every few years for capitalist managers is not democracy.

6. “Ukraine is full of Nazis / Russia threatened by NATO”

Factually true, whether you like it or not.

Ukraine has institutionalized fascist formations (Azov, Aidar, Right Sector).

Bandera collaborators are state-celebrated.

NATO expanded eastward explicitly against Russian security assurances.

This does not make Russia socialist or morally pure. It makes Western narratives dishonest.

7. “EU is bourgeois and should be dissolved”

Correct.

The EU is:

A neoliberal treaty structure

Enforces austerity, privatization, and capital mobility

Suppresses popular sovereignty (see Greece, Italy)

That Elon Musk says something similar is irrelevant. Class analysis does not depend on who accidentally agrees.

8. “All states are authoritarian”

Yes, materially.

The question is authoritarian for whom.

Capitalist states repress workers and protect capital.

Socialist states repress bourgeois power and imperial subversion.

Pretending Spain or France are “less authoritarian” ignores:

Police violence

Anti-strike laws

Surveillance

Repression of migrants

9. “Authoritarianism is just an insult against socialist states”

Often true.

Liberals use it as a moral label, not an analytic category. No material analysis follows.

10. “Freedom of the press is bourgeois”

Yes.

Press freedom exists only for owners.

Journalists do not decide narratives; advertisers, owners, and state interests do.

Whistleblowers (Assange, Manning) show the limits clearly.

11. “LGBT and racism are irrelevant”

This is reactionary nonsense (often nazbol garbage).

Correct Marxist position:

Oppression is material and real

It must be analyzed through class, not liberal identity fetishism

Ignoring it alienates the masses

12. “Collective good over individual rights”

This is where liberalism fully collapses.

Under capitalism:

“Individual rights” protect property and capital.

Under socialism:

Rights are material guarantees (housing, healthcare, education).

Unlimited “personal freedom” for exploiters is incompatible with emancipation.

No society prioritizes all individual desires. Liberalism just hides whose desires matter.

“Things I have observed”

1. Chinese elections resemble fascist Italy

This is historically ignorant.

Fascism:

Preserved private capital

Crushed unions

Served monopoly interests

China:

Executes corrupt capitalists

Controls capital flows

Plans development

Eliminated extreme poverty

Superficial form ≠ class content.

2. North Korean elections are fake

You admit:

You rely on Western sources

NK is hyper-isolated

So you know nothing reliable.

Western media has lied consistently about:

Haircuts

Executions

Daily life

Serious Marxists suspend judgment where evidence is contaminated or non existent.

3. Venezuela rigged elections

Again: assertion without sources.

Western NGOs ≠ neutral observers.

4. Oppression justified in socialist states but criticized in capitalist ones

Correct, and this is not hypocrisy.

Class oppression is not morally neutral. Oppressing exploiters ≠ oppressing exploited.

5. State owns production but people don’t own state

This ignores:

Class character of the state

Mass line

Party–mass integration

Read Lenin. Read Mao. The state is not a metaphysical entity.

6. There are billionaires in China

Yes. And this is not a secret.

They exist because:

Market reforms were necessary to survive imperialist encirclement

Capital is subordinate to the state

Billionaires are routinely jailed, exiled, or executed

Capital exists on a leash, unlike in the West, where it rules.

7. Sweatshops in China

Industrialization under global capitalism is not optional.

China:

Used export manufacturing to build productive forces

Lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty

Is now reshoring, automating, and repressing capital

You are judging a process as if it were an end state.

Final diagnosis

This post reflects:

Liberal moralism

Western arrogance

Shallow “research”

Fear of committing to class analysis

It is easier to say:

“Everyone is lying, therefore I remain skeptical”

than to accept that:

Imperial propaganda is systematic

Socialist states operate under siege

Democracy is class-based, not aesthetic

If you genuinely want answers:

Read Lenin (State and Revolution)

Read Mao (On Practice, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions)

Read Parenti

Drop the assumption that Western liberalism is neutral

Right now, the posture is not critical. It is comfortable disbelief dressed up as skepticism. You come off as an arrogant, well-off Western liberal content with social-democratic stability while the periphery is super-exploited by the largest immiseration machine in human history so you can keep your treats. A treatlerite.

Sounds like a great time.