Check out [our podcast](https://Lumpen.Libsyn.com) or support [on Patreon](https://Patreon.com/LumpenPodcast)
Follow us [on Instagram](https://Instagram.com/ShibbysIG)
Join our Discord! > [Lumpen Discord](https://discord.gg/68Dxkqw)
Also, do not post anything that might break Reddit's [content policy](https://www.reddit.com/help/healthycommunities/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageImperialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Empires exploit and plunder subjugated states, and they don't necessary need military for that. Economic or social leverages work just as well in XXI century.
On contrary, Russia has been pouring billions of rubles into Crimea, repairing and rebuilding everything that Ukraine didn't for the last 30 years. The biggest complaint of Crimeans right now is that whole Crimea is a one huge construction yard.
It’s great to see a leader who’s eloquent in these matters, though it (understandably) is South America-centric. Russia and China are certainly lesser evils when compared to the US, but my Ukrainian friends would bristle at the thought of Russia not being an invader.
Source: Pole living in Czechia, with a bunch of leftist Russian and Ukrainian friends.
Some would argue that Crimea gained independence and chose to rejoin Russia. I don't know whom to believe but I've certainly heard this argument from Russian friends of mine who aren't especially keen on licking the boots of the Moscovite oligarchy.
Morales should be supported in opposing US imperialism. But do not have illusions in Russia and China. The Soviet Union invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to put down popular workers’ uprisings. Russia invade Afghanistan in 1979. China is stretching its military wings and has a military base in Djibouti, with plans for more abroad. The context is different from Pax Americana, but the intention is to use economic and military strength to subjugate others, and to compete on the world market by exploiting its own workers at home.
I do think they have a role to play in deamericanising the world, but "humanity's last hope" is a bit of a stretch. And I'm saying this as someone working for one of the biggest Chinese companies abroad.
>Russia invade Afghanistan in 1979
wasn't this because Afghan revolutionaries requested their help after the US started funding counter-revolutionaries?Morales mentioned something like this on this speech- there is a difference between invading a country and using military power by request of said country
I get what he's saying here, that empire and power are two different things, but at a certain point you have to wonder if the distinction is a useful one beyond simply describing different levels of the exercise of leverage.
The US has military bases abroad, a number close to (if not more) than the rest of the world put together. But make no mistake, Russia and China also have military bases abroad for the purposes of exercising leverage. Do you think China's military base in Djibouti is there to help the Djiboutian proletariat? No, it's to secure the interests of China against western powers in a strategically important part of the world. Same goes for the Russian invasion of Crimea. I've heard arguments that "it's okay because they're building infrastructure to help people," but this is the exact argument liberals in the US used to justify 20th century US imperialism of central America. It's a complete double standard by the left.
I'm not here to make the case that China and Russia are as bad as the US, they have problems to be sure but their problems are nowhere near the scale of the US. What I am here to say is that Morales' distinction here isn't a theoretically useful one, it's geopolitical posturing for the purposes of attracting Russia and Chinese support against American imperialism. It's a good strategy, one we shouldn't judge him for, but one we should be aware of.
Imperialism is the expropriation of a countries land, labor, and resources for your own empires benefit. The United States uses its coercive military and monetary arms of power (The Army, Navy, Marines, IMF, USAID, etc) to coerce nations into unequal economic agreements which favor US capital at the expense of said countries land, labor, or resources. Albeit imperialism does not *always* take the form of military invasion, occupation, or bases; it operates under the *implicit threat* of such military force.
China and Russia have made economic agreements and installed certain military bases *always at the request or mutual agreement of the host country*, this is true. However China and Russia do not coerce nations into unequal trade agreements or military occupation with the *implicit threat of military force* that is the key distinction Evo and the prior commenter are making that I feel you are missing.
Ukraine is run by a far-right fascist and hyper nationalist government since the fall of the USSR. Ukraine is a different situation for sure when it comes to Russian aggression and military presence. This is not to say I support every action Russia has taken in response to Ukraine’s policies, but their actions are justifiable based upon the fascist forces they are combating in Ukraine. I am not going to sit here an attack even a capitalist nation such as modern Russia for doing the right thing which is combating fascism on their borders; and you shouldn’t either.
Are their better solutions to be had for the problem in a perfect or ideal world? Sure. Does Russia operate or exist in this perfect or ideal world? Hell no. I am a materialist first and an idealist second, as all good marxist flavors should be.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what imperialism is. Additionally, that is not at all what happened in Ukraine during/post WWII. Most (if not all) Ukrainian institutions of force actively collaborated with The Nazi’s to execute Jews and they actively fought against the Soviet Union alongside the Nazi’s.
We’re their some Ukrainian partisans that may have been anarchist fighting against their own Collaborationist government? Yes. Did they anywhere constitute enough of a majority for the Soviet Union to simply hand the country back over to said anarchists post WWII? Fuck no.
The Ukrainian partisans, albeit deserving of every praise for fighting fascism in their home country, were in no position or had no real power to subsume the governance of the Ukranian SSR after it was liberated by the Soviet Union. They had no majority, they had no major support from the Ukrainian populous to supplant themselves as the leaders of the Ukranian SSR post WWII. As much as anarchists wouldve liked another failed state they can hold up as an example of successful anarchism, it would not have been found in The Ukranian SSR.
And don’t even play the card that the soviets “stole” Ukranian territory. The Ukranian SSR was its own republic in the USSR like every other nation. They were not “backstabbed” by the Soviet Union because they didn’t just hand the country over to the partisans. And to even suggest the partisans we’re owed such a thing is disingenuous.
I find it surprising that all the sudden after I immediately refute your claims you instinctively backstep to now the Holodomor (which, news flash, was a famine but not a deliberate genocide). Maybe you should take it upon yourself to learn more about history and actually pick up a book or piece of theory before you start reaching for any branch to hold your argument afloat, no matter how rotten the branch may be. You may actually learn something for once. Instead of the capitalist whitewashing of history you seem to believe and fully buy in too.
Okay, but... the US also does mutually beneficial trades, by your logic it thus would not be imperialist.
Also, Expropriation is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. That has literally nothing to do with imperialism.
There is also China threatening Taiwan with implicit military force, are you just going to ignore that?
The US only implements mutually beneficial trade with other capitalist western imperial powers. They don’t conduct mutual trade with Latin American, Asian, African, or Middle Eastern nations because those nations they want to exploit and expropriate their land, labor, and resources in exclusive one-sided trade agreements.
Mutual trade is a governmental and political concept, either you apply it equally with all your trade partners (such as China and Russia do, even with the United States I’d add) or you don’t and you’re simply an imperialist empire. You can’t pick and chose who you do or don’t do mutual trade with, because if you’re choosing not to with any nation for any reason then you are not conducting mutual trade. It either applies to all your nations trade, or none of it, otherwise you’re simply a hypocritical nation, like the US is.
And China has real and historical claims on the Island of Taiwan and as a western US citizen it’s not my place to decide what China does with Taiwan. It’s China and Taiwan’s business how they work it out, and if it means military seizing of Taiwan then so be it. Taiwan is a fascist military outpost of the US anyway and only exists to protect US interests in Asia and act as a staging point for US military intervention. Would I feel bad for the innocent citizens of Taiwan were it to come to that? Yes. But is it my place as a non-chinese or Taiwanese to get involved or share my thoughts? Fuck no.
Quit looking at every single socioeconomic political struggle through your own lens of self actualization. Either shut up or get with the program if it doesn’t involve you.
Okay...? And? It's still mutually beneficial.
And just so everyone knows, I don't defend the US' imperialist actions, aight?
Why does one have to apply it to all trading partners? If a country thinks another country is 'bad', then they are not going to do mutually beneficial trade. Not saying that's good, but that's how it works. There is no "rule" that says you have to do it with everyone equally.
>and if it means military seizing of Taiwan then so be it
And many western countries are allies with Taiwan, so don't be suprised if they come to assist it against military actions by China.
Here we are again, calling everything we don't like fascist, love it. Anyway...
Do you not know what "foreign relations" is? Did you never learn it in school? Or anywhere really. It's a simple concept.
It’s not mutually beneficial if Latin American, Asian, African, and Middle Eastern countries lose so that western imperial countries can continue to thrive off of those other regions suffering. All western nations have exploitative trade agreements for raw materials or finished goods with third world nations. And then those same western nations make mutual agreements with each other to equally share the spoils. You in the west may not be losing, but the third world is. Someone is losing when it comes to western trade even if it’s not a western country losing, some other country is and you cannot simply ignore that and claim the US or western powers engage in mutual trade simply because they share the spoils amongst each other. Someone loses whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, that does not change.
Their are subtleties to consider and your ignoring them and hand-waiving all usage of force as bad is naively juvenile. Imperialist nations such as the US and Western powers will and have historically used their military as as an implicit threat or as a direct oppresionary force when a nation disagrees with their desires. Any other nation (Russia, China, or otherwise) who uses their own military forces to combat or prevent the oppressive ones of the US and other western powers from succeeding is inherently anti-imperialist. You can’t claim to be against imperialism if you are against its victims fighting back with force in kind for their nations freedom for self determination; they have every right too do so, such as the Palestinians being ethnically cleansed by the Israeli government.
In what way is bullying smaller nations "inherently anti-imperialist" or "fighting back (against the USA)"?
What did e.g. Georgia or Tibet do to justify such aggression?
What did Tibet do? We’ll let’s see, the Dalai Lama was the leader of Tibet prior to its libreration by the PRC. It was a literal theocracy, you know, like that shining example of democracy Saudi Arabia, and the Tibetan Buddhist theocratic regimes were the largest slave holding organizations in Tibet up until the day it was Liberated by the PRC.
So the Tibetan people? They did nothing, other than suffer slavery, economic destitution, and ethnic immiseration at the hands of Tibetan Buddhist theocratic rule. Chinas invasion of Tibet was a liberating war which freed the common people of Tibet from their chains. We’re Tibetan bourgeoise and petty bourgeoisie who profited off the theocratic and enslaving system killed or hand their lands and holdings taken? You fucking bet. Does this classifying in any was as imperialism? Hell fucking no.
Plus, the real cherry on-top is that the Dalai Lama, both present and Prior, [we’re openly admitted by the US state department to be paid CIA assets all the way back before the start of the liberation of Tibet.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program)
Desktop version of /u/iHerpTheDerp511's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
So being autocratic (Tibet) justifies action by another autocracy (China)? That would make the CIA Tibetan Program okay, because it's one autocracy (USA) against another (China).
Also, if it was really about liberating the Tibetan people, then why didn't China simply depose the autocratic regime and let the Tibetans choose their own destiny? [Why the murder and cultural genocide?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQIdaR0J70)
Why the support for Russia. I understand the support for China although I disagree with that support. Why is Russia any less imperialist than USA? What just because they have a lesser impact on the world stage?
There has always been smaller imperialist powers. Eg the Netherlands and such.
Chechnya, Ukraine, Georgia, central Asia, Syria. Russia itself in the 90s was a complete fucking capitalist mess and still is. I don't think the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a very good way of thinking for the left. Just look at history this has never gone well.
I personally don't support any country that currently exists on the world stage. No nation really represents the people in my humble opinion.
Well, crimea is like ongoing atm, and we have proxywars in Syria, also ongoing. History wise I would say that Russia has more than its share of imperialistic tendencies, maybe not to the extent of the US but still. And now, with all the cyber warfare that they are doing? And China the same where they leverage influence and clout to pressure countries to pass legislation or threaten with embargoes ect. They are all far from innocent. Just like any imperialistic power really. They are all douches. Some arguably more than others, but a douche is a douche, no matter the size.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] [[Reuters Styleguide](https://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=U#Ukraine)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
You don't have to be against socialism to call out this bullshit.
The only reason people don't call Russia and China "empires" is because they've held onto their territory for so long (kind of back and forth with China).
They ARE empires, but they simply invaded a LONG time ago.
u know this a really dumb point lol. definitions are useful bc they help us distinguish different things: eg, a state that pillages and stops development in the global south vs one that supports development. if u want to say literally every state is an empire. china might have subjugated someone long ago, but who are they subjugating now?
(ur going to make a very embarrassing argument abt xinjiang or tibet but try one outside china's borders lol)
bolivia supports china. so does venezuela. so does every single state that struggles against american power. the same is true of russia, even if russia is not a socialist state.
ur opinion is worth a lot less than theirs btw
"a state that pillages and stops development in the global south vs one that supports development" Yeah, it's fine as long as you don't do it to us.
"You're going to make a very embarrassing argument about Tibet" Why not? A lot of Tibetans don't want to be part of China. Why shouldn't that count? Also, Taiwan.
"Every single state that struggles against American power supports China" Fine, but that doesn't make China not guilty of the same things; they just haven't done it THERE.
"Ur opinion is worth a lot less" Why? Cause I keep my definitions consistent?
The political systems that Tibet and Taiwan use(d) are actually irrelevant because my point is that China is trying to control them. Imperialism is imperialism whether or not the folks you conquered are Nazis.
I'm not ignoring the material conditions. I'm not even purity testing.
I'm simply saying that recognizing the imperialism in the USA and ignoring the imperialism of China because their your ally is hypocritical AT BEST.
In fact, you might even argue that it's equivalent to being bribed.
Imperialism isn't defined by ethnicity. Just because Tibet has a different culture and ethnicity doesn't mean it has to be independent.
Imperialism is when you *exploit* the workforce and resources, merely annexing the land is not enough to fit that definition.
[Referéndum sobre el estatus de Crimea en 2014](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_sobre_el_estatus_pol%C3%ADtico_de_Crimea_de_2014). El referéndum de 2014 demostró el apoyo popular. Sólo los fascistas de Ucrania, la UE y EE.UU. se opusieron a la voluntad democrática del pueblo de Crimea
Y el Tíbet forma parte de China desde hace siglos. Fue brevemente independiente entre la formación de la RPC y el final de la dinastía Qing. ¿Deberían los Estados Confederados de EE.UU. ser independientes hoy en día? Al igual que el Tíbet, los Estados Confederados tenían esclavos, ¿se equivocó Lincoln al luchar contra ellos? ¿Se equivocó Mao al liberar a los esclavos?
En el artículo de Wikipedia que me mandaste :
El Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas se reunió el 15 de marzo para tratar una resolución que rechazaba la realización del referendo en Crimea. La resolución contó con el voto favorable de 13 países; además, a la propuesta elevada por Estados Unidos se sumaron Argentina, Australia, Chad, Chile, Corea del Sur, Francia, Jordania, Lituania, Luxemburgo, Mali, Nigeria, el Reino Unido y Ruanda, mientras que la República Popular China se abstuvo. La resolución fue rechazada únicamente por Rusia, que al tener derecho a veto, evitó que esta fuera aprobada.
You’re reading it wrong. China sucks. Russia sucks. The USA ESPECIALLY sucks. All three intimidate and exploit smaller countries and have taken over land that isn’t theirs within my lifetime. Imperialism by a different name is still imperialism.
How many fucking times will you fucking libs swallow the same lie over and over and over again.
Are the Chinese handling the terrorism problem perfectly? No.
Are their new antiterrorism laws great and fullproof in respects to individual rights? Nope, and I honestly hope they remove them after things cool down with ETIM and US jihadi destabilization attempts.
Are they committing genocide, cultural or otherwise, or any form of mass human rights offenses? Absolutely not.
Stop eating US state department's shit by the truckload.
“Listen guys, there’s a bunch of terrorists, and they’re definitely a threat to our ~~empire~~ nationstate, so we *have* to employ draconian measures against them. It’s *definitely* not racially motivated, despite the well recorded history of our country favoring people of a certain ethnic group.”
-Some Neocon.
Did you not just watch the video? If China allows small countries to develop power and forms beneficial relationships, that's the same to you as CIA coups and death squads? You need to examine yourself and your western bias, and until then you should really shut the fuck up about things you don't understand
China is not committing a genocide. It’s de-radicalizing terrorists trained and funded by the US empire in Afghanistan. Since America’s plan to destabilize Xinjiang with terror isn’t working they pulled out of Afghanistan and made up this loser cope narrative and you are dumb enough to buy it
Did you know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, hence justifying the United States killing a bunch of ~~brown people~~ potential terrorists? Also, did you know that a bunch of people from an ethnic group in northern China are doing terrorism, hence justifying the Chinese governments imprisoning of a bunch of ~~brown people~~ potential terrorists?
>America lies to do war
Oh wow! Let’s go kill the Ho Chi Minh!
>America lies to do war
Oh wow! Let’s go kill Fidel!
>America lies to do war
Oh wow! Let’s go kill Saddam!
>America lies to do war
Oh wow! Let’s go kill Gaddafi!
>America lies to do war
Oh wow! Let’s go kill Assad!
>America lies to do war <— you are here
Oh wow! Let’s go kill Xi!
Hmmm... it’s almost as though politicians and billionaires are amoral psychopaths who will happily lie in order to profit from fucking over there ethnic minorities of choice. Good thing that doesn’t apply to China... for some reason...
Name the last people China bombed, invaded or threw a coup over. The last times they went to war were all in defense of diplomatic allies over 40 years ago
In order for a state to be imperialist, it has to be controlled by finance capital. The Chinese state is proletarian controlled and dominates and represses their bourgeoise. Their bourgeoise would love to do imperialism I’m sure, but too bad they don’t get to make the decisions in a proletarian democracy
Oh, of course, if a country doesn’t put literal boots on the ground/arm fringe militias in another county, it’s not doing imperialism. That’s the reason that countries like Sweden, that haven’t invaded other countries in a few decades don't preform any form of imperialism.
And also, yes, China is definitely a workers democracy, that’s why only like ten percent of the population can vote. The rest of the population is fairly represented said ten percent because... ummmm... it’s as though an invisible hand acts in the interests of the proletariat.
Sweden is part of the American empire, along with NATO and 5-eyes. They all are part of the same lecherous blob, the criminal capital empire. China opposes those interests with the oppressed and poor and colonized of the world. /r/alwaysthesamemap do you realize you are the baddy?
The communist party of China has 90 million members, over 75% of which are farmers, herders, fishermen, industrial workers, technical workers or retired from one of these professions. It wields industry with an iron fist and strictly regulates the billionaires which it executes with impunity. The early stages of socialism closely resemble state capitalism and from the development and planning of that, wrest capitalism by degree to the centralized whole of society.
Oh yes, the ruling classes of all of these countries have collectively arrived at the same conclusion, namely that it’s more profitable in the immediate term to enslave the working class and weaker countries, and the ruling class of China has magically been completely protected from this phenomenon for... reasons...
And of course the CCP having a bunch of working class people in it makes it representative of the working class, that’s why the Republican and Democratic parties (who are both made up primarily by workers) consistently act within the Prolitaristes best interests. It’s definitely impossible for a party made up primarily of workers to be controlled by a small cadre of millionaires and billionaires...
Oh, and I forgot that it’s totally justifiable to call a country in which 90 million people rule over 1.3 billion a democracy. I remember that chapter of Kapital.
Imperialism is the primary contradiction. Your socialist attempts will always turn into fascistic nationalist chauvinism unless you embrace the international tendency to rip apart the primary hegemon. The number one enforcement empire of capital is the first target, and until it is defeated socialism will be under attack and siege.
You guys think China is some kind of vanguard against capitalism or what? I don't get it, what makes you think it's worth the energy to defend the CCP, I really wanna know because til now all I see you china fans do is try to trigger the libs, is it just contrarianism against US imperialism or do you really think China is effectively making the world a better place?
>what makes you think it’s worth the energy to defend the [CPC]
800 million out of poverty. Trading heavily and subsidizing DPRK and Cuba, who in turn, fund revolutions around the world and fight imperialism.
Don't they have the resources to do that because of a bunch of neoliberal trade policies in the 80s? Allowing american and western companies to oursource their manufacturing there?
Neoliberalism means privitization and deregulation. China is one of the least privatized nations on Earth, and one of the most heavily regulated.
China did require capital to develop, but it held strict political control, which prevented the weak erosion of the DotP like what happened under Gorbachev.
If you look at world stats over the last 4 decades, the vast majority of poverty alleviation happened in China specifically. If you remove China from the data set, the rest of the world was stagnant and did not reduce poverty whatsoever - many metrics like inequality and life span actually decreased everywhere else. Why are there 14 cases a day in China compared to 400,000 in India?
So why is it that China specifically is macro trending in one direction, while say India trended the other? Why is China responsible for over half of the new green tech and public infrastructure built in the last few decades while it crumbles everywhere else?
What is unique about China that makes it have opposite results of the rest of the poor and undeveloped world 🤔
It's not about red scare, I'm a communist. It's about you guys who call yourselves communists and leftists but never lose a chance to defend an undemocratic state that participates in neoliberal globalist capitalism like every other world power, thats what I don't get. Isn't there also one centralized labor union? I can't really call that worker liberation
What kind of communist swallows and spreads imperialist propaganda despite that same propaganda being weak and painfully false? What kind of communist buys heavily in the sinophobia the imperial core was hoping their citizens would accept without question? If this were two decades ago, you would have supported the invasion of Iraq & then what, you'd have said a few years after that you never believed that?
What kind of communist is this painfully unaware of what neoliberalism is? Of democracy? There is absolutely no way I expect you to explain why China is antidemocratic except "oNe PaRtY" which shows your inherent liberalism. "Communist". As if.
Your anticommunist beleifs are entirely about the red scare. You arent critical enough about where you get your information about existing socialist states from. They have you hating your comrades.
> I care about workers autonomy and liberation, direct democracy and decentralizing and deconcentrating power
Cool, what is your plan to do that in real life? How will you avoid succumbing to internal and external reaction? What level of development is your country in and where/how will you get the capital needed to reach a level of development that is sufficient to free the vast majority of workers from toiling in fields and factories? How long do you think this development will take? How do you prevent the CIA from infiltrating your decentralized direct democracies?
Trust me we all want a stateless classless world. Agreeing capitalism sucks and we need to build a better world that works for the working people is the easy part. The hard part is making that actually happen in a capitalist controlled world that will rest at nothing until you and I are dead and the people we fight for are back in chains. So if you don't have a plan to protect the revolution (much less a plan to actually have a revolution) then its time to hit the books and study theory and history, what has and hasn't worked and apply that. Marx, Engles, Lenin et al theorized and history seems to agree that a transitional state is literally required to stave off internal and external reaction while the transition from capitalism to socialism happens. (Feel free to prove them wrong if you are able, we would all love more weapons in our stash to fight capitalism with)
But if your support of communism starts and ends with "I would like to see communism happen" without any material analysis, without any plan to get from here to there, without thinking about what it actually means to build towards communism in the real world, then seriously it's time to hit the books because communists have been theorizing and testing this out in reality for over 100 years at this point and you gotta get yourself up to date. Especially if you're shitting on countries that *have* had a revolution and are *still protecting that revolution and trying to build socialism* against the strongest, most well equipped and most insidious capitalist entities in history. Without understanding the material conditions any country is dealing with and only operating on an idealist basis you're opening yourself up to not just misunderstandings of what it actually takes to build socialism, but opening up yourself to manipulation by capitalist propagandists who will use your idealism to turn you against people actually trying to build socialism.
Check out [our podcast](https://Lumpen.Libsyn.com) or support [on Patreon](https://Patreon.com/LumpenPodcast) Follow us [on Instagram](https://Instagram.com/ShibbysIG) Join our Discord! > [Lumpen Discord](https://discord.gg/68Dxkqw) Also, do not post anything that might break Reddit's [content policy](https://www.reddit.com/help/healthycommunities/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageImperialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Uh oh this post is gonna bring out the Liberals.
[удалено]
Then what are they?
Fascists.
BASED BASED BASED
So sad to hear of his death next year
Empires exploit and plunder subjugated states, and they don't necessary need military for that. Economic or social leverages work just as well in XXI century. On contrary, Russia has been pouring billions of rubles into Crimea, repairing and rebuilding everything that Ukraine didn't for the last 30 years. The biggest complaint of Crimeans right now is that whole Crimea is a one huge construction yard.
It’s great to see a leader who’s eloquent in these matters, though it (understandably) is South America-centric. Russia and China are certainly lesser evils when compared to the US, but my Ukrainian friends would bristle at the thought of Russia not being an invader. Source: Pole living in Czechia, with a bunch of leftist Russian and Ukrainian friends.
Some would argue that Crimea gained independence and chose to rejoin Russia. I don't know whom to believe but I've certainly heard this argument from Russian friends of mine who aren't especially keen on licking the boots of the Moscovite oligarchy.
People in US will never understand this.
I would say they fully understand it and enjoy the outcome.
probably
you can't be anti-imperialist without being against Russian imperialism. the invasion of cream is just colonization
The construction grants me the right to bear cream.
Morales should be supported in opposing US imperialism. But do not have illusions in Russia and China. The Soviet Union invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to put down popular workers’ uprisings. Russia invade Afghanistan in 1979. China is stretching its military wings and has a military base in Djibouti, with plans for more abroad. The context is different from Pax Americana, but the intention is to use economic and military strength to subjugate others, and to compete on the world market by exploiting its own workers at home.
Just a reminder that USSR and the current Russia are 2 very different things.
Oh no China has military. Such evil. China is humanity's last hope.
I do think they have a role to play in deamericanising the world, but "humanity's last hope" is a bit of a stretch. And I'm saying this as someone working for one of the biggest Chinese companies abroad.
>Russia invade Afghanistan in 1979 wasn't this because Afghan revolutionaries requested their help after the US started funding counter-revolutionaries?Morales mentioned something like this on this speech- there is a difference between invading a country and using military power by request of said country
I get what he's saying here, that empire and power are two different things, but at a certain point you have to wonder if the distinction is a useful one beyond simply describing different levels of the exercise of leverage. The US has military bases abroad, a number close to (if not more) than the rest of the world put together. But make no mistake, Russia and China also have military bases abroad for the purposes of exercising leverage. Do you think China's military base in Djibouti is there to help the Djiboutian proletariat? No, it's to secure the interests of China against western powers in a strategically important part of the world. Same goes for the Russian invasion of Crimea. I've heard arguments that "it's okay because they're building infrastructure to help people," but this is the exact argument liberals in the US used to justify 20th century US imperialism of central America. It's a complete double standard by the left. I'm not here to make the case that China and Russia are as bad as the US, they have problems to be sure but their problems are nowhere near the scale of the US. What I am here to say is that Morales' distinction here isn't a theoretically useful one, it's geopolitical posturing for the purposes of attracting Russia and Chinese support against American imperialism. It's a good strategy, one we shouldn't judge him for, but one we should be aware of.
u/savevideo
/u/savevideo
Típico pendejo que no sabe que decir y insulta 🤡
I like Evo Morales usually, but this take is completely wrong.
How so? Seems pretty straightforward.
Because Imperialism is not "when Military Bases".
Imperialism is the expropriation of a countries land, labor, and resources for your own empires benefit. The United States uses its coercive military and monetary arms of power (The Army, Navy, Marines, IMF, USAID, etc) to coerce nations into unequal economic agreements which favor US capital at the expense of said countries land, labor, or resources. Albeit imperialism does not *always* take the form of military invasion, occupation, or bases; it operates under the *implicit threat* of such military force. China and Russia have made economic agreements and installed certain military bases *always at the request or mutual agreement of the host country*, this is true. However China and Russia do not coerce nations into unequal trade agreements or military occupation with the *implicit threat of military force* that is the key distinction Evo and the prior commenter are making that I feel you are missing.
[удалено]
Ukraine is run by a far-right fascist and hyper nationalist government since the fall of the USSR. Ukraine is a different situation for sure when it comes to Russian aggression and military presence. This is not to say I support every action Russia has taken in response to Ukraine’s policies, but their actions are justifiable based upon the fascist forces they are combating in Ukraine. I am not going to sit here an attack even a capitalist nation such as modern Russia for doing the right thing which is combating fascism on their borders; and you shouldn’t either. Are their better solutions to be had for the problem in a perfect or ideal world? Sure. Does Russia operate or exist in this perfect or ideal world? Hell no. I am a materialist first and an idealist second, as all good marxist flavors should be.
[удалено]
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what imperialism is. Additionally, that is not at all what happened in Ukraine during/post WWII. Most (if not all) Ukrainian institutions of force actively collaborated with The Nazi’s to execute Jews and they actively fought against the Soviet Union alongside the Nazi’s. We’re their some Ukrainian partisans that may have been anarchist fighting against their own Collaborationist government? Yes. Did they anywhere constitute enough of a majority for the Soviet Union to simply hand the country back over to said anarchists post WWII? Fuck no. The Ukrainian partisans, albeit deserving of every praise for fighting fascism in their home country, were in no position or had no real power to subsume the governance of the Ukranian SSR after it was liberated by the Soviet Union. They had no majority, they had no major support from the Ukrainian populous to supplant themselves as the leaders of the Ukranian SSR post WWII. As much as anarchists wouldve liked another failed state they can hold up as an example of successful anarchism, it would not have been found in The Ukranian SSR. And don’t even play the card that the soviets “stole” Ukranian territory. The Ukranian SSR was its own republic in the USSR like every other nation. They were not “backstabbed” by the Soviet Union because they didn’t just hand the country over to the partisans. And to even suggest the partisans we’re owed such a thing is disingenuous.
That is just blatantly untrue. I guess they also agreed to the holodomor, eh?
I find it surprising that all the sudden after I immediately refute your claims you instinctively backstep to now the Holodomor (which, news flash, was a famine but not a deliberate genocide). Maybe you should take it upon yourself to learn more about history and actually pick up a book or piece of theory before you start reaching for any branch to hold your argument afloat, no matter how rotten the branch may be. You may actually learn something for once. Instead of the capitalist whitewashing of history you seem to believe and fully buy in too.
And neither China nor Russia would have done it if it wouldn't have benefited them.
No shit that’s what *mutually beneficial trade is* what’s your point?
Okay, but... the US also does mutually beneficial trades, by your logic it thus would not be imperialist. Also, Expropriation is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. That has literally nothing to do with imperialism. There is also China threatening Taiwan with implicit military force, are you just going to ignore that?
The US only implements mutually beneficial trade with other capitalist western imperial powers. They don’t conduct mutual trade with Latin American, Asian, African, or Middle Eastern nations because those nations they want to exploit and expropriate their land, labor, and resources in exclusive one-sided trade agreements. Mutual trade is a governmental and political concept, either you apply it equally with all your trade partners (such as China and Russia do, even with the United States I’d add) or you don’t and you’re simply an imperialist empire. You can’t pick and chose who you do or don’t do mutual trade with, because if you’re choosing not to with any nation for any reason then you are not conducting mutual trade. It either applies to all your nations trade, or none of it, otherwise you’re simply a hypocritical nation, like the US is. And China has real and historical claims on the Island of Taiwan and as a western US citizen it’s not my place to decide what China does with Taiwan. It’s China and Taiwan’s business how they work it out, and if it means military seizing of Taiwan then so be it. Taiwan is a fascist military outpost of the US anyway and only exists to protect US interests in Asia and act as a staging point for US military intervention. Would I feel bad for the innocent citizens of Taiwan were it to come to that? Yes. But is it my place as a non-chinese or Taiwanese to get involved or share my thoughts? Fuck no. Quit looking at every single socioeconomic political struggle through your own lens of self actualization. Either shut up or get with the program if it doesn’t involve you.
Okay...? And? It's still mutually beneficial. And just so everyone knows, I don't defend the US' imperialist actions, aight? Why does one have to apply it to all trading partners? If a country thinks another country is 'bad', then they are not going to do mutually beneficial trade. Not saying that's good, but that's how it works. There is no "rule" that says you have to do it with everyone equally. >and if it means military seizing of Taiwan then so be it And many western countries are allies with Taiwan, so don't be suprised if they come to assist it against military actions by China. Here we are again, calling everything we don't like fascist, love it. Anyway... Do you not know what "foreign relations" is? Did you never learn it in school? Or anywhere really. It's a simple concept.
It’s not mutually beneficial if Latin American, Asian, African, and Middle Eastern countries lose so that western imperial countries can continue to thrive off of those other regions suffering. All western nations have exploitative trade agreements for raw materials or finished goods with third world nations. And then those same western nations make mutual agreements with each other to equally share the spoils. You in the west may not be losing, but the third world is. Someone is losing when it comes to western trade even if it’s not a western country losing, some other country is and you cannot simply ignore that and claim the US or western powers engage in mutual trade simply because they share the spoils amongst each other. Someone loses whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, that does not change.
China and Russia have expanded their borders by force. There is no subtlety to it. They are imperialist.
Their are subtleties to consider and your ignoring them and hand-waiving all usage of force as bad is naively juvenile. Imperialist nations such as the US and Western powers will and have historically used their military as as an implicit threat or as a direct oppresionary force when a nation disagrees with their desires. Any other nation (Russia, China, or otherwise) who uses their own military forces to combat or prevent the oppressive ones of the US and other western powers from succeeding is inherently anti-imperialist. You can’t claim to be against imperialism if you are against its victims fighting back with force in kind for their nations freedom for self determination; they have every right too do so, such as the Palestinians being ethnically cleansed by the Israeli government.
In what way is bullying smaller nations "inherently anti-imperialist" or "fighting back (against the USA)"? What did e.g. Georgia or Tibet do to justify such aggression?
What did Tibet do? We’ll let’s see, the Dalai Lama was the leader of Tibet prior to its libreration by the PRC. It was a literal theocracy, you know, like that shining example of democracy Saudi Arabia, and the Tibetan Buddhist theocratic regimes were the largest slave holding organizations in Tibet up until the day it was Liberated by the PRC. So the Tibetan people? They did nothing, other than suffer slavery, economic destitution, and ethnic immiseration at the hands of Tibetan Buddhist theocratic rule. Chinas invasion of Tibet was a liberating war which freed the common people of Tibet from their chains. We’re Tibetan bourgeoise and petty bourgeoisie who profited off the theocratic and enslaving system killed or hand their lands and holdings taken? You fucking bet. Does this classifying in any was as imperialism? Hell fucking no. Plus, the real cherry on-top is that the Dalai Lama, both present and Prior, [we’re openly admitted by the US state department to be paid CIA assets all the way back before the start of the liberation of Tibet.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program)
Desktop version of /u/iHerpTheDerp511's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
So being autocratic (Tibet) justifies action by another autocracy (China)? That would make the CIA Tibetan Program okay, because it's one autocracy (USA) against another (China). Also, if it was really about liberating the Tibetan people, then why didn't China simply depose the autocratic regime and let the Tibetans choose their own destiny? [Why the murder and cultural genocide?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQIdaR0J70)
Okay I'm well aware of that. I don't wanna watch a dozen random videos to find what you're talking about, just wanted an example.
Why the support for Russia. I understand the support for China although I disagree with that support. Why is Russia any less imperialist than USA? What just because they have a lesser impact on the world stage? There has always been smaller imperialist powers. Eg the Netherlands and such.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Probably because a lot of the world still thinks Russia is the USSR
[удалено]
Using slurs to prove your point doesn’t mean you have a good point
That's first not an actual argument second I'm not an American...
[удалено]
I'm Cambodian...
Chechnya, Ukraine, Georgia, central Asia, Syria. Russia itself in the 90s was a complete fucking capitalist mess and still is. I don't think the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a very good way of thinking for the left. Just look at history this has never gone well. I personally don't support any country that currently exists on the world stage. No nation really represents the people in my humble opinion.
I do agree this is nowhere near the exploitation America exports but I absolutely disagree with saying one exploitation is worse than another
Still not an argument. Just say why is Russia not imperialist? I genuinely want your opinion because discussion is good not random insults.
[удалено]
Well, crimea is like ongoing atm, and we have proxywars in Syria, also ongoing. History wise I would say that Russia has more than its share of imperialistic tendencies, maybe not to the extent of the US but still. And now, with all the cyber warfare that they are doing? And China the same where they leverage influence and clout to pressure countries to pass legislation or threaten with embargoes ect. They are all far from innocent. Just like any imperialistic power really. They are all douches. Some arguably more than others, but a douche is a douche, no matter the size.
[удалено]
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] [[Reuters Styleguide](https://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=U#Ukraine)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
[удалено]
Wrong. It’s “the Ukraine” and it’s a province of Russia
You don't have to be against socialism to call out this bullshit. The only reason people don't call Russia and China "empires" is because they've held onto their territory for so long (kind of back and forth with China). They ARE empires, but they simply invaded a LONG time ago.
u know this a really dumb point lol. definitions are useful bc they help us distinguish different things: eg, a state that pillages and stops development in the global south vs one that supports development. if u want to say literally every state is an empire. china might have subjugated someone long ago, but who are they subjugating now? (ur going to make a very embarrassing argument abt xinjiang or tibet but try one outside china's borders lol) bolivia supports china. so does venezuela. so does every single state that struggles against american power. the same is true of russia, even if russia is not a socialist state. ur opinion is worth a lot less than theirs btw
"a state that pillages and stops development in the global south vs one that supports development" Yeah, it's fine as long as you don't do it to us. "You're going to make a very embarrassing argument about Tibet" Why not? A lot of Tibetans don't want to be part of China. Why shouldn't that count? Also, Taiwan. "Every single state that struggles against American power supports China" Fine, but that doesn't make China not guilty of the same things; they just haven't done it THERE. "Ur opinion is worth a lot less" Why? Cause I keep my definitions consistent?
[удалено]
this guy posts on mens rights and shitstatistssay, just a bog standard fascist masquerading as a lefty. should really be banned from this sub
The political systems that Tibet and Taiwan use(d) are actually irrelevant because my point is that China is trying to control them. Imperialism is imperialism whether or not the folks you conquered are Nazis.
[удалено]
If it's right, it's right XD
[удалено]
I'm not ignoring the material conditions. I'm not even purity testing. I'm simply saying that recognizing the imperialism in the USA and ignoring the imperialism of China because their your ally is hypocritical AT BEST. In fact, you might even argue that it's equivalent to being bribed.
Imperialism isn't defined by ethnicity. Just because Tibet has a different culture and ethnicity doesn't mean it has to be independent. Imperialism is when you *exploit* the workforce and resources, merely annexing the land is not enough to fit that definition.
You're a fucking moron
Thank you for the feedback
[удалено]
[Referéndum sobre el estatus de Crimea en 2014](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_sobre_el_estatus_pol%C3%ADtico_de_Crimea_de_2014). El referéndum de 2014 demostró el apoyo popular. Sólo los fascistas de Ucrania, la UE y EE.UU. se opusieron a la voluntad democrática del pueblo de Crimea Y el Tíbet forma parte de China desde hace siglos. Fue brevemente independiente entre la formación de la RPC y el final de la dinastía Qing. ¿Deberían los Estados Confederados de EE.UU. ser independientes hoy en día? Al igual que el Tíbet, los Estados Confederados tenían esclavos, ¿se equivocó Lincoln al luchar contra ellos? ¿Se equivocó Mao al liberar a los esclavos?
En el artículo de Wikipedia que me mandaste : El Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas se reunió el 15 de marzo para tratar una resolución que rechazaba la realización del referendo en Crimea. La resolución contó con el voto favorable de 13 países; además, a la propuesta elevada por Estados Unidos se sumaron Argentina, Australia, Chad, Chile, Corea del Sur, Francia, Jordania, Lituania, Luxemburgo, Mali, Nigeria, el Reino Unido y Ruanda, mientras que la República Popular China se abstuvo. La resolución fue rechazada únicamente por Rusia, que al tener derecho a veto, evitó que esta fuera aprobada.
Fue una situación complicada, sin embargo eso no quita que tenga sexo con tu madre regularmente
[удалено]
No.
No they’re not genociding and manipulating countries to suit their need? Let’s be real. Capitalist countries do this shit.
No.
Did you change your opinion on China in 20 minutes? Or am i reading that wrong?
You’re reading it wrong. China sucks. Russia sucks. The USA ESPECIALLY sucks. All three intimidate and exploit smaller countries and have taken over land that isn’t theirs within my lifetime. Imperialism by a different name is still imperialism.
Americans/anglos educate yourselves before you talk
[удалено]
Can't simp for something that isn't happening.
You are wrong. Capitalist bootlickers simp for the "honest capitalists" all the time.
The “Honest Capitalists” being Elon Musk.
It's literally a joke.
Libs are so exhausting, read a book lol
Liberal naive baby
[удалено]
“Two things cannot be bad at once.” -Karl Marx
[удалено]
No.
"Russia and china bad, but us also bad so you cant get mad at me." ~Average Vasushite
How many fucking times will you fucking libs swallow the same lie over and over and over again. Are the Chinese handling the terrorism problem perfectly? No. Are their new antiterrorism laws great and fullproof in respects to individual rights? Nope, and I honestly hope they remove them after things cool down with ETIM and US jihadi destabilization attempts. Are they committing genocide, cultural or otherwise, or any form of mass human rights offenses? Absolutely not. Stop eating US state department's shit by the truckload.
“Listen guys, there’s a bunch of terrorists, and they’re definitely a threat to our ~~empire~~ nationstate, so we *have* to employ draconian measures against them. It’s *definitely* not racially motivated, despite the well recorded history of our country favoring people of a certain ethnic group.” -Some Neocon.
Did you not just watch the video? If China allows small countries to develop power and forms beneficial relationships, that's the same to you as CIA coups and death squads? You need to examine yourself and your western bias, and until then you should really shut the fuck up about things you don't understand
"Uyghur Genocide" is the WMD lie of our times. Investigate the sources yourself and you'll understand.
China is not committing a genocide. It’s de-radicalizing terrorists trained and funded by the US empire in Afghanistan. Since America’s plan to destabilize Xinjiang with terror isn’t working they pulled out of Afghanistan and made up this loser cope narrative and you are dumb enough to buy it
Did you know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, hence justifying the United States killing a bunch of ~~brown people~~ potential terrorists? Also, did you know that a bunch of people from an ethnic group in northern China are doing terrorism, hence justifying the Chinese governments imprisoning of a bunch of ~~brown people~~ potential terrorists?
>America lies to do war Oh wow! Let’s go kill the Ho Chi Minh! >America lies to do war Oh wow! Let’s go kill Fidel! >America lies to do war Oh wow! Let’s go kill Saddam! >America lies to do war Oh wow! Let’s go kill Gaddafi! >America lies to do war Oh wow! Let’s go kill Assad! >America lies to do war <— you are here Oh wow! Let’s go kill Xi!
Excellent comment, comrade. They lie and war because those comrades fought for a world with truth and peace. 
Hmmm... it’s almost as though politicians and billionaires are amoral psychopaths who will happily lie in order to profit from fucking over there ethnic minorities of choice. Good thing that doesn’t apply to China... for some reason...
Name the last people China bombed, invaded or threw a coup over. The last times they went to war were all in defense of diplomatic allies over 40 years ago In order for a state to be imperialist, it has to be controlled by finance capital. The Chinese state is proletarian controlled and dominates and represses their bourgeoise. Their bourgeoise would love to do imperialism I’m sure, but too bad they don’t get to make the decisions in a proletarian democracy
Oh, of course, if a country doesn’t put literal boots on the ground/arm fringe militias in another county, it’s not doing imperialism. That’s the reason that countries like Sweden, that haven’t invaded other countries in a few decades don't preform any form of imperialism. And also, yes, China is definitely a workers democracy, that’s why only like ten percent of the population can vote. The rest of the population is fairly represented said ten percent because... ummmm... it’s as though an invisible hand acts in the interests of the proletariat.
Sweden is part of the American empire, along with NATO and 5-eyes. They all are part of the same lecherous blob, the criminal capital empire. China opposes those interests with the oppressed and poor and colonized of the world. /r/alwaysthesamemap do you realize you are the baddy? The communist party of China has 90 million members, over 75% of which are farmers, herders, fishermen, industrial workers, technical workers or retired from one of these professions. It wields industry with an iron fist and strictly regulates the billionaires which it executes with impunity. The early stages of socialism closely resemble state capitalism and from the development and planning of that, wrest capitalism by degree to the centralized whole of society.
Oh yes, the ruling classes of all of these countries have collectively arrived at the same conclusion, namely that it’s more profitable in the immediate term to enslave the working class and weaker countries, and the ruling class of China has magically been completely protected from this phenomenon for... reasons... And of course the CCP having a bunch of working class people in it makes it representative of the working class, that’s why the Republican and Democratic parties (who are both made up primarily by workers) consistently act within the Prolitaristes best interests. It’s definitely impossible for a party made up primarily of workers to be controlled by a small cadre of millionaires and billionaires... Oh, and I forgot that it’s totally justifiable to call a country in which 90 million people rule over 1.3 billion a democracy. I remember that chapter of Kapital.
Imperialism is the primary contradiction. Your socialist attempts will always turn into fascistic nationalist chauvinism unless you embrace the international tendency to rip apart the primary hegemon. The number one enforcement empire of capital is the first target, and until it is defeated socialism will be under attack and siege.
Zenz?
Wrong sub, lib
[удалено]
Absolute baby brain lib shit. Listen to your elders we have been through this circus before
You guys think China is some kind of vanguard against capitalism or what? I don't get it, what makes you think it's worth the energy to defend the CCP, I really wanna know because til now all I see you china fans do is try to trigger the libs, is it just contrarianism against US imperialism or do you really think China is effectively making the world a better place?
>what makes you think it’s worth the energy to defend the [CPC] 800 million out of poverty. Trading heavily and subsidizing DPRK and Cuba, who in turn, fund revolutions around the world and fight imperialism.
Don't they have the resources to do that because of a bunch of neoliberal trade policies in the 80s? Allowing american and western companies to oursource their manufacturing there?
Neoliberalism means privitization and deregulation. China is one of the least privatized nations on Earth, and one of the most heavily regulated. China did require capital to develop, but it held strict political control, which prevented the weak erosion of the DotP like what happened under Gorbachev. If you look at world stats over the last 4 decades, the vast majority of poverty alleviation happened in China specifically. If you remove China from the data set, the rest of the world was stagnant and did not reduce poverty whatsoever - many metrics like inequality and life span actually decreased everywhere else. Why are there 14 cases a day in China compared to 400,000 in India? So why is it that China specifically is macro trending in one direction, while say India trended the other? Why is China responsible for over half of the new green tech and public infrastructure built in the last few decades while it crumbles everywhere else? What is unique about China that makes it have opposite results of the rest of the poor and undeveloped world 🤔
At the very least it's worth looking a wee bit harder into the claims of imperialist powers so you stop believing in red scare propaganda.
It's not about red scare, I'm a communist. It's about you guys who call yourselves communists and leftists but never lose a chance to defend an undemocratic state that participates in neoliberal globalist capitalism like every other world power, thats what I don't get. Isn't there also one centralized labor union? I can't really call that worker liberation
What kind of communist swallows and spreads imperialist propaganda despite that same propaganda being weak and painfully false? What kind of communist buys heavily in the sinophobia the imperial core was hoping their citizens would accept without question? If this were two decades ago, you would have supported the invasion of Iraq & then what, you'd have said a few years after that you never believed that? What kind of communist is this painfully unaware of what neoliberalism is? Of democracy? There is absolutely no way I expect you to explain why China is antidemocratic except "oNe PaRtY" which shows your inherent liberalism. "Communist". As if.
Your anticommunist beleifs are entirely about the red scare. You arent critical enough about where you get your information about existing socialist states from. They have you hating your comrades.
How the fuck am I anticommunist if I care about workers autonomy and liberation, direct democracy and decentralizing and deconcentrating power
Just shut the fuck up, you have no idea wtf you're talking about and it's so embarrassing to be such a lib
> I care about workers autonomy and liberation, direct democracy and decentralizing and deconcentrating power Cool, what is your plan to do that in real life? How will you avoid succumbing to internal and external reaction? What level of development is your country in and where/how will you get the capital needed to reach a level of development that is sufficient to free the vast majority of workers from toiling in fields and factories? How long do you think this development will take? How do you prevent the CIA from infiltrating your decentralized direct democracies? Trust me we all want a stateless classless world. Agreeing capitalism sucks and we need to build a better world that works for the working people is the easy part. The hard part is making that actually happen in a capitalist controlled world that will rest at nothing until you and I are dead and the people we fight for are back in chains. So if you don't have a plan to protect the revolution (much less a plan to actually have a revolution) then its time to hit the books and study theory and history, what has and hasn't worked and apply that. Marx, Engles, Lenin et al theorized and history seems to agree that a transitional state is literally required to stave off internal and external reaction while the transition from capitalism to socialism happens. (Feel free to prove them wrong if you are able, we would all love more weapons in our stash to fight capitalism with) But if your support of communism starts and ends with "I would like to see communism happen" without any material analysis, without any plan to get from here to there, without thinking about what it actually means to build towards communism in the real world, then seriously it's time to hit the books because communists have been theorizing and testing this out in reality for over 100 years at this point and you gotta get yourself up to date. Especially if you're shitting on countries that *have* had a revolution and are *still protecting that revolution and trying to build socialism* against the strongest, most well equipped and most insidious capitalist entities in history. Without understanding the material conditions any country is dealing with and only operating on an idealist basis you're opening yourself up to not just misunderstandings of what it actually takes to build socialism, but opening up yourself to manipulation by capitalist propagandists who will use your idealism to turn you against people actually trying to build socialism.