This user is banned from Hexbear for claiming it’s run by “transzionists.” They uphold Bad Empanada so much because more often than not, it’s more important to be a contrarion for them than actually make a correct point.

This is the same logic used by liberals to claim voting for PSL is a vote for Trump, and again, you’re upholding Bad Empanada, a known contrarion and transphobe, instead of addressing the actual arguments at hand.

Here’s an example of Bad Empanada just shit-stirring:

You also claimed Hexbear are “transzionists,” uphold Bad Empanada, and take constant reactionary stances. You blocked me because I correctly called you out, and here is what I said:

The PRC is not helping the US and Israel disarm the resistance. China has affirmed that Palestinians must control Palestine in their own state, and served as a vital mediator for the 2024 Beijing Declaration, where Fatah and Hamas were brought closer together and the resistance as a whole in Palestine came together to collaborate more closely, alongside China. In the 2024 Beijing Declaration, which China was a core mediator for, it was declared that the resistance must not be disarmed.

China has consistently only ever veto’d at the security council if it is willing to intervene millitarily in order to protect the veto’d outcome. The PRC has veto’d sanctions on the DPRK, and has enforced that veto by increasing trade with the DPRK. The US Empire has never been stopped by a veto, such as when it was determined to stop shipping arms to Haiti, which the US subverted. China vetoing the UNSC declaration on Palestine would mean mobilizing its army to directly prevent the US’s plans for the region.

If we look at how resistance orgs are responding, they aren’t blaming China. Instead, they have similar analysis to China, that is that the plan itself is unworkable and that they cannot implement it in the first place. China also adhered its best to both the PLO, who endorsed TRUST, and Hamas, the PFLP, etc that oppose TRUST.

Personally, I would rather China take a more millitant anti-imperialist stance than their current passive stance. There’s good reason to believe this will be the case in the future, as younger generations in China are more millitant and more overwhelmingly pro-Palestine. However, I don’t confuse imperfect allies for enemies, which is the western-leftist mistake you’ve fallen for. You did the same with Hexbear, calling them “transzionist” and claiming they ban critique of contrapoints because she’s trans. The reality is that Hexbear is anti-zionist and pro-trans, and regularly clowns on contrapoints for her awful liberalism.

China is contributing to a multi-polar world. China’s position in the global stage facilitates south-south trade, which bypasses unequal exchange, where the global north maintains monopolies on high tech industries so as to consistently charge monopoly prices in exchange with the global south. China charges non-monopoly prices, and this is why exchange with China, alongside the rise of the Belt and Road Initiative, has resulted in dramatic development in African and Latin American countries. This is ultimately the single greatest contributor to the downfall of imperialism globally, and is why right now there is such a large cold war with China.

Your confusion of imperfect allies with enemies is why the western left has continued to fail to meaningfully challenge the status quo. Jones Manoel was correct in Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, But Not Real Revolution. Western leftists do the work of the US Empire by making the same mistakes you’ve been making with respect to China, thereby sabotaging allies and making the efforts of the ones actually arming, facilitating, and committing the genocide easier.

TL;DR join an org. Having a practical outlet to test theory to practice, and directly organize against arming and supporting Israel, is a much better use of your time. It will also help you form a more correct understanding of anti-imperialist struggle.

Figured it’s important for others to know what it is you actually blocked me for.

What are “socialist policies?” Socialism is a mode of production and distribution, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes are in control of the state. The closest to a socialist “policy choice” would be like what PSL proposes in nationalizing the largest 100 businesses in the US, but I don’t get the impression that that’s what you mean.

Secondly, in what ways are the democratic systems in socialist countries deficient? Communists don’t deny the necessary use of state power to protect the gains of socialism from imperialists, capitalists, fascists, sabateurs, etc. I don’t see how this can be avoided in the modern context, and I believe the democratic systems of worker control described by Professor Roland Boer in Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance are more robust and complete than any capitalist country.

I suppose I’m not really sure what you’re actually getting at, materially. I understand what you’re talking about from an emotional perspective, but I fail to see what you practically think socialist countries should be doing instead to make them “non-authoritarian” in your views. Authority itself is intrinsic to state power, and we can’t avoid using the state until communism is achieved to begin with.

What do you mean?

The PRC abstained, they did not vote for it, and I explained why they did so. You responded with a bunch of unrelated Bad Empanada tweets, started calling China “imperialist,” and took an extremely non-materialist viewpoint, insulting other users, and upholding Bad Empanada’s shit takes. I can and do critique China, but not all critique is good by virtue of existing, which is what I called you out on.

They aren’t really having their culture erased. The old feudal slave system is wiped out, but things like their language and culture is preserved.

This is being pushed by US-funded “Human Rights Organizations,” while the CIA and Mossad are active within the anti-government protests. We need to be especially critical of news like this.

For those under the impression that the PLA invaded and now China is oppressing Tibet, you need to read the following. Tibet was a feudal slave society backed by the CIA. The PLA liberated Tibet.

Two excerpts from Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth:

Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries rested in the hands of small numbers of high-ranking lamas. Most ordinary monks lived modestly and had no direct access to great wealth. The Dalai Lama himself “lived richly in the 1000-room, 14-story Potala Palace.” [12]

Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, a member of the Dalai Lama’s lay Cabinet, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. [13] Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some Western admirers as “a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma.” [14] In fact it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served mainly as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order, protect their property, and hunt down runaway serfs.

Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeatedremoved, beginning at age nine. [15] The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers.

In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. [16] The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care. They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord’s land — or the monastery’s land — without pay, to repair the lord’s houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand. [17] Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners lease them out to work in a distant location. [18]

As in a free labor system and unlike slavery, the overlords had no responsibility for the serf’s maintenance and no direct interest in his or her survival as an expensive piece of property. The serfs had to support themselves. Yet as in a slave system, they were bound to their masters, guaranteeing a fixed and permanent workforce that could neither organize nor strike nor freely depart as might laborers in a market context. The overlords had the best of both worlds.

One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: “Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished”; they “were just slaves without rights.” [19] Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a “liberation.” He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord’s men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed. [20]

The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being cast into slavery. [21]

The theocracy’s religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.

Selection two, shorter: (CW sexual violence and mutilation)

The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation — including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation — were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. [22]

Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: “When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion.” [23] Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then “left to God” in the freezing night to die. “The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking,” concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. [24]

In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master’s cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who wasremovedd and then had her nose sliced away. [25]

Earlier visitors to Tibet commented on the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the “intolerable tyranny of monks” and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama’s rule as “an engine of oppression.” At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W. F. T. O’Connor, observed that “the great landowners and the priests… exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal,” while the people are “oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft.” Tibetan rulers “invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition” among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, “The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. […] The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth.” [26] As much as we might wish otherwise, feudal theocratic Tibet was a far cry from the romanticized Shangri-La so enthusiastically nurtured by Buddhism’s western proselytes.

-Dr. Michael Parenti

That’s so broad, it’s hard to immediately think of any. The common 100 million number is refuted by the Black Book of Communism itself, though, considering some of the writers disavowwed it and Conquest includes literal Nazis killed during World War II as “victims of communism,” before you get into falsifications.

Thanks!

Thanks for the kind words, but no, I’ve got a long road ahead in my studies before I consider myself educated in the field of Marxism-Leninism. I’m just one person, I just like to yap!

♥️

Cowbee is just a stupid commie

Yep, lol. 🤷

Clicking your modlog and grabbing the first 2 examples I saw that were relevant took ~20 seconds. I’m sorry but I genuinely don’t care about your provocations.

I can remember things, it doesn’t mean I let them impact me.

This is just someone who thinks communists are Nazis and generally has a history of trying to insult me personally. You can ignore, nothing they say actually means anything.

Al-Aqsa Flood was a response to ongoing genocide and settler-colonialism by the Zionists, the genocide stretches far before then.

♥️

You too, wish I could have your attitude when the fash get mad at you