this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
803 points (89.8% liked)
Memes
47204 readers
775 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
history truly is a flat circle
higher resolution version
This image is almost 3 years old already lmao.
If any libs want to learn how tankies see the future you might want to read about the past for once. Pop history doesn't count.
That's the kicker, Leftists are correct far more often than liberals yet libs never put 2 and 2 together.
Repeat for 150 years.
Revolution has already come in many countries, and the US Empire is on its way out. Not sure what your point is, this is correct.
China is ready to take over as the lead capitalist empire.
China is neither Capitalist nor an Empire, so not sure what your point is.
How is China not capitalist? The government keeps it's capitalist leashed, but they are the driving force are they not?
I'm also not sure how you'd not see them as an empire? It's a big ole place with a lot of folk.
You pretty much said it. The CPC holds all the political power in China, they dictate how to organize society, unlike in the west where capitalists hold all the political power and thus dictate how to organize society.
The only thing you could argue are the results of the CPC leadership, and these are crystal clear after you visit China.
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#is-china-state-capitalist
The driving force in the PRC is the public sector. An example I like to use is the rubber ball factory vs the rubber factory, the one who controls the rubber factory has power over the rubber ball factory. In the PRC, heavy industry and large firms are almost entirely under state control, the private sector is more for smaller firms and secondary industries.
As for being an Empire, Imperialism isn't judged by size, but by relations with international countries.
That isn't really a point, could you explain what you meant, rather than sling pejoratives?
Only if you ignore all the obvious facts that make them wrong. For example two of the "allies" pictured here were never allies.
Seems to me it's more saying that NATO's stated goal for Libya was to "liberate" it, when in reality it was a disaster.
Either way, I'm more interested in continuing the conversations I tried to have with you regarding Marx's Law of Value and your understanding of how the PRC functions.
Ok but Qaddafi wasn't an ally of the USA.
Im not engaging in discussions that have zero to do with this thread in this thread.
You don't have to respond in this thread, I just want you to give an example on the other thread that you say disproves Marx's Law of Value, and ideally also elaborate on why you think workers in the PRC had it better 2-3 decades ago compared to today.
and its already outdated, we need to add jolani in there
People are seriously acting like Bin Laden was bait and switched by the US. I somehow remember it differently...
...he was, though? We funded the Mujahideen to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then when the USSR collapsed we cut him loose to get all chummy with the Saudi government so we could get that cheap oil.
How was Libya, a member of the non-aligned movement, a US ally? They literally were part of a group that took neither side in the Cold War.
OBL was never an ally. The US gave money to the Pakistani ISI who gave money to fixers who gave money to OBL. There was no direct channel. He was never an ally and it is a weird assertion to make given the history.
The other two were US allies. Noriega was even friendly with Bush 41. This is just bad history.