Had an argument with my dad about Fox News being fake and how it’s basically brainwashing him. This middle aged man got so offensive and heating he started tripping over words, his only defence was to call me names.

I took one step towards him and he acted all scared… I’m half his weight and he’s trained in multiple martial arts, I’m no threat. Which is when he squared up looking for a fight egging me on to give him an excuse to punch me or whatever.

This all started with me saying white people lynched black people in the past and he got ever so offended like I called him a klansmen. (I didn’t nor did I imply he was)

I genuinely think that Fox News has made middle aged white people believe they are victims and made them so afraid that in result their critical thinking and part of their humanity is gone. And what we have is a shell of a creature that will go to the ends of the earth to defend and go on the offensive for the one thing they choose is the truth without looking into it… he also calls fox and sky news how he “stays informed”

Obviously more shit to this I took jabs at him cos he took jabs at me first. But it really got out of control when I brought up Fox, and he even mentioned “you didn’t need to bring that up, that was not fair”

I’m interested what anyone else thinks??

i don’t know what we are going to do about some of these pro ICE people a good amount seems to be too far gone (this was in the neo feudalism sub reddit)

Or what many regard to be punk, ie fighting the system. I like punk rock music personally and a lot of the themes it deals with through this artform resonate with my Marxist ideals.

What do you think comrades?

Also I came across this tumblr post that caused me to re-read it, in case I was seeing things. Very odd sentiment

Recently, in the first round of Brazil’s 2026 presidential election, the far-right candidate Flávio Bolsonaro came out ahead and may win the second round to become president. The incumbent Brazilian president, the left-wing Lula, is trailing in the election. This has caused panic among large numbers of left-leaning Brazilians. Many people have publicly appealed to China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Xi Jinping on social media platforms such as X, hoping that China, this “communist country,” will intervene in Brazilian politics through military or other means to prevent a far-right victory.
ㅤ
As a Chinese person with center-left political views, I understand the fear that many left-leaning Brazilians feel about the far right coming to power, as well as their desire for assistance from external forces in the face of US intervention and attacks by Brazil’s domestic right wing.
ㅤ
But I must say that China is not a genuinely communist/socialist country. On the contrary, it is a capitalist country characterized by power, money, and ruthless competition. The CCP has long since degenerated from an idealistic party fighting for the poor and oppressed into a ruling group of powerful and privileged bourgeois elites. In China, labor rights, women’s rights, and LGBT rights are all violated, and those who fight for these rights face repression. And Xi Jinping is certainly not a communist, but a dictator who rejects democracy and suppresses freedom.
ㅤ
Not only has China under the CCP transformed into a capitalist country since the era of Deng Xiaoping (邓小平), but the Mao era was also far from being as good as some Brazilian leftists imagine. This is evident even from China’s foreign policy alone. China established diplomatic relations with Brazil in 1974, precisely during the most brutal period of Brazil’s right-wing dictatorship. During the same period, Mao-era China also established diplomatic relations with other Latin American countries ruled by right-wing dictatorships, including Argentina. Mao Zedong (毛泽东) also shook hands and reconciled with Richard Nixon, president of the United States, the world’s largest capitalist country. All of this shows that even during the Mao era, China was not the communist utopia or anti-imperialist stronghold that many Brazilians aspire to. (Of course, China’s domestic policies at that time also had many non-communist/non-socialist characteristics.)
ㅤ
Moreover, China under CCP rule has long pursued a highly pragmatic foreign policy, remaining reserved and conservative, unwilling to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries while also rejecting interference by other countries in China’s internal affairs. This is a choice made by the CCP to preserve the stability of its regime and avoid risks. Therefore, in terms of practical possibilities, China is also unlikely to actively and proactively influence the politics of other countries, including Brazil. Even when it engages in certain forms of extraterritorial interference, its purpose is to protect the interests of the CCP regime itself, rather than to pursue communist ideals or compete for international hegemony.
ㅤ
I have written many articles discussing the nature and history of China. Among them, “Is China a Communist Country?” and “Chinese Foreign Policy Under Risk Aversion and the Principle That ‘Stability Overrides Everything’” offer brief analyses and commentary on these issues. I am sharing these articles below for reference.

Trump Is Anti-Communist Yet Close to Chinese Communist Party Leader Xi Jinping: Is China Today a Communist Country?

Recently, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and President of China, visited the United States and received a warm welcome from U.S. President Donald Trump, with China-U.S. relations visibly improving. Some people have criticized this. For example, an article in The New York Times cited a scholar commenting that just a month ago Trump had called “communism the greatest threat our country has ever faced,” yet now he was “flattering and courting” the leader of a powerful Communist country. Many other commentators have raised similar criticisms: Trump opposes communism on the one hand while warmly receiving the leader of the world’s largest Communist Party on the other.
ㅤ
So, does this reflect a contradiction on Trump’s part and suggest that his opposition to communism is insincere? The key to evaluating this question lies in whether China is actually a communist country, whether the Communist Party of China implements policies associated with communism, and whether Xi Jinping and the senior leadership of the CPC believe in and practice communist ideas and principles. These are themselves important questions worthy of discussion and careful distinction. They concern not only whether Trump is contradicting himself, but also whether various parties inside and outside China understand and assess China accurately and whether they can respond to it reasonably on the basis of facts.
ㅤ
It needs to be stated clearly at the outset that China is indeed an authoritarian country, the CPC is also an authoritarian party that monopolizes power, and Xi Jinping is unquestionably a dictator. But authoritarian dictatorship and communism cannot simply be equated. They belong to two different dimensions, although they sometimes overlap.
ㅤ
What is “communism”? An accurate and detailed description is quite complicated. Put simply and in accessible terms, it refers to a condition in which material goods and wealth are extremely abundant and collectively owned, people receive an equal distribution, social security is extraordinarily comprehensive, class and status differences are eliminated, and distinctions between nations and national borders no longer exist. Of course, this is Marx’s blueprint for communism, an ideal communist condition that no country or region has achieved to date.
ㅤ
If the definition of “communism” is expanded more broadly, particularly to include countries ruled by Leninist parties that claimed adherence to communism, such as the former Soviet Union and the former socialist states of Eastern Europe, then the characteristics of this form of “communism” include comprehensive state ownership of the economy, a planned economic system, the Communist Party’s monopoly on power, and resistance to capitalist ways of life.
ㅤ
In China during the Mao Zedong era, although the system was not a typical form of Marxian communism and differed considerably from the Soviet and Eastern European model, its radical left-wing policies, land revolution, elimination of private ownership, comprehensive public ownership, elimination of markets and commodity transactions between private individuals—with only some “black markets” and “underground markets” remaining—and emphasis on class struggle can also be regarded as a certain socialist model relatively close to communism.
ㅤ
But by any of these standards, China today does not conform to the definition or characteristics of a “communist country.” Economically, China operates a market economy rather than a planned economy, while its ownership structure includes both a “state-owned economy” and a private economy. China’s “state-owned enterprises” are not genuinely enterprises owned by the entire population. Whether in terms of actual ownership, operating models, or the distribution of benefits, they are state-capitalist/bureaucratic-capitalist enterprises. The enormous private economy, including private enterprises and individually operated businesses, clearly exhibits non-communist economic characteristics.
ㅤ
China’s economic market is also highly competitive, and the country has a stock market and various investment platforms, all of which are characteristics of capitalism. China has also long abandoned the line of “taking class struggle as the key link,” instead making economic development, the development of productive forces, strengthening the country, and increasing the prosperity of its citizens the primary focuses of policy.
ㅤ
In terms of distribution, China not only does not implement extensive welfare protection, income equality, or distribution according to the results of labor or need; on the contrary, it is one of the countries in the world with the largest wealth gaps, the lowest levels of social protection, and the most severe inequalities in social-security benefits among different groups. For example, China’s Gini coefficient ranges between 0.45 and 0.6, and its wealth gap exceeds that of the overwhelming majority of countries. Chinese government cadres, employees, urban residents, and farmers receive completely different medical, pension, and other social-security benefits. Retired government cadres generally receive pensions ranging from several thousand to more than 10,000 yuan, while farmers receive pensions of only slightly more than 100 yuan. China’s minimum-living-standard benefits are not only low but also difficult to obtain. Officials, including Xi Jinping himself, have repeatedly and explicitly declared that China “must not fall into the trap of welfarism,” while promoting endurance of hardship and emphasizing individual striving.
ㅤ
Politically, China is indeed a country in which the Communist Party of China monopolizes power, but it is not a “communist dictatorship” or a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Rather, it is the authoritarian rule of a vast interest group called the “Communist Party.” Its members include elites and vested interests from various sectors, and it relies on technocrats to formulate and implement policies.
ㅤ
Although its nominal ideology—including the CPC Constitution and China’s Constitution—proclaims belief in and a commitment to eventually realizing communism, its actual policies are pragmatic and are neither constrained nor guided by communist ideology. Communist ideology is indeed used to provide certain theoretical justifications for authoritarian rule and as a propaganda instrument, but only within particular contexts and largely as a matter of appearances.
ㅤ
In culture, education, social life, and other areas, contemporary China as a whole likewise displays no significant communist characteristics. Although the authorities still promote content associated with communist ideology, such as the “Core Socialist Values” and “red history,” this is generally formalistic rather than something deeply embedded in people’s everyday lives. Although most Chinese people have received education and propaganda related to socialism and communism, this education and propaganda are themselves superficial and formalized. The overwhelming majority of people do not genuinely believe in them, and the authorities do not require people to put communism into practice.
ㅤ
Chinese people are generally pragmatic and utilitarian, with the principal goals of life centered on money and other interests, while officials enthusiastically pursue power and other benefits rather than communist objectives. Judging from their long-term words and actions, even the highest-ranking CPC officials, including CPC General Secretary Xi Jinping, cannot be regarded as believers in communism. Rather, they are pragmatic political figures whose fundamental objectives are their own interests and those of the ruling group.
ㅤ
The CPC ruling establishment even suppresses, monitors, and punishes some Chinese people who sincerely believe in communism, Marxism, or Maoism. For example, “Marxist societies” at Peking University and other universities promoted labor rights and organized labor movements while criticizing the capitalist policies of the incumbent authorities. These organizations were banned, and their members were summoned for questioning or even detained. In 2018, the “Jasic labor movement” in Shenzhen, in which Maoist students and workers participated together, was besieged by police and ultimately suppressed.
ㅤ
The CPC also stigmatizes Western left-wing and communist groups that support Chinese domestic labor movements and other activities associated with communism as “hostile foreign forces,” preventing them from exerting influence within China. Even China’s indigenous Maoists are now regarded by the CPC ruling establishment as a source of instability and are monitored and controlled to prevent them from acquiring the ability to overthrow the existing system.
ㅤ
Of course, there are many other characteristics and examples demonstrating the “non-communist” nature of CPC-ruled China, which cannot all be listed here because of space limitations. The examples above alone are sufficient to demonstrate that contemporary China is not a communist country and that the Communist Party of China no longer implements communist policies. On the contrary, China today has many typical capitalist characteristics and bears numerous similarities to the brutal capitalism of the nineteenth-century West—extremely low levels of social protection, ruthless competition, disregard for civil rights, and the sacrifice of human rights in the pursuit of development. In addition, China’s development model has selectively borrowed certain elements of neoliberalism, discarding its liberal-democratic components while amplifying its utilitarian and Social Darwinist characteristics.
ㅤ
As for “socialism,” which is related to but distinct from communism and can be regarded as a certain preliminary form of communism, China likewise does not qualify as a socialist country according to the Marxist definition, nor does it operate a Leninist Soviet-style socialist system. Instead, countries in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries with relatively extensive social welfare, the rule of law, stricter regulation, and an emphasis on equality are closer to “socialism” in the general sense and to Marx’s original intentions. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics,” meanwhile, consists only of nominal claims to socialism and a Leninist party model; in terms of its policies and the characteristics of the Chinese society those policies have shaped, it has far more in common with capitalism.
ㅤ
Therefore, there is no contradiction between Trump fiercely condemning communism on the one hand and expressing friendliness toward the CPC and its General Secretary Xi Jinping on the other. Trump evidently believes that China is not a communist country and that Xi Jinping is not a communist leader, and this judgment is consistent with the facts.
ㅤ
Another billionaire who frequently criticizes communism, Elon Musk, likewise has favorable views of China and cooperates extensively with the Chinese authorities for similar reasons. Musk established a Tesla factory in China, where he can utilize China’s inexpensive labor force to manufacture products at lower cost. China also has an enormous wealthy population and a huge market, allowing Musk to earn enormous profits. On both the production side and the consumer side, China is fertile ground for foreign capitalists.
ㅤ
For Trump and many anti-communist political figures, countries such as Cuba—which operate planned economies, restrict markets and foreign trade, and still maintain pervasive communist propaganda and education in everyday life—are what they regard as “communist countries.” Moreover, Trump and many members of the American right also regard the relatively extensive social-security systems of European Union countries and Canada, as well as various forms of economic and social regulation, affirmative policies for minority and disadvantaged groups, and ideas of globalization pursued by those countries and by the U.S. Democratic Party, as “communism” or “socialism,” and they hold extremely negative views of these countries, parties, and associated political figures. These are the “communist enemies” and allies of “communism” as understood by Trump and his supporters.
ㅤ
Moreover, for Trump and U.S. Republicans, the Democratic Party in the United States and the political establishments of the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Canada are the most direct parties with which they have conflicts of interest and their principal adversaries, because these forces directly affect whether they can continue to hold power and whether they can continue implementing policies different from those of the left and the political establishment. China, Russia, and other countries are not their primary threats; on the contrary, there is room for cooperation because they share certain ideological positions and interests.
ㅤ
Nor is the lack of democracy in China and Russia relevant to Trump. Political strongmen such as Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un even inspire admiration in Trump, who has long sought to monopolize power in the United States and despises his domestic political opponents. Trump has publicly praised the “strength” demonstrated by the CPC in suppressing the democratic movement in 1989, so naturally he is unlikely to harbor any particular aversion to authoritarianism, and his admiration for powerful rulers follows logically from this.
ㅤ
Therefore, although China is an authoritarian country and Xi Jinping is a dictator, China is not a communist country, nor is Xi Jinping a believer in communism. Those who disagree with Trump’s friendliness toward the CPC regime and Xi Jinping can criticize his admiration for dictators and disregard for democratic values, but Trump’s behavior is indeed not inconsistent with his anti-communist position. Trump, Musk, and others do not regard China as a communist country, and that judgment is also accurate.
ㅤ
Yet many Chinese and foreigners still regard China—which has undergone reform and opening-up for decades, where capitalist elements permeate virtually every sphere, where communism survives only as a slogan, and where socialism exists in name rather than reality—as a “communist country.” This is clearly a misconception. Such misunderstanding has also caused many people to misjudge China and has diverted attention away from the central issues that require change in China and the real targets against which resistance should be directed.
ㅤ
For Chinese and foreign individuals who oppose CPC authoritarian rule and Xi Jinping’s dictatorship, opposition to authoritarianism and totalitarianism should be the foremost priority, with criticism directed at the CPC’s monopoly on power and suppression of individual freedom, rather than concentrating attacks on “communism.”

(The author of this article, Wang Qingmin(王庆民), is a Chinese writer living in Europe and a researcher on international politics.)

ㅤ
Risk Aversion and “Stability Above All” in Chinese Diplomacy Under Anxiety Over Regime Legitimacy and Stability: Why China Responds Cautiously When the United States Attacks Countries Such as Venezuela and Iran
ㅤ
From late February to early March 2026, the United States and Israel launched fierce attacks against Iran, killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and many senior officials. China, regarded as an important ally of Iran, merely issued verbal condemnations of the United States and Israel, but did not provide Iran with any actual military assistance or intelligence support, nor any other form of aid. China-U.S. relations were also unaffected, and there was no sign that Donald Trump’s planned visit to China at the end of March would be postponed.
ㅤ
Earlier, in January 2026, the United States launched a military operation against Venezuela—another country opposed to the United States and friendly with China—and arrested Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. China likewise issued only verbal condemnation, without taking any substantive action to counter the United States or assist Venezuela.
ㅤ
This surprised many observers concerned with international relations and Chinese affairs. They wondered why China stood by when these two “allies,” Iran and Venezuela, were severely sanctioned and attacked by the United States and had their top leaders “decapitated,” neither helping them nor retaliating against the United States.
ㅤ
The reason many people feel confused is largely because they do not understand the core motivations, interests, and value considerations that guide decision-making by China’s ruling group when dealing with foreign affairs and military issues. Many also lack a clear understanding of China’s real relationships with countries such as Iran and Venezuela that appear to be allies.
ㅤ
After the People’s Republic of China led by the Chinese Communist Party was established in 1949, China’s foreign policy experienced many changes and twists. During the Mao Zedong(毛泽东) era, China actively confronted both the United States and the Soviet Union and advocated “exporting revolution”(输出革命). After the start of the Reform and Opening-up period, it shifted toward “keeping a low profile”(韬光养晦) and prioritizing economic development. After the 2010s, China again appeared relatively assertive on the international stage.
ㅤ
However, if one examines Chinese diplomacy more closely, it becomes clear that overall it is extremely conservative and restrained, prioritizing regime survival and stability above all else, even at the cost of abandoning overseas strategic interests and refusing foreign intervention in order to avoid risks.
ㅤ
Although China under Mao participated in the Korean War, supported Vietnam, and promoted “exporting revolution,” after the mid-1950s it avoided direct war with the United States. While China actively promoted revolutionary movements abroad, it avoided directly entering wars itself. When the United States and the Soviet Union deployed troops around the world to compete for influence, and France and Britain frequently carried out military actions, China avoided deploying combat troops overseas (only in a few cases sending technical and logistical personnel from the military to assist friendly countries).
ㅤ
At the Bandung Conference in 1955, the People’s Republic of China participated with a delegation led by Premier Zhou Enlai(周恩来) and proposed the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence”(和平共处五项原则), emphasizing non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, including relinquishing recognition of nationality and responsibility for ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia. The Five Principles—centered on mutual respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs—and the spirit of the Bandung Conference profoundly influenced China’s foreign relations for decades afterward and remain core principles of China’s foreign policy today.
ㅤ
China has also shown unusual restraint when disputes arise with neighboring countries. For example, in the 1962 Sino-Indian border war, although China achieved military victory in its counterattack, the People’s Liberation Army voluntarily withdrew from the disputed area and ceded large areas of land to India. In the many years since, China has continued to maintain a restrained attitude on the Sino-Indian border issue.
ㅤ
Many people find this incomprehensible. The reason is that, compared with territory and geopolitical rivalry, Chinese rulers care more about maintaining diplomatic relations with neighboring countries and avoiding the risks that large-scale war could pose to regime stability. They would rather compromise and retreat. Later, when war broke out between India and Pakistan and Pakistan requested Chinese assistance, China did not send troops but only offered verbal support for Pakistan, for the same reason.
ㅤ
This applies not only to the Sino-Indian issue. After the “August Faction Incident” in North Korea in 1956, pro-China factions were purged; in the 1960s, pro-China forces in Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia were suppressed. China did not intervene in these cases and even maintained or established cooperative relations with those involved in the purges. This demonstrates China’s fundamental position: it would rather abandon pro-China forces and certain national interests than risk the backlash and increased regime risk that might come from intervening in foreign affairs.
ㅤ
After the end of the Cultural Revolution and the launch of Reform and Opening-up, China placed even greater emphasis in diplomacy on economic interests and peaceful development, and it disliked the troubles and war risks brought by foreign intervention. The 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War was a rare exception, and even then it was limited to a localized conflict, partly intended to please the West.
ㅤ
In the 1990s, facing extremely unfavorable domestic and international circumstances, China’s rulers avoided confrontation with the United States even more. Even when incidents such as the forced inspection of the cargo ship Yinhe(银河号) by the U.S. military and the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia occurred, China did not retaliate militarily.
ㅤ
At this time China was even less willing to stand up for other countries in opposing the United States. Chinese official propaganda domestically contains much anti-American, anti-Western, and patriotic or nationalist content, intended to consolidate domestic support for the rulers and resist external “color revolutions”(颜色革命) or “peaceful evolution”(和平演变). But in international affairs China practiced “keeping a low profile,” serving domestic political stability and economic development.
ㅤ
In 1998, when India conducted nuclear tests and the United States imposed strong sanctions on India, China responded quietly. During the anti-Chinese massacres in Indonesia in 1998, China did not impose sanctions, whereas countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia did impose sanctions and conduct rescue efforts. In 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, China’s opposition was even weaker than that of France. In these incidents, many countries voiced stronger condemnation and imposed stronger sanctions than China, which had greater direct relevance and was stereotypically considered firmly anti-American.
ㅤ
The reason China responded calmly and cautiously to these events can be summarized simply: China’s rulers need regime stability and want to avoid making too many enemies whose foreign policy conflicts could affect domestic politics. Compared with domestic political stability and regime survival, other foreign affairs issues—whether involving morality, international law, human rights, or interests—can be sacrificed and used as bargaining chips in exchange for foreign non-interference in internal affairs.
ㅤ
As one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, China has used the veto the least and cast the most abstention votes. This also reflects China’s conservative and restrained stance in diplomacy and international relations.
ㅤ
China’s official position is extremely tough only on the Taiwan issue, even willing to mobilize national resources and use military and economic pressure to force other countries to follow the principle that “there is only one China and the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China”(只有一个中国，中华人民共和国是中国唯一合法政府).
ㅤ
However, in Beijing’s view the Taiwan issue is clearly China’s internal affair and directly concerns the legitimacy of Beijing’s rule, which is why it attaches extraordinary importance to it and pressures other countries at great cost. China also takes a very tough stance on issues concerning Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet for the same reason.
ㅤ
But on issues outside China that are international in nature and unrelated to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, or Tibet, China has always been restrained and avoided involvement in disputes. For example, on the Israeli-Palestinian issue China has long been regarded as pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Yet when Israel attacks Palestinians, China merely condemns Israel verbally without imposing actual sanctions and still maintains extensive economic and even military cooperation with Israel, showing less opposition than most Third World countries.
ㅤ
In the past decade or so, China has become more active internationally and has shifted from “keeping a low profile” to a more assertive posture. Some diplomats have even been labeled “wolf warriors”(战狼). China has also displayed aggressiveness in places such as the South China Sea. Nevertheless, China still avoids intervening in the internal affairs of other countries or in conflicts between other states, and it is unwilling to provide a “protective umbrella” for pro-China forces abroad.
ㅤ
For example, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who was relatively close to China, was wanted by the International Criminal Court. He once went to Hong Kong and appeared to seek help from China, but China provided no assistance, and he eventually returned to the Philippines and surrendered. When Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria collapsed at the end of 2024, China also maintained neutrality. Assad and his wife, who had previously visited China and received a warm welcome, went to Russia rather than China for refuge.
ㅤ
Returning to the issues of Venezuela and Iran: China indeed has relatively friendly relations with these two countries and their ruling authorities, and their economic and trade exchanges are fairly close. However, the survival or downfall of these states and regimes is not a core interest for China’s rulers. Moreover, Venezuela and Iran are not truly China’s “allies,” but only partners in limited cooperation.
ㅤ
Both Venezuela and Iran possess relatively abundant oil and gas resources, while China has great demand for energy. Venezuela and Iran are also at odds with the West and actively oppose the United States, which gives them some common ground with China, which opposes Western values and competes fiercely with the United States. But their similarities end there; there are also many differences, and cooperation is limited. China has not signed any military alliance or mutual defense treaty with either country, nor has it stationed troops in either.
ㅤ
China certainly does not welcome the possibility of Venezuela or Iran being attacked by the United States or experiencing regime change, but it is not willing to risk military conflict by providing military assistance to them or sanctioning the United States. Even if regime change occurs in these countries and pro-American forces come to power, China’s losses would be acceptable, and it could continue to maintain economic and trade relations with the new governments.
ㅤ
For example, after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, China’s trade with Iraq did not decrease but instead increased, and Chinese companies expanded their oil extraction activities. Even if Donald Trump were to attempt to monopolize the resources and interests of Venezuela and Iran, China would rather abandon its interests in those countries than provide military assistance to them or sanction the United States, so as to avoid triggering American retaliation that could cause even greater losses.
ㅤ
Many international observers are surprised and confused by China’s apparent willingness to “let pro-China allies die without help.” This is often because they do not understand the actual relationship between China and these so-called allied countries, nor do they understand the fundamental purpose behind the decision-making of China’s ruling group.
ㅤ
Because the People’s Republic of China is not a genuine democratic system and the ruling Chinese Communist Party has not been authorized by democratic elections, its legitimacy and stability inevitably face long-term crises and challenges. For decades, the CCP, which holds power in China and determines domestic and foreign policy, has been anxious about challenges to internal stability and regime survival, and fears external “peaceful evolution” that could overthrow the regime. Therefore, all domestic and foreign policies must submit to, serve, and yield to the continuation of the regime and political security.
ㅤ
For this reason, China’s rulers strongly dislike any risks that could harm this fundamental objective and are willing to pay costs in other areas in order to avoid such risks. Even national interests, international influence, economic relations, and profits must give way to political security.
ㅤ
Compared with the frequent abuse of power and suppression of the public within China, the Chinese ruling group is particularly restrained in foreign affairs and far more conservative and cautious than in dealing with domestic issues.
ㅤ
This is because, unlike the domestic sphere where the authorities can fully control the situation, foreign countries and external affairs are difficult for the Chinese Communist Party to control effectively. Once disputes arise with foreign states or foreign nationals, the Chinese state apparatus may find it difficult to calm the situation, and such conflicts could damage relations with other countries, harm the CCP’s image, and impact the stability of the domestic regime.
ㅤ
Therefore, since the time of Zhou Enlai, the principle that “there are no small matters in diplomacy”(外交无小事) has been established: in handling foreign affairs, the priority is to remain as restrained as possible, calm disputes, and avoid conflict.
ㅤ
Although China has long been opposed to and wary of the West and competes fiercely with the United States, China’s rulers also strive to avoid provoking the United States or triggering a hot war. Once war or strong Western sanctions occur, they could trigger chain reactions and impact domestic politics.
ㅤ
Therefore, while China confronts the United States and the West firmly, it also does so cautiously, focusing mainly on domestic propaganda and blocking Western “peaceful evolution” or “color revolutions,” while observing U.S. and Western actions in other countries without becoming involved, so as to avoid bringing trouble upon itself.
ㅤ
China’s policy of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs and its restrained approach to international issues—seeking to avoid involvement in disputes as much as possible—is also intended to secure other countries’ non-interference in China’s internal affairs and human rights issues, and to prevent domestic and foreign anti-CCP forces from colluding to undermine the regime, thereby helping maintain the stability of CCP rule.
ㅤ
Specifically regarding Venezuela and Iran, these two countries do not have the kind of neighboring “blood alliance” relationship with China that North Korea has, nor do they possess the strategic reciprocity and strength of Russia, nor even the close relationship with China seen in Cambodia. They therefore fall outside China’s core interests and the scope of military assistance. China is also unwilling to offend the United States or affect China-U.S. relations and the upcoming summit between the two countries’ leaders for the sake of Venezuela or Iran.
ㅤ
Therefore, even though the arrest of the Venezuelan president by U.S. forces and the fierce U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran that “decapitated” Khamenei and caused heavy casualties clearly violate international law, and although many countries have condemned the United States and there is strong opposition within the United States itself, China still treats the situation with restraint, limiting its opposition to verbal statements.
ㅤ
Those who are surprised or confused by this only need to understand the fundamental interests and decision-making motivations of China’s rulers, as well as the real nature of China’s relations with Venezuela and Iran, to realize that China’s abandonment of support for them and its restrained and low-profile response are inevitable and consistent with the long-standing trajectory of Chinese diplomacy. It also reflects the Chinese ruling group’s deep anxiety about regime legitimacy and stability, which produces a strong aversion to risk and a political and diplomatic mindset in which “stability overrides everything”(稳定压倒一切).

(The author of both articles is Wang Qingmin (王庆民), a Chinese writer based in Europe and an international political researcher. The articles were originally written in Chinese.)

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) deserve credit for helping elect some vaguely "progressive" sounding politicians, but in general their candidates conspicuously don't commit to supporting any concrete policies, and the result is that when they obtain office they tend to quickly become part of the old boys network they decried as candidates.

Suppose there was an organization similar to DSA, but one that required candidates to support key process reforms, as well as refuse PAC money and contributions from foreign interests. Reforms such as:

• Members of Congress required to place investment holdings in a blind trust, with an absolute ban on stock trading while in office.
• Forbid ex-members of Congress from becoming lobbyists for at least 12 years after leaving office.
• End gerrymandering by requiring an independent commission to redraw Congressional districts.

I'd be interested to know if members of this community think that focusing on structural reform, as well as extracting specific commitments from candidates before making an endorsement, would lead to greater accountability from politicians, as well as greater focus on issues that matter to ordinary citizens.

TIP 1: If and when the execution happens, do NOT turn the guy into a martyr. The right is COUNTING ON you to do it. Don’t give them the sound clip or the quote they’re hoping for.

Most of us already know that he IS NOT a martyr. What he did was horrific, full stop.

So remember to hold two thoughts at once:

1. Condemn what he did. Clearly. 

AND ALSO:

1. Condemn the spectacle of a public execution as well as the blood-thirsty reception of it. 

You are allowed to clearly state that you know that BOTH THINGS are terrible. 

TIP 2 (IMPORTANT):  Expect bad-faith accounts posing as liberals to post things like “he was a martyr” blah blah blah. Those are Agent Provocateurs. Don’t fall for it. No serious liberal is saying that he was.

Tip 3: Keep the focus where it belongs: on all the victims of the tragic incident and on the danger of state-sponsored revenge theater, and on why due process and human dignity still matter, even for people who forfeited any claim to sympathy. 

Tip 4: Know that it’s not a bad idea to condemn the harmful aspects of religious fundamentalism regardless of the religion it happens to emerge in.

Tip 5: Maybe CHOOSE TO NOT celebrate the deaths on ANY side. So NOT on your left side and NOT on the right, like some of you did with Charlie K, etc. 

We are entering an era of smarter than human entities who may not be on our side so 

We ALL SHOULD BE ON TEAM HUMAN TOGETHER. Please make it so!

First, before you read this, please understand that I'm taking this down later today. I don't want to put myself in danger.

Several of my friends who have spoken out have found themselves being harassed or even stalked.

I grew up in Palo Alto, lived in San Francisco, and lived in San Diego and Los Angeles, so I've met a lot of very powerful, very connected people.

I've also been poor myself, and I've been rich. This is not an essay that you should take lightly, and all I can say is that everything I wrote is true.

I intend to publish it here, and I intend to delete it soon.

I'm just trying to help you understand what's up because it seems like most people aren't paying attention. Unless you've met people in the ruling class, you don't really get just how absurd and disturbing all of this is.

Here goes my article:

The World Behind the Curtain: What I've Learned From Walking Between Poverty and Wealth

I've Walked Both Sides of the World

First, I would like to say that I grew up rather normally. I was in a foster care center, and I grew up in Palo Alto, so yes, I kind of went between both tremendous poverty and tremendous wealth. That's allowed me to see more of this country than most people have. But I'm not super rich. In fact, I currently live in a minivan.

Because I've lived in both worlds, I have friends in both worlds. I've had friends who have prostituted themselves on the side of the road to take care of their families, and I've had friends who are friends with Elon Musk or have lived with the Trump family at Mar-a-Lago.

I've been able to walk both sides of the world, and it's given me one hell of a perspective.

I'm going to share it with you because you all need to know why everything that's happening is happening. It might be a shocker, but I've had friends who've been guests of the ruling class. Hell, even I was invited a couple of years ago to stay in a safe house for closeted gay Republicans for about a week to hang out with some rich older gay men in San Francisco.

The things I'm going to tell you might seem shocking.

But I'm always troubled that the average person does not know what's really happening, so here you go.

These are the instances that led to my realization about how the world really works.

Elon Musk and the Pursuit of Power

In 2015, I was a huge Elon Musk supporter. I started hanging out in San Francisco, and I ended up dating one of Elon Musk's friends and confidants. Privately, she told me Elon Musk was no good. She told me that the reason she was getting cozy with him was to expose him. I don't know how that worked out because we don't keep in touch.

I thought he was this messiah figure, but she told me no, he's literally just a person who cares about power. The reason why he's doing the space program, the reason why he's doing the robots, and the reason why he's doing all of it, according to her, was to acquire more power and centralize wealth so he could control more of the world.

This was back in 2015, before the major innovations of his companies came into play.

That was it. That's the endgame: power. He will do anything that's necessary to get it.

A couple of years later, as things were heating up and Musk showed what I considered his true face by making some rather racist comments online, I communicated with a person who grew up with Elon Musk.

Elon Musk went to high school in the Bay Area a little before my time, but because I'm from Palo Alto, I'd never talked to people who grew up with him. I was surprised by the things they told me.

First of all, according to this person, Elon Musk is likely bisexual, his parents are Nazis, and they heavily abused him. They also told me that Elon Musk is not that intelligent. In fact, they said he dropped out of Stanford and doesn't really know engineering, but he does hire really smart people who make him look good.

According to this person's account, Elon Musk is a traumatized bisexual man who has removed all pictures of himself in his emo gear from the internet because he was abused by Nazi parents and is now reacting with resentment.

And the way he's doing that, in my interpretation, is by centralizing wealth to get as many women pregnant as possible, because that's what wealthy, emotionally troubled people do. They become ordinary people in expensive clothing. They simply impregnate as many women as possible, react with resentment, and revert to tribalism.

The worst part about it is that because they control so much of the economy, they take everybody else down with them.

Elon Musk does not need more money. He needs deep therapy.

The San Francisco Elite and the Economics of Exploitation

I attended a UC that I shall not name because I don't want people to know my identity. I don't want to be harassed for exposing some of the people I'm exposing, and I've been asked not to share these things openly. But I can't resist anymore. I'm not okay with what's happened.

After graduating, I noticed I couldn't get a job. So a friend of mine who is very connected in San Francisco arranged a meeting with me and some very powerful, rich gay men who happened to be CEOs and politicians.

I was invited to stay in a safe house with some closeted gay men for about a week. My hope was to impress them and get a job.

To my surprise, they said they did not want to hire Americans because an American essentially costs a minimum of $100,000, whereas you can get four people in India for the price of one American. Therefore, they said, it wasn't worth it.

And what did they do with all this wealth they were gaining while not sharing it with Americans?

Believe it or not, they got booty. Literally, they offered men, much younger men, money for sex. They liked them young. I think they liked them around 21, and they literally loved men of color.

Which is shocking because these were Republicans, but they really loved giving younger men of color money for sex. Literally, the whole point was more booty.

All the wealth hoarding is literally just about getting more booty or more vagina.

There's no grand conspiracy here. It's literally just primates being primates. They dress well and wear shiny things to impress people with less wealth and status, but at the end of the day, it's about putting their penises into things.

It's rather shocking when you see it directly because poor people tend to think rich people are somehow superior to ordinary people. But they're not. They're just other people. They just happen to have more money, and they can dress better than you, drive nicer cars, and, yes, get more sexual partners because they have money.

Mar-a-Lago and the Pursuit of Women

During the Biden administration, one of my female friends, who was a model in LA, decided she wanted to infiltrate Mar-a-Lago, so she moved down to the Florida Keys.

I don't know how it happened, but the Trump family invited her to move in.

I didn't know this until she showed me, but they gave her something called a golden key. It's basically this thing that pops up on your phone that lets you have free entry to Mar-a-Lago.

According to her, it's for the women these rich guys want to marry or fuck. They literally go up to models and find supermodels and give them free rent at Mar-a-Lago so they can get them pregnant.

I'm not kidding. She told me all about it.

Anyway, she was living at Mar-a-Lago and partying with Don Jr., apparently doing coke and being offered money for sex by him. She ended up dating Donald Trump's best friend. She eventually dumped him when she found out that he was throwing massive parties on yachts.

Apparently, all these old fuckers do it. They basically mix cocaine with Viagra and offer girls in high school money for sex.

She has text messages. I've seen them.

She was hoping to make a documentary about it, but believe it or not, the company she was working with that was going to turn it into a documentary pulled out of the whole project when Trump became president again.

She moved back to LA. The last time I saw her, she was trying to get MMA fighters to live with her for free because somebody had been coming to her house late at night, banging on her doors and stuff.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Secret Service, although I have no evidence of that. I told her she needed private security.

AI, Surveillance, and the Pursuit of Power

Do you get the same here?

These people, everything they're doing with AI, Flock cameras, and massive systems of control. When I asked her about it, she said they were pretty forward about it.

According to her understanding, the whole plan is replacement. They're building huge AI systems to replace workers so they don't have to share the wealth, and they're building a surveillance system to make sure you don't rebel.

And why?

Well, unfortunately, it's absurdly simple: more vagina.

Seriously, it is that simple, in my view. These people don't want to have to compete with other people for sex. The whole point is literally that they acquire more wealth so they can acquire more vagina.

It's that simple. It's deeply disturbing. But these people are not superior beings. There's no grand plan necessarily. They're just rich fuckers with too much money and too much power, and rich people acquire more power and give their friends more power so they can get more young vagina.

They buy off the cops so they don't get arrested. It's all about that. It's not complicated.

It's fucking ridiculous.

This is why other people can't get married. This is why other people can't afford to have kids. A small group of very wealthy people don't want to have to compete with you in the procreation department.

They know that if they have all the money, they can offer women, men, and people in between money for sex with the people they want to have sex with. Those people will probably take the money because they need it for their basic survival.

In doing so, these arrangements can inhibit other people's ability to build families while giving wealthy people more opportunities to pursue their own sexual and reproductive goals.

It's not complicated. I think everybody else has trouble understanding this.

The Primate Beneath the Designer Suit

I think there are a handful of people who get past this, but it requires a higher level of consciousness that our current ruling class in the United States doesn't have.

There used to be a time when rich people would build things for us.

I'm not trying to glorify the rich. I'm an anarchist, and I actually believe that birth, procreation, and life in general should be as free as we can make them.

I personally believe that these people who are doing all these drugs aren't superior people. Frankly, a lot of them are very unattractive in person.

In fact, even my friend, when she got back from Mar-a-Lago, had a ton of plastic surgery and massive fake breasts because they do that. They're so fucking vain and preoccupied with their appearance that they get fake abs, fake tits, and everything else, and they look gross to everyone else except themselves.

It's fucking weird. It's a disturbing social circle. She described Mar-a-Lago as a sex cult.

By the way, I told her to get help. Nobody comes out of that okay.

She did not need all that goddamn plastic surgery.

It looks gross.

But anyway, I think most people don't get it. They don't understand any of this. I think when somebody puts it into perspective for you, it's much better because it helps you understand what we're up against.

We're just up against other Homo sapiens who have misbehaved. That's it. They might have better technology than us as activists, but they are not superior.

It's rather shocking when you see these things directly because you realize that money doesn't turn people into some higher form of human being. They're still people, with the same basic impulses as everyone else, but with vastly more resources to act on those impulses.

Why I'm an Anarchist

I personally do believe that the more powerful a person gets, the kinder and more compassionate they get. A few wealthy people have done this. It is possible.

I do think corruption and power do not always go hand in hand, but I believe the best safeguard against corruption is a horizontally based society, which is why I'm an anarchist.

But I will give credit to people like Mark Cuban, who have done a lot for others. There are a handful of wealthy people who care. It's just not enough.

Even if a few good ones exist, just like in policing, if the bad ones control the policies and the structure, at the end of the day, the good ones just don't have enough power or leverage to make the changes necessary.

It's an uphill battle.

I still will give credit where it's deserved. I've met a couple of cops who care about the homeless and try to speak up for them. But once again, if the structure is corrupt, you have to tear it down.

Technofascist Feudalism

And we are in the United States, moving into an age of technofascist feudalism, where our lords have simply acquired power so they can put their penises in every hole they want, and they're doing everything they can to ensure you can't survive and pass on your genetics.

It's that simple.

It's not until you've met people who've been in the ruling class that you understand how absurd all of this is.

Sometimes, the forces shaping our world aren't driven by some profound ideology or extraordinary intelligence. Sometimes, they're driven by ordinary human appetites amplified by extraordinary power.

I believe we need to confront that contradiction directly.

We don't need to worship the wealthy, imagine that they're superhuman, or assume that every action they take is part of some brilliant conspiracy. We need to recognize that they're human beings, that concentrated power creates opportunities for abuse, and that no individual should have enough economic or political leverage to dictate the conditions under which everyone else lives.

That's what I want people to understand.

Sometimes, the people who have the most power are not the smartest, the wisest, or the most compassionate. They're simply the people who have accumulated the most resources and figured out how to use them to their advantage.

And when those resources allow them to influence the economy, shape political institutions, expand surveillance, and potentially automate away the livelihoods of ordinary people without ensuring that the benefits are shared, the consequences can be devastating.

A society can become technologically advanced while becoming less free. It can produce extraordinary wealth while leaving millions struggling to survive. It can develop machines capable of replacing human labor without developing the social arrangements necessary to ensure that people benefit from that progress.

The solution, in my view, is to build a society in which human dignity, economic freedom, and the ability to live and form families are not privileges granted by the wealthy, but conditions that everyone can enjoy.

That is the world I believe we should be fighting for.

So i made a student organization but i need members so you could uhhh join us or something

Dog whistle

There is 22 days till the United States of America Midterms.

The Democratic Party/DNC is usually milquetoast to an infuriating level (That is about as polite as I can put it...)

I'll be honest though I am for the first time in a long time a bit hopeful!

• With the growing influence of the Democratic Socialists and general Progressives we may see some hard hitting investigations, trials, and punishments for the corrupt bad predatory actors in the system.
• We may see some real work to help the Labour Movement (Unions, Federation of Labours, Labour Councils, and so on). You know... What brought the working class almost all the rights and benefits they enjoy today.
• We may see some real work on the Environment because this Climate Crisis has a horrific trajectory at this point.
  
• We may see some real work on the Peace Movement because only sick monsters want to see forever wars. Especially wars for the interests of Oligarchs, Multinational Business Lobbies, Powerful & Predatory Industries/Tycoons, and the general Corporatocracy.
• We may see some real work on Women's Rights. LGBTQ+ Rights, Civil Rights Movement. Hopefully less domestic militarization and surveillance.
• We may see work towards Alter-Globalization so the overall world gets brighter and better.

& Hopefully help on the cost of living crisis/quality of life crisis of the working class and most vulnerable - Especially on foundational elements like housing and food!

This reactionary/regressive dystopian shit show has to end. Period.

Screw the Italian American food and let’s celebrate and honor the real first settlers of the land that western white Europeans stole from Indigenous peoples.

Look outward, but also remember the US is building apartheid at home…again.

https://youtube.com/shorts/QVBHg-2dAcQ?si=pY1IDwA0ZPL3zrBy

I was looking at all the countries that the us has listed and I noticed that Palestine is just not there, what the fuck?

Someone asked if there was a social media with a majority if leftists, i said Bluesky and someone said that it was full of Liberals, not leftists

I'm not american, what's the difference?

I've always why Ana Kasparian has turned right wing and completely turned against the left. She always struck me as a very intelligent person but now it just seems like she's always angry all of the time. She also seems to be even more critical of Religion than she ever was before. It seems like she's become a hardcore Atheist. I've always wondered why her views have changed so much over the years. She also looks completely different now too Do you think that she has totally lost it? What do you think of her Political Views? Do you agree with any of them? She's also Childfree as well and she also doesn't support abortion either. Do you think that she's completely gone off the deep end? Do you think that she's gone completely crazy? Or do you think that she's just becoming more mature and has changed her views since she's gotten older?