>>230565>>>230502 (You)>see >>230467Yes, I saw that, but that isn't necessarily how most people would react. The video was also clearly edited, so it is possible that there were other bystanders who didn't react so favorably. We also have no idea how serious the people shown in the background were, as they could just as easily just thought it would be fun to play along as opposed to sincerely approving of their ideology. Ironic communists are quite common on the internet, so it wouldn't be that far-fetched for some to exist in real life too.
>If that comes with the baggage of hammer and sickles so what?Hammer-and-sickle isn't
that bad, but I do think carrying around portraits of people like Stalin and Mao is harder to justify what they did and how they are remembered. At least with a hammer-and-sickle you can say "well, they had good intentions, but we want to do things differently from how the Soviets and Chinese did things", but when you carry around pictures of people like Stalin and Mao the implication is that they are roles models you seek to emulate.
>I don't know what you mean by this.What I mean is that people talk about "woke" movements like Black Lives Matter, feminism, LGBT activism, and immigrant activism more than socialism.
>First off socialism is more widespread than back when they were calling obama and the ACA socialism.That is true.
>Secondly "wokeness" isn't a thing.By "wokeness" I referring to what leftypol calls "identity politics" or "idpol".
>In less you think the Wall Street Journal is being genuine in calling the PRC woke.I don't think that that one headline from one publication can be used as an accurate representation of how the word "woke" is typically used.