>>2296093Yeah, because that's what it's called. I don't personally call it the CCP because it's improper, in the same way I don't use "literally" as a filler word. But I'm not going to sperg out at anyone who does call it the CCP, because I know what they mean and language is about communication, not autistic adherence to correctness.
>>2296129Why? How is anyone hurting the CPC by calling it the CCP? Tell me, because apparently I glow for not knowing this supposedly obvious fact.
>>2293764For what it's worth, while I like a lot of individual things Nietzsche has said, I think that Nietzscheanism as a whole is abhorrent. I stand for democracy, the minimization of power hierarchies, rule of law, and the relegation of violence to a tool to enforce social order. Nietzsche, obviously, wanted the exact opposite of that.
I still contend that he's important to read though, if only for historical reasons. His are the missing link between romanticism and modern intellectual cancers like fascism, postmodernism, and right "libertarianism", so understanding Nietzche is key to fully understanding them.
>>2296671Yes, absolutely.
As an aside, people gas up the Soviet Union way too much in general. Like, I'm not trying to diminish their accomplishments, they were great and many, but they were also the first large-scale attempt at socialism, and as such made a bunch of mistakes. Countries like China and Korea looked at these mistakes and then improved upon what the Soviets were doing immensely. We should be looking to them for guidance, not a nation that died before most of the people here were born.
>>2296671Now I see why Hoxha broke up with China. I'm on Mao's side against Khruschev and Brezhnev, but to so blatantly betray Stalin's memory is something else. And by using such quotes, Brezhnev could quite easily portray China as revisionists themselves, lol
Like, USSR removed troops from Chinese border back when China managed to win their Civil War. There was a prolonged period of there being basically no border between two nations. Where the fuck did "hurrdurr Stalin was colonizing Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia" bullshit even came from?
>>2297671Yeah, Mao's latter years is awful.
Only the global south can achieve socialism?
USSR proved that wrong.
The USSR does "social imperialism"?
He refused to present a structured economic argument that reflects how socialism and imperialism can be confined into one single definition, without specific examples of exploitation by USSR state companies: unions massacred, governments overthrown to exploit their workers, capital expansion of the USSR.
The USSR will cease to exist not without nuking everyone on earth?
well, if anything gorby and yeltsin did good was proving that Mao was wrong.
Though I have more respect for Mao than I would ever have for yeltsin and gorby combined.
>>2297825USSR was social imperialist - in later years. Collective capitalist of the state was acting more and more like capitalists, not the working class. Under social imperialism, Mao meant USSR searching for markets for Soviet goods - instead of producing cars for Soviet citizens, USSR was specifically aiming at foreign markets, and paying workers with shittier quality cars. Mao was correct in this. Even Soviets building stuff everywhere was a result of Soviet heavy industries searching for customers
>b-but China is the same!No. China doesn't, and didn't, have a disgusting situation like with Soviet cars, when even if Soviet citizens had money, they couldn't buy the cars they produced because those were meant for exports. It's literally fucking capitalism - workers MUSTN'T have the ability to buy their product for profitability to be positive. Chinese workers can, potentially
Unique IPs: 26