"China is the future, do you agree?"

[olgaabi@lemmy.ml]

just look at rome, or any other empire for that matter, didn't last for ever, I was talking about the history of humanity, not a few lifetimes

[themurphy@lemmy.ml]

I was confusing the actual war with a later protest against China because of Tibet, happening maybe 10 years ago.

My mistake.

[braininabox@lemmy.ml]

Rome wasn't a state, and it lasted for many centuries. Don't try to pretend by "doesn't work for long" you were talking about geological time or something

[davel@lemmy.ml]

Anarchists Not Siding With the Bourgeoisie Challenge (Impossible)

[shimmeringkoi@hexbear.net]

So you're a capitalist who doesn't understand what states are for

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

It started as a picture with Obama as Tigger and Xi as Pooh, together, then Shinzo Abe as Eeyore and Xi as Pooh again. Then, westerners loved the Pooh imagery and used it a ton, still do. It was always based on appearance from the origin, not becayse Pooh is an idiot or anything, that's just not true. Moreover, now you can see non-Chinese people making caricatures of Xi that are without a doubt racist using the Pooh thing as justification.

I don't know why you're getting so mad either.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

They did end up saying AnCapism or Minarchism would be better than current regulated Capitalism. I mean, if that happened to the US Imperialism would be kneecapped, so I suppose that would technically be better for most people.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

The reason you don't see it more is because "authoritarian" isn't a hard line you can cross, but a general descriptor, and as a consequence many will disagree about the legitimacy of that vague descriptor or believe other countries like the US fit that descriptor better. What do you personally think counts as sufficient to label one country authoritarian, and another not? Can you give an example of each, or is every country authoritarian? Does it matter if some are more or less authoritarian? All of these questions have different answers from person to person, because they apply to a general descriptor and not a hard metric, like "does the PRC have growing wages for the working class?" Or "do Chinese people enioy their system?" Food for thought.

[dessalines@lemmy.ml]

Post the video coward.

[beambrain@hexbear.net]

Then there's the whole silencing of Hong Kong, and I don't now enough to say what happened there, so I won't. Just know something did.

I. NO INVESTIGATION, NO RIGHT TO SPEAK

Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?

It won't do!

It won't do!

You must investigate!

You must not talk nonsense!

[babs@hexbear.net]

Please elaborate.

[alphapuggle@programming.dev]

You can register with any number, it just defaults to +86