Your posts trend more on the “Communism is good, Capitalism is bad” side than showing straightforward facts like this post, plus the absolutely uncontestable fact is front and center.

Not saying your posts aren’t accurate, they are, but agitprop varies in effectiveness.

The best agitprop focuses on simple, uncontestable facts.

Politics are a huge part of Lemmy in general, and Lemmy.world is overwhelmingly bad with that respect.

Yes, but you don’t see new comments, plus this would be for posts and comments. If you just hide a comment, you don’t see new replies. Marking as read is useful.

You’re entirely ignoring davel’s point. The reason the US bombs is because of what davel calls “Imperialism,” and linked to examples of it. What you call “human nature Imperialism” and what davel calls “Imperialism as a stage in Capitalism” are fundamentally different concepts, you’re talking past davel, and davel is 100% correct here.

The reason the US bombs countries is not because humans are mean. The US bombs to protect its interests. This you both agree on. However, davel has successfully identified why the US’ interests depend on bombing others, and China’s interests do not.

To simplifiy davel’s point, Capitalism centralizes and spreads, until it spreads along international lines. This results in the country with more Capital leveraging this to gain favorable trade deals, so it can super-exploit foreign countries for super-profits. The bombing the US does is to keep their power projected and punish those turning against it.

China does not have a Capitalist system, it has a Socialist Market Economy. China manufactures the vast majority of its own goods, rather than manufacturing overseas, so its interactions with the Global South have a fundamentally different character. China wants to uplift the Global South so that the Global South buys from China and makes them even more money.

Both countries are acting in their own interests, but because of the structures in place, this results in the US bombing and plundering, and China building up infrastructure and hospitals. Even when China wants resources housed in the Global South, this difference in internal structure makes trade more mutually beneficial, rather than plunderous.

You can see quite a few instances in this thread of such accusations. Actually, maybe not, you aren’t federated with the major leftist instances as far as I know.

Communists support the PRC as a Socialist state run by Marxist-Leninists, yes. No Communist supports the Russian Federation outright, however, only reserved, temporary, and highly critical support for Russia’s anti-US Hegemony stance, which it only adopts for its own survival and not out of any moral superiority. No Communist “shills” for the Russian Federation.

The word “tankie” originated as the OP describes, referring to members of the Communist Party of Great Britain that supported the USSR putting down the color revolutions in Hungary and Prague Spring. Nowadays, it is used as a catch-all pejorative for anyone to the left of the DNC.

The Dems won many elections and still moved right. And yes, the Dems would get more right wing if they could get away with it.

No, the “lesser evil” won many times and still went far right.

What Marx calls the “State” and what Anarchists call the “State” are different concepts, ergo what Marx calls “Stateless” would still have hierarchy, and what Anarchists call “Stateless” would still have implementations of class oppression. Marxists and Anarchists do not want the “same thing.”

If we take your statement that your only major aggreement with Marx is a “Stateless” society, but you’re working off the Anarchist definition of the State, then you are necessarily anti-Marxist. I’d rather you say that openly than try to twist Marxism despite being an Anarchist, so I hope it’s just a misunderstanding on your part.

Gotcha, you’re just anti-Marxist then. Can’t say I agree with that, but that’s less nonsensical than saying Marx isn’t left.

Marx and Engels were called “authoritarian” so frequently by their contemporaries that Engels wrote On Authority. What’s considered “authoritarian” is a moving target, an arbitrary line in the sand just for people who succeed in revolution, or at least in throwing off western Imperialist powers.

If your argument is that Marxism isn’t Leftist then that’s hilarious