I got this source from here

Yes, Hazel. They did a GDR Yankee Doodle.

if there is a character who comes from the lower class they are usually portrayed as a villain

There, the aristocratic anti-commoner etymology of the term betrays itself. Villein, the original french word, went like this:

a feudal tenant entirely subject to a lord or manor to whom he paid dues and services in return for land.

It reminds me actually

From Lord of the Rings to The Dark Knight Rises we hear the same story again and again and again: swarthy hordes are surreptitiously manipulated behind-the-scenes by crooked wizards and deceptive illusionists — often hiding in plain sight, in our midst! — and lay siege to everything that is balanced and well-rounded and pure and good and holy and white and which by rights should be eternal. The manipulators do so for no discernible reason other than greed and ressentiment.

You read enough books in which people like you are disposable, or are dirt, or are silent, absent, or worthless, and it makes an impact on you. Because art makes the world, because it matters, because it makes us. Or breaks us.

You mean he said as a prediction “{by the way things are going, people will think} to be America’s enemy is dangerous but to be America’s ally is fatal”

And just like that, the U.S seems to open another door and close that of Ukraine.

Yes, what an inconvenience, thankfully we have archive.is

https://archive.is/K0BZL

I was kinda copy and pasting suggested titles, but ok, I will put it.

prolly of these 3 things, on their own, more realistic than the concept of Europe fighting to the last man

Agreed this should be on the Chapo embassy

Capitalists don’t fear individual rebels. They shower us with such bohemian stories. They fear exactly the opposite: the proliferation of an authentic working-class consciousness that pointedly rejects their “idle rich” lifestyle as everyone’s ultimate ideal. The hatred of “herd mentality” ultimately derives from the aristocratic hatred of the collective wisdom of the underclasses, of their choosing to work together in order to defend themselves from predators that would otherwise pick them off one by one.

Good for the latter 3.

Is it pu’er tea?

While this specific policy is not covered in his book, the vast majority of western media talking points about the “Great Terror” are analyzed by Domenico Losurdo on his book “Stalin: critique of a black legend”. The state of emergency imposed by Stalin saved the people from eastern europe of a catastrophe of gigantic proportions, a genocide of all the eastern europe peoples, as that was Hitler explicit goal stated in Mein Kampf and his writings.

Oh I suppose I might be dull in that sense (I forgot that this was in the middle of the calm before WW2, so I suppose such policies might run the risk of foreign enemy influence)

That being said, did the Stalin and his other sucessors make any measure, at least decades after WW2, to continue it, just to be sure that this was temporary measure though?

Because I keep on hearing something about Russian cultural hegemony post-WW2?

Edit: wait, huh, they did something after WW2, in regards to Soviet cuisine (nice)

The reason why I asked is because cfgaussian cited him

Due to this the Soviet Union has been labeled by liberal academics who seriously studied the Soviet policy toward nationalities an “Affirmative Action Empire”. This means that they effectively practiced reverse imperialism, they were an anti-empire. Where empires siphon off wealth from the periphery to enrich the core, the SU did the opposite, sometimes to such a degree that it created resentment among the Russian majority. This is a point frequently brought up by modern day anti-communist Russians to criticize the Bolsheviks and their policies.

I know you won’t read them but…

Did I ever tell you about a Jacobin article about how “Kautsky was right”? (Lenin still got a revolution, unlike him) or that one about COVID herd immunity?

Rudd asserts that there are three integrated components to what he labels Xi’s “Marxist nationalism.” The first moves Chinese politics to “the Leninist left.” By this, Rudd means that Xi’s reforms have increased the leader’s power over the CPC, and restored both internal party discipline and its control over the state apparatus.

Mhm, it’s almost like they’re Marxist Leninist

The second component, according to Rudd, has pulled Chinese economics to “the Marxist left,” which he defines as reasserting the dominance of state planning over market forces, specifically by wielding the power of humongous state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

Mhm, it’s almost like they’re actually socialist

The third component of Xi’s “Marxist nationalism” has shifted Chinese foreign policy to “the nationalist right.”

There’s a difference between the nationalism of chauvinism and self-sovereignty, and frankly, China’s nationalism isn’t about other-ing others.

In Rudd’s analysis, this has meant top-down campaigns that emphasize the centrality of Chinese civilization and the decline of the West.

Yes.

But what does all this mean for China and the world? Rudd makes some cautious economic predictions. He claims that talk of “peak China” has no real grounds, and rather reflects attempts by China-haters to imagine their desires into reality. A decade of slower Chinese growth, however, is definitely in the cards. This is in part due to issues such as demographic decline and falling productivity, as well as debt in key sectors, reduced global trade due to geopolitics, and a shortfall in private capital investment.

But Rudd suggests that China’s decade of slower growth is also likely due to the impacts of policies related to Xi’s “Marxist nationalism.” These include increased state planning, the use of SOEs as future vehicles of technology and innovation as well as increased suspicion of the private sector, and a push toward mercantilism.

Demographic decline? Isn’t that common with many other modern post-industrialized nations

Falling productivity and global trade? NO, that’s untrue

As for FDI, maybe that’s a problem (though China is a hegemony of its own, so it could be self-reliant on that matter)

And on the 2nd part, I’d prefer it as such.

After all, a growth of 5% from a $1 trillion GDP is better than a growth of 20% from $1 billion GDP

Compare this to Hung Ho-fung’s take, outlined in his book Clash of Empires (2022). Hung argues that if the CPC were able to sufficiently mitigate the overaccumulation-profitability crisis by boosting household incomes and consumption, it would lessen the need for China to export capital. In turn, this would reduce the need to fight the United States for spheres of influence. Hung contends that, though difficult, if a change like this were to take place on a large enough scale, it could help prevent an inter-capitalist rivalry from becoming open war.

On a side note, this seems good idea but then, here, China is implied as being capitalist and imperialist? (Bullshit again)

Mixed article, I tell ye hwat

Dullard, you’re doing a great job, demonstrating the need to consider foreign policy and political economy as the main factor, beyond mere culture wars and all that.

I don’t need to hear more US-funded, Britain-backed, or Pro-Maidan voices. You can go to your BBC, CBCs, NBC if you want.

Idk, from what I’ve read over at Socialism Betrayed, there’s this attributed quote from CIA internal files

“I believe that if [Soviet leader, Yuri] Andropov had been fifteen years younger when he took power in 1982, we would still have a Soviet Union with us.”