If you don't want the U.S. to bomb innocents in the Middle East are you even gay?

• Confidential cable from U.S. gov. embassy in Beijing showing US knew there was no firing in the square

• Hou Dejian, one of the leaders of the Tiananmen protests, saying he was in the square all night and saw no one killed

• Clearance of the Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989

• CBS News correspondent: There Was No "Tiananmen Square Massacre"**

** "Constitutively and pathologically unable to simply own up to a past journalistic crime, the propaganda apparatus merely substitutes a new lie for the old one. The official death toll according to the Chinese government is, in fact, a matter of public record: Beijing Municipality has checked and double-checked all the figures from the Martial Law Command, the Public Security Ministry, the Chinese Red Cross, all institutions of higher education, and all major hospitals. These show that 241 people died. They included 23 officers and soldiers from the martial law troops and 218 civilians. The 23 military deaths included 10 from the PLA and 13 from the People’s Armed Police. The 218 civilians (Beijing residents, people from elsewhere, students, and rioters) included 36 students from Beijing universities and 15 people from outside Beijing." [link]

This was not a "massacre" but a riot in which police and PLA soldiers were killed as well as civilians/rioters, as proven by the peaceful evacuation of the square and degeneration of the situation thereof.

What is extremism? Large deviation from the status quo. What is the status quo? Well it’s perfectly fine for people to defend the U.S. despite it being the inspiration for Nazi Germany; it’s perfectly fine for people to defend NATO despite its support for Nazis/fascism [1] [2] [3] and its terrorization of the third world; it’s perfectly alright to defend the “democratic” bombing and starvation of Afghans by the U.S.; it’s right in the realm of acceptable opinion to love cops as they kill ~1,000 poor and black people and brutalize their families; it’s respectable to justify sanctions to starve people in Cuba and the DPRK; so on and so forth, these are the realm of acceptable opinion. It is okay to oppose some of these things lightly of course, but total opposition is too extreme, and you are met with the nonsense of “extremes on both sides.” Nevermind that equivocating Nazism with left “extremism” (even in the most drastic cases) is recognized as a form of Holocaust denial, centrism can never be challenged.

You argue Hexbear users should be treated the same as Nazis? Very well, then Hexbear users can roam free and comments saying Hexbear users are bad should be deleted. This is your instance lmao. Get better arguments.

Why are you presuming liberals are dumb? Liberal societies are functioning in the real world while the most successful attempts at socialism are those that moved towards hybrid economies (Vietnam and China).

The case of Vietnam and China is well-explained in Chinese Marxist economic study and experience (not that you would know this), as Primary Stage Socialism. To explain this, it’s necessary to look at the history of these two countries. Before Vietnam emerged under modern socialist-orientation it was being pillaged by French then Japanese then French (again) colonialism; the French were overthrown by the Vietnamese, with France receiving support for some time from America until the U.S. decided they wanted the territory for themselves, where they bombed the country emerging just out of colonialism into oblivion, killing 1M+ for their resources until they were forced out, then employing sanctions and IMF pressure afterwards. This is clearly not an orthodox path of economic development and not conducive to a balanced test of economic competition that you’re implying. You of course know of China’s underdevelopment under semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism prior to socialist-orientation (with U.S. support for the KMT as the communists won the civil war).

Now I didn’t think I’d have to explain this, but the Marxist analysis isn’t “state ownership is good at all times and private ownership is bad at all times”; first there’s the question of class orientation of the state, tearing apart this ridiculous “mixed economy” nonsense, which is really just a method of obscuring this fact and simplifying economics into a ratio of (private/”public”, with both metrics gaining new context under different orientations of the class dictatorship, especially the latter). You cannot simply fully nationalize a drastically underdeveloped economy (nor is this the traditional socialist/Marxist prescription, with Engels stating for instance in Principles of Communism, “Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.”

Scientific socialism is specifically the approach that states that different scales of production demand different and mirrored relations of production which then determine the social relations of that society. Separate forms and scales of production demand the supremacy of separate emerging and progressive classes (just as feudalism nurtured and birthed the early bourgeoise to overthrow it, so that same bourgeoisie will eventually nurture its own successor, the proletariat, by virtue of the socialization of production and the decay of the capitalist mode of production). Primary Stage Socialism is specifically a new concept created by Deng Xiaoping to flesh out an understanding of the development of socialism on an underdeveloped platform. The basic explanation is that in developed countries there will be large-scale capitalist production, then revolution, then advanced socialism, whereas in artificially underdeveloped countries there will be revolution, then the development of large-scale capitalist production, then advanced socialism. The common enemy of imperialism nullifies the singular revolutionary character of the national bourgeoisie and, with the masses gaining new understanding from this experience, the dictatorship of the proletariat (typically headed by the proletariat with a mass base of the peasantry, as in China’s PDD). The objective under this new governance is to “modernize” the forces of production (by utilizing foreign investment, the patriotic national bourgeoisie, and market relations) so that they may correspond to this progressive class leadership and under this progressive class leadership as well as build the framework for socialist relations of production (directly state owned economy is still dominant in China). This isn’t some smashing rebuttal of socialism, nor is this “total/vs. mixed economy” nonsense anything other than a false dichotomy. These nations assumed this theory and practice because it is the correct approach (and not in the revisionist sense of abandoning Marxism-Leninism), and this notion of failure of socialism is a complete misunderstanding.

As for liberalism, it works for the bourgeoisie, is the ultimate ideology of the bourgeoisie undercutting all obstacles of outdated social (and economic thought to an extent) thought that hinders the bourgeoisie while uplifting this group and maintaining their select privileges. The vast majority of those ascribing to “liberalism” as an ideology do not belong to the select privileged group for which the ideology is oriented, and are defending demonstrably incorrect incorrect ideas with relation to the “second” and third world and upholding the pretexts of the dominant class not as a matter of sly infiltration but genuine mistaken belief (and the person you were replying to never stated that all people who uphold liberalism are genuinely confused or dumb, but that they had been arguing with those who are (talking incorrectly and against their ultimate interests). The misnomer of liberal societies “functioning” lies in the fact that “functioning” is seen as a blind metric (success/failure) rather than a relative idea (with certain modes functioning for certain groups, usually for those by which they were designed and carried out). China has been growing at a much faster rate than “liberal societies”, and is doing so without engaging in imperialism and massacring millions of people for regional influence and natural resources. Your entire critique is useless.

The resources of the third world...

Concealed Imperialism: The True Face of Social Democracy

Liberalism is regression, it's the epitome of hypocritical liberation.

“They’re always looking to come up with a number bigger than six million,” observed Eli Rosenbaum, general counsel for the World Jewish Congress. “It makes the reader think: ‘My god, it’s worse than the Holocaust.’ ”

Read up little guy

nobody here thinks Russia is a "good country" (as much as that means anything)

You're replying to a comment that doesn't even defend Russia, much less uphold it in any respect, get a grip.

I even spelled it wrong and still found it, lol.

HRW is a U.S. government puppet “NGO” with no credibility outside of the West. Secondly, the UN document is based entirely on defector testimony, which has been thoroughly called into question and proven to be unreliable due to manipulation by the ROK. The state jails people who talk positively about the DPRK, including defectors, mainly through the National Security Law(Kraft, South Korea’s National Security Law), and pays defectors exorbitant amounts of money for atrocity propaganda. I’ll put it simply with a quote from Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth: “For the colonized subject, objectivity is always directed against him.”

Bush wanted revenge for the assassination plot against his dad by Sadddam and a think tank tried to justify it with bringing democracy to Iraq.

I’m sorry but this is a childish explanation for the war in Iraq and has no material foundation. The president cannot be the only person in support of a war of this scale for it to go through, you need converging interests. Yes it’s correct the war was a continuation of Bush Sr.’s policies but that does not mean that Bush’s feelings were the only or main reason for it (and no evidence this is the case of course).

Everyone is ready for democracy. I believe everyone is capable of choosing to fight for democracy. The fact is people in Afghanistan choose not to fight for their democracy. Their military accepted bribes from the Taliban and the citizens did not rise up in response. I watched the news, it happened very quickly.

I do not care that you “watched the news.” America was NOT fighting for democracy in Afghanistan (I explained this and cited sources, apparently no need to reply to this). The Taliban was an anti-democratic American creation through the Mujahideen. Read Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent on why “watching the news” isn’t adequate.

We need to learn from our mistakes. We need to do better. Throwing our hands and giving up because of moral issues is not helpful.

Maybe the nation that inspired Nazi Germany and was built on racism and exclusionary liberation, that killed a million in Indonesia and [3.3 million in Korea, millions in Laos, 2.4 million in Iraq, etc.] and used Korean women for s-xual slavery en masse (Patriots, Traitors, and Empires, p. 33) is not some sweet teddy bear that “made some mistakes.” Maybe reform isn’t the answer. Maybe the U.S. isn’t endeavoring to “do better” (they’ve been quite successful in their goals, and I’ve yet to see any proof of good intention from the U.S.), and maybe these “moral issues” are indicative of a larger issue. Nobody is “learning from their mistakes.” The U.S. military is as violent as ever, helping Saudi Arabia carry out a genocide in Yemen with military support for instance. Where is this apologetic sweetheart you see? Fuck America and fuck everything it stands for. They haven’t even apologized for half of this shit.

What do you mean by "lol"? This is a serious question. Do you think post-withdrawal deaths in Afghanistan are funny? Do you think that sanctions and the seizure of Afghan funds by the U.S. government after completely harmless because the U.S. military withdrew? Do you think that somehow, despite the U.S. admitting to supporting the Mujahideen (and their numerous terror attacks on innocents) prior to Soviet intervention with the express purpose of undermining and abolishing reforms under democratic rule so that they could supplant Soviet influence in the Mid-East, that they are not responsible for current disorganization and Taliban rule?

Also Parenti's Inventing Reality and "Monopoly Media Manipulation" and Roderic Day's "Brainwashing" [Pt.1] & [Pt. 2]