Yeah... so, recognizing that population competition is one of the ways that dominance can be exerted, China choosing to limit birth rates of the most populous ethnicity, which happens to be the dominant one, would be the opposite of eugenics used for reinforcing dominance. It's actually an incredible defense of China because it shows that not only are they nothing like the West, the West can't even conceive of what would motivate the dominant people to restrict their own privileges to reverse historical trends caused by dominance of their forebears.

You've got to be kidding comparing the One Child Policy of the dominant ethnic group, which the government itself was predominately composed of, and literal genocide and cultural genocide of white supremacists against the people they violently colonized.

Revolutions are context dependent. You can't have a global revolution because it covers too many contexts. Global revolutions that do happen will be based on the contemporaneous development of local revolutions, that is to say a global revolution is a descriptive bottom up phenomenon, not a top down one.

You focus on your context. You figure out what that means. You do your part. Let other people do their part. You may find yourself as part of a global phenomenon, you may not.

Also, think about what a revolution is. It's a replacement of a power structure. Globally, you could have a revolution against the UN, maybe. WTO? IMF? But you would have to get through your local power structure first.

So you focus on replacing the power structure in your context. Others focus on replacing the power structure in their context. And that's how it goes.

Well, you could launch a war with Iran, for one. That's looking like a good way to destroy the global economy.

1. Poverty (which they're alleviating), and the trappings of poverty (like poor labor conditions, corruption, and abuse).
2. Environmental degradation (which they are alleviating) and all the trappings that come with it (like greater impact on the poor, bad health outcomes, corruption).
3. Threats from state actors (which they are alleviating) and the trappings that come it (like selective repression of dissent, organizing, and collaboration, surveillance and chilling effects, etc)

Literally anything that causes an idea to spread is propaganda. Advertising, calls for help, gossip, commentary, analysis, storytelling, hell public art or theater or even just public conflict. That's what the word means, the means of idea propagation.

Wow. Just wow. You can't possibly be this wrong, can you?

Let's start with naming things. Han. The predominant Chinese culture you refer to is Han Chinese.

Let's look at one law that everyone loves to talk about - the One Child Policy.

Did you know that the One Child Policy only applied to Han Chinese? That's right. The Chinese government explicitly and openly promoted heterogeneity by limiting Han birth rates explicitly. Some other minorities were also restricted, that's true, but they were restricted to two children - double the birthrate of the Han. All the other minorities were unrestricted.

That's just one example of how wrong you are. Shall we do others?

Tibet and Xinjiang educate their children in their native language, in their native cultural traditions, and the governments of those regions run those regions in accordance with their best interpretation of the confluence between their own traditions and the Chinese system of government.

Let's compare that to the US or Canada, shall we? No? You don't want me to explain how Indian boarding schools literally beat children for speaking their native tongue, forcibly cut their traditional hair styles, and trained the children to hate their own families? You don't want to hear about how such boarding schools existed into the 80s? Should we talk about US eugenics programs and the forced sterilization of a full third of the women on Puerto Rico or the forced sterilization of black and Indian women on the mainland? Is that too much for you?

How much more wrong can you possibly be?

China officially recognizes 11 languages that can be used to conduct official business. Eleven. Most American politicians couldn't even name 11 languages.

Do you still think China enforces homogeneity? Are you so committed to your position that evidence cannot do anything to your Yellow Peril brain?

What kind of global imperial superpower doesn't drop bombs for 35 years in a row? That doesn't sound like any global imperial superpower I have ever heard of in the last 600 years. If China is a global imperial superpower without doing the whole war crimes thing, I'm almost inclined to say you've sold me on global imperialist superpowers being redeemable!

A false dichotomy is when you only present two possible options when the set of options to choose from is much greater.

This is not attempting to get you to choose, but rather expose the hypocrisy of those who say "the US is bad right now but at least it's not China"

Europeans have no problem with bringing military planes all over the world, doing joint exercises that simulate invading other countries, and building up stockpiled of weapons and supply chains to prepare for war with their enemies, and they think everyone who reacts badly to that is just overreacting. But God forbid the Chinese should have military planes defending an area that literally the world legally recognizes as party of China to defend against the constant military threats by the West.

It's orientalism at its finest. And we can't expect much from the EuroCentric world, orientalism is ingrained in their psyche - after all, they invented it.

No. It's a joke exposing liberals for holding terrible policy goals.

Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill, when First Lady and Governor of Arkansas, lived in the Governor's mansion. The Governor's Mansion "hires" prison slaves, mostly black, to work in the mansion. They had the power to end that practice, but they didn't. She and Barack Obama oversaw huge escalation on SMOs when they were drone striking civilians. And when they created the conditions for a bloody civil war in Libya and then launched an unprovoked attack on it, and brought NATO along, they committed so many crimes against humanity it's ridiculous. When the rebels they funded, armed, trained, and directed finally got the 70-year-old man who led the most prosperous country in Africa, they sodomized him with a bayonet in public and filmed it, which the administration was cool with. Clinton herself publicly gloated about it and shouted "We came! We saw! He died!" like a psychopath who thought she was Julius Cesar.

But liberals still think she should have been president because it's critical for us to have psychopathic commanders-in-chief who commit war crimes without a hint of shame that are women.

I've covered some of Obama above, but let's go back to Libya and acknowledge that Libya went from the most properous country in Africa to a country hosting open air slave markets now. But representation matters, right?

Kamala falls to similar criticisms, although since she didn't make it to the presidency and she was sidelined by the Biden administration she only managed do a little damage, shilling for the Israeli crimes against humanity and genocide Palestinians, confirming that immigrants and their children would be tortured if they tried to flee the bloodshed the USA created in their countries. She said this while the US was actively taking in white immigrants from Ukraine. On her campaign she made it clear that these things would not change. But we're expected to believe that the reason she lost is because of bigotry and misogyny, which, while fair, requires the liberal to hold a position that can be summarized as "sure, Kamala was a genocidaire and child torturer who 100% supported the white supremacist patriarchal empire but so was every other candidate so she clearly only lost because the population is still harboring prejudices against black women".

This is liberalism in America today. "If Hillary had won we'd all be at brunch." "Don't blame me, I voted for Kamala." It's all tokenism and representation politics.

Sure. Tax the billionaires. That'll show'em! It's not like they don't literally control the majority of congressional decisions through strategic funding of the key people and parties needed to ensure their wealth is maintained. It's not like they don't have easily 5 years of warning anytime some major change is going to roll through the tax code and they can just maneuver around it.

Reform is reform precisely because it keeps the existing power structure in place and revolution is revolution precisely because it removes the existing power structure and replaces it. The current power structure is the billionaires. Using the existing power structure to tax them is, by definition, not going to change the fact that they control society and all the key aspects of institutional power. Liberalism has run its course. It's over.

It's almost like MLs aren't dogmatic and don't need to assess everything by whether or not it's approved by specific authors

You forgot the third type: use dialectical materialism to analyze the world and understand what's going on around them instead of using idealist and moral thinking like "markets bad", allowing them to have nuanced understandings of why a revolutionary state would have a stock market.