I'm happy to criticize China on its actual faults, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions based on inadequate or inaccurate information. The standard for evidence is much lower when it comes to criticizing China, most of the media we consume comes from Western sources, and people just don't have firsthand experience and will believe just about anything, and so I may push back more simply because there is more bullshit to push back on.

You accuse me of "mindlessly endorsing" everything they do, but there is stuff I criticize and when I don't, I explain my reasons quite thoughtfully. What I don't do is mindlessly criticize everything they do (or are accused of doing, or assumed to be doing, without evidence) which is pretty much the standard that people expect from me. There's countless accounts on here that only ever criticize China and do so without providing explanations or justifications for it. They don't even come up with any original quips, it's all just lazily repeating "haha Winnie the Pooh" to each other with zero thought or analysis. Generally, these people could only name one or two events from Chinese history, and have no interest whatsoever in learning about or understanding their perspective, which makes having an intelligent discussion on the subject impossible.

What do you mean "that's not a thing?" I don't believe he's ever explicitly called himself a Marxist but he has cited Marx as an influence on his works, as a professor of economics.

One of Harris's most notable contributions to economics is his 1978 monograph Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution, which is a critique of orthodox economic theories that provides an alternative, synthesizing the work of David Ricardo, Kalecki, Marx, Roy Harrod, and others. Harris employs mathematical modeling to explore the relationship between the accumulation of capital and income inequality, economic growth, economic instability, and other phenomena, arguing that typical theories fail to adequately consider power, class, and historical context.

It seems basically true that he's a Marxist professor of economics. It's just not really relevant to Kamala since she's an entirely different person.

The background for the KDP's uprisings is WWI. The war was incredibly destructive and pointless for every country in Europe. Before the war, the Second International (of which the SDP was a founding member) put out a manifesto with unanimous support that said:

In case war should break out anyway it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to arouse the people and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule.

However, once the war actually started, the SDP (along with many other social democratic parties in Europe) suddenly found all sorts of reasons to rally around the flag and support it unconditionally. The British socialists would point to problems in Germany under the Kaiser, the German socialists would point to problems with Russia under the Tsar, and each side would talk about how it's not that they support the war, it's just that they don't want to lose. And so there was a failure across Europe (except in Russia, of course) to create domestic pressure to put an end to the war, and result was that it raged on until it had claimed 20 million lives.

It was only at the end of the war, when it was clear that Germany was going to lose regardless, that a revolution occurred, initially supported by both the SDP and the communists, which is what brought an end to the German Empire. During that uprising, the SDP and communists split over the direction of the country, and the SDP won and sent in the Freikorps to exterminate communist leadership. So when you talk about Thälmann trying to overthrow the government, I think it's important to put that in the context that the government in question had come to power only 4 years prior by overthrowing the government - and that government would go on to last only 15 years in total before the Nazis were able to seize power through it. All of which is to say, it was a chaotic period, and there were reasons for the KDP to resent the SPD as well.

The tendency to force history into boxes defined by modern day politics loses a lot of that nuance. In contemporary American politics, there is no Second International. There is no Great War. There is no Sparticist Uprising. It's bad enough when contemporary politics outside of the US are forced into the boxes defined by American politics, we don't need to extend that throughout history.

More of a chance than they did. The dems were definitely going to lose before, now things are shaken up, Trump still has an edge but if they play their cards right who knows.

If only they'd joined the SPD in voting for Hindenburg, the guy who won the election and appointed Hitler chancellor, then Hindenburg would've... won the election and appointed Hitler chancellor.

Posted it myself, just now, just for you.

To be clear, what you're suggesting is that stories that the Chinese government is actively talking about would be censored on lemmy.ml. Let's see if that's true! Can't wait to find out!

Yes, that's what I said at the end. The US didn't get involved until directly attacked.

It's notable that the US decided to get involved and to focus on the European theater, despite being attacked by Japan. But that doesn't really tell us about motivations. It could be that the US considered Nazi ideology more dangerous than Japan's ideology, or it's possible they were more interested in Europe for the sake of their allies, or it could've been a purely strategic decision.

"Libs" is short for "liberal," meaning a supporter of capitalism. Those on the American right who aren't fascists are generally liberals, though they often don't know what it means. When I criticize liberals, it's from a leftist/anti-capitalist perspective.

Dessalines himself posted this video

I don't have a map handy, but South Africa's case was supported by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Countries along with many others so your "193" number is obviously way off.

That's still complete nonsense. The Nordic countries also have publically owned industries, most notably, the oil industries responsible for much of their wealth. There's as much of a case for them being socialist as there is for Russia, which is to say, not much of one at all.

But to cite Russia's past socialism as a reason to call it socialist now is by far the most absurd thing about this meme and your argument. The reason that socialist government doesn't exist anymore is because it was destroyed and replaced by the current government. You might as well call the US monarchist because it used to be a British colony. It's completely insane.

Any "military aged male" killed by a drone strike is counted as an "enemy combatant," even when there's not a shred of evidence.