For my mental health, I’m assuming it’s a bit.

Parenti has a short primer.

Maidan put pro-west, anti-Russian fash sympathisers in charge. The population of Crimea, being ethnically and historically Russian, said ‘fuck this’ and left, then joined Russia.

There was various degrees of US support to Maidan and Russian support to Crimean independence.

Geopolitically, the annexation of Crimea was a response to the west’s pulling of Ukraine into its orbit. The Russian preference would have been to keep a Ukrainian govt sympathetic to Russia. But when that proved impossible, taking only the pro-Russian portion of Ukraine was the next best choice.

My understanding is that, historically, Crimea was Russian, and was transferred to Ukraine as a gift during the USSR era.

You’ve quoted the right leaning party members at a conference during the height of privatisation. Ofc there’s gonna be some dumb shit said.

If you’re assessing China, you need to look at its direction presently, under Xi Jingping, not it’s direction thirteen years ago under Hu Jintao, especially given that the Shanghai Clique of Jiang Zemin only started to lose power in 2006-2007.

Instead, let’s look at some of what Xi says.

Here’s a document distributed to all high level cadre outlining ideological trends to be wary of.

Neoliberalism advocates unrestrained economic liberalization, complete privatization, and total marketization and it opposes any kind of interference or regulation by the state. Western countries, led by the United States, carry out their Neoliberal agendas under the guise of “globalization,” visiting catastrophic consequences upon Latin America, the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe, and have also dragged themselves into the international financial crisis from they have yet to recover.

This is mainly expressed in the following ways:

[Neoliberalism’s advocates] actively promote the “market omnipotence theory.” They claim our country’s macroeconomic control is strangling the market’s efficiency and vitality and they oppose public ownership, arguing that China’s state-owned enterprises are “national monopolies,” inefficient, and disruptive of the market economy, and should undergo “comprehensive privatization.” These arguments aim to change our country’s basic economic infrastructure and weaken the government’s control of the national economy.

Not to mention this hilarious headline: China’s Latest Crackdown Target Is Liberal Economists.

Alright, so there’s at least some ideological pushback. But what about reality? After all, didn’t they privatise a bunch of stuff like those economists wanted?

Well, the holding entity for state owned entities is the largest economic entity in the world at approximately 7.6 trillion USD, so whatever they’ve privatised, there’s clearly a hell of a lot they haven’t.

But what about the general trend? And what good are those entities if they’re just running according to market principles?

Well, let’s just check the news:

An agency led by President Xi Jinping to advance institutional changes in China has approved a new plan to make state-owned enterprises “stronger, better and bigger”. Monday’s decision by the Central Commission for Comprehensive Reforms to “optimise and restructure the state economy layout” – a euphemism that generally points to government-led mergers and the consolidation of various state-owned companies, with ornamental participation by private investors – came after Beijing found its state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to be more reliable in answering the government’s calls during the coronavirus.

China’s “adjustment” of its state sector is aimed at “serving national strategic goals and adapting to high-quality growth”, and state firms will dominate areas of “strategic security, industrial leadership … and public services”, according to an official statement released through the Xinhua news agency.

So what we see is that SOEs were better able to respond in a pandemic situation, where market allocation just wasn’t going to cut it, and use value needed to be pushed to the fore.

No one’s denying there are capitalists in China, or that they haven’t been allowed to flourish. What’s important is that they remain under the control of the Party, and that the Party retains its control over police, military, and the commanding heights of the economy. It says a lot that even at the height of their power, the capitalists had to couch their arguments for privatisation in Marxist terms.

Leftists don’t have opinions on fucking kids challenge

There are a lot of expansions there for HOI4. Do you need them all? Can it be pirated, or are there regular updates?

We already do see it, in fan fiction. However, those works end up hitting a ceiling, as they lack the resources to get polished, or the legal rights to get published.

The New Communist Party of Aotearoa has a website up over here and their analysis is usually solid.

I’ve just done a quick search, and this book looks decent for an overview.

And of course, there’s Lenin’s analysis of us:

A country of inveterate, backwoods, thick-headed, egotistical philistines, who have brought their “civilisation” with them from England and keep it to themselves like a dog in a manger.

Sure, the major cities are hot shit, but there are parts of China, especially rurally, where it’s all but a completely different country.

That’s why it’s still considered ‘developing’.

They’re a developing nation, and well below their historical carbon budget per capita.

They’ve committed to peaking in 2030.

This tweet goes into detail.

Basically, the Party’s onto the environmental stuff. It knows people want change. It’s making that change.

It’s declared a goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2060. There are huge subsidies for solar panels, and it’s the world’s largest exporter. It uses its military for huge reforestation efforts.

There’s no need for a western-seeded social movement telling them to do what they’re already doing.

I have two skills -it’s non-monogamy and speaking publicly, okay? Do some fucking research!

This is a pretty slick line

I don’t think I can support the direction that Kim Jong un has taken North Korea in

Which part? The isolation is imposed by the world, not them. Likewise with the poverty.

The nukes are a nice shield from future bombings, and once China and Russia get an alternative to SWIFT set up for global transactions, we can expect to see the DPRK open up more.

The hereditary thing isn’t great long term, but it gets way too much shit for it. Cuba’s still got the Castro family as the head of state, and you almost never hear leftists go on about that.

Then we need to consider the alternatives. If it were to unilaterally reunite with the South, under the South’s rule, you’d see the same sort of horrendous economic collapse that the GDR suffered. Probably worse, given the greater wealth disparities.

Juche gang’s a fun meme, but in reality, the DPRK’s just our generation’s Cuba, with all the atrocity porn that comes with it.