I'm saying they know they are oppressed, but they cannot articulate the details and understand all the complexities behind it because they are not using Marxist analysis or dialectical materialism.

If only the media was sending their thoughts and prayers to Donald Trump. That would make me chuckle.

I see what you mean, but as a communist I am talking about liberalism as in the context of ideologically supporting liberalism (As in American political systems and ideology) and I would consider a person identifying as conservative while supporting liberal government to be a right-wing liberal.

And I am not writing this out to support political extremism such as Trumpism or Republican ideology. I am writing this from the perspective of leftism.

The reason people think economics and politics are separate is because of capitalist realism which makes modern liberals default to private ownership of everything, meaning politics is nothing but social issues and other relatively small and specific things.

In hindsight I should have done that, I was just so focused on filling all the purple I forgot to make those nicer edits.

The map was originally made by liberals so Tibet was its own thing.

I missed that, but as part of China I guess that's still technically correct despite a rogue government controlling that province.

This post is calling out a tendency of rightists to hijack things.

There is tons more we could do besides reforesting actually. If we stop using plastics, use more renewable forms of storage, increase access to plumbing so water in cans is not so much of a necessity, it would greatly help the pollution we get. Obviously fossil fuels and car usage is huge, but if we put all the population in cities the issue of cars would have to work itself out and we would probably end up with walkable megacities, with cars reserved for rural people who actually need to travel like that.

I think the best way to deal with this would be to replant more trees to help the environment regulate itself, but in the current Anthropocene era all solutions provided are just green capitalism which is unlikely to ever put a dent into the problem and the bourgeoisie will not give up land to become forested areas. It would be possible to move the current population into larger denser cities to always keep more land available for wooded areas (And this would probably increase the standards of living since rural areas are so neglected) but this is even more radical than just planting more trees at the expense of land that some millionaire could use to build another Wal-Mart or crappy Amazon warehouse.

He basically torpedoed the propaganda machine by being a US soldier and burning himself in protest for defense of Palestinians. It may not seem like a lot, but how the news is scrambling to salvage the situation shows just how powerful this was. Yes he could have protested, yes he could have sabotaged the US, but then the masses wouldn't be hearing about it or discussing it right now as it would be clandestine or the media would be able to ignore it. He did this because he wanted to get the message out and was willing to be literally burned to death to make sure he was heard.

I meant my version would be around three paragraphs, but yes. Biographies and things would be useful. I want to try and hint at his personal side while the intent behind the abridged biography I am making is political in nature.