I think Mao gets a bad rap for stuff that happened during his later years.

I've seen a lot of people who kinda just melancholically say he would've been remembered better had he not led China through the 50s and 60s. I guess I get it, but is that what we care about? Legacy? Everyone should just hang up their hats when they make a bad decision?

Additionally, i think in any case, it's hard to blame Mao and Mao Zedong Thought for the problems that occurred specifically during the era. Establishing a new proletarian state us hard, establishing one of the first ones ever is even harder, establishing one in China was a miracle. The economy grew at similar rates before before reform and opening up as it did after, and without that initial foundation of independence there could never have been an independent reform and opening up. I also think the red book is one of the most important texts for beginners and should be one of the first reccomended.

Additionally, like I've said in other threads, I'm not one for discussions on morality. I think i got empathy overload [edit: more like empathy burnout] at some point and have just accepted bad things are going to happen no matter what when things get violent. If you just boil it down to "is hurting x necessary to establish socialism? Yes? Then it's moral. If not then it's immoral" then life becomes much simpler. I'd kill the entire Romanov family 20 times over personally if that was the decision that needed to be made to save the USSR. I would lie, cheat, and consort with the worst to establish socialism, and that's the attitude that's needed to do so. I will argue at length about what is necessary--materially--to establish socialism [I don't think the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki were necessary, so they were immoral] but individual sob stories are pointless and I'm glad I'm becoming numb to them. Maybe your grandpa wasn't a counter revolutionary, but the wider purge was necessary to save the people from the blackest era of reaction. So it was moral. Life is very much a play of averages and odds. Unfortunately it will be that way until the last capitalist is dissolved. Edit: However this also applies the other way. I don't really care about justice if its unnecessary. It's not about what people deserve, it's about living, about science, and about the natural coarse of human events

Lastly, the Jacobins are more than just Bourgeois revolutionaries. I wouldn't go as far as to describe them as proto-socialist or anything, but there was a difference between them, the Girondins, thermadorians, etc. The jacobins were the Bourgeoisie who aligned themselves with the journeyman proto-proletariat and the peasantry. This is opposed to people like Cromwell in Britain who aligned themselves with the lower landowners against the peasants. It's why we appreciate Sun Yat-sen more than Chiang Kai-Shek, or Thomas Paine than George Washington, etc.

Theres irony in whatever happens to the Eisenhower in this conflict, given how its namesake treated Iran

Quick update: Newsweek and other sources have retracted parts of their articles citing Domg Jun saying “Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and it is open for us” and other such things. In regards to China's position, they have released statements through the foreign ministry encouraging deescalation

The DPP president threatened to arrest the KMT chairman in 2005 after that visit. Honestly I wonder if the DPP would be dumb enough to do that now

I mean, its both tbf. China reserves the right to take Taiwan by force if they declare independence but would also rather keep the Status quo towards an eventual SAR status.

A lot of commentators and game theorists forget that China is run by Marxists. Additionally, China thinks very long term. They don't mind waiting a century for something if it is advantageous. And considering everything that's happened, time is on their side

If (more like when) a ground invasion doesn't work, what are the chances the US actually uses a nuclear weapon? Tactical or otherwise?

What would actually be the consequences of that? I honestly can't think of specifics.

I think it should be a little different. Either renkunce your Israeli citizenship or renounce your Russian one and give up any attempts to come back to Russia later. They either have to go back to Russia now or they have to tie themselves to the sinking ship that is the Israeli entity

I'm not sure about that. I mean, I guess I wouldn't condemn Iran for doing so and it'd be understandable, but i feel like attacking hospitals and schools crosses a line. Not to mention that this would probably harden the Israeli population rather than demoralize them. Otherwise there are better targets to hit with missiles

Maybe I'm just talking about this because i wanna be distracted, but what was with the original book? De Sade was a libertine himself, was he in favor of all those actions he describes or is it kind of a "you restrict man's desires and they get worse" kind of deal?

I think he's less Hasan and more black redguard/onedime. He's not going "ohh we don't like Maduro cause otherwise liberals will dismiss us." Hes just a Maoist.

"Yeah they messed up the legal case, now they'll never get him"

Jeffery Epstein looking up from hell:

Ehhh, what's more normal is to actually try? Like obviously Vietnam failed, but they tried [understatement i know]. Panama was arguably a success given what the goals were. This time...the goals are simultaneously super specific but also stupid vague