Sounds to me USSR revolution wasn't that "successful" afer all

Reducing the USSR to a "failure" because it collapsed is ahistorical idealism and the height of liberal nonsense. We should judge a formation by the contradictions it resolved, not by whether it achieved eternity. Tsarist Russia was a feudal wreck where peasants starved and most couldn't read. Within decades, the Soviet project doubled life expectancy, wiped out illiteracy, and industrialized a continent-sized country, dragging millions out of poverty.

Women gained full legal equality in 1918: abortion rights, divorce, workplace access, while Western women were still fighting for the vote. Socialized childcare and mass employment pulled women into public life on a scale capitalism wouldn't match for generations.

And let's not forget who actually broke fascism: the Red Army fought four-fifths of the Wehrmacht, lost 27 million people, and took Berlin while the West sat on the sidelines and even continued to trade with the nazi beast for years into the war (see the history of ford factories and IBM).

Collapse doesn't retroactively erase what was built. "Anarchists" like you who dismiss seventy years of concrete progress because the state eventually fractured aren't radical they're reactionary. Material gains for millions don't vanish because the system that produced them later unraveled.

The aftermath of the collapse proved the stakes that people like you refuse to grapple with. The 1990s were catastrophic. Life expectancy cratered, millions plunged into homelessness and destitution, women and children were trafficked by the tens of thousands, and the entire country was looted by oligarchs with IMF blessing. The chaos bred Yeltsin's drunken comprador regime, which paved the way for Putin's rise as his right-hand man a direct product of the Soviet collapse. When you cheer the unraveling of a workers' state even a deeply flawed one, you're not celebrating freedom. You're celebrating the road that led straight to oligarchs, fascists, and some of the worst reaction imaginable. But you don't really care about anyone but yourself.

Harry Potterism or StarWars Syndrome

Houses are for speculation not for living —JDPON DON

孩子到家啦！旅日大熊猫“晓晓”和“蕾蕾”平安抵达成都

Translated title:"The pandas "Xiao Xiao" and "Lei Lei" have arrived home safely! The pandas on loan from Japan have safely arrived in Chengdu."

Some happy news for a change, but this also marks the first time in over 50 years that Japan has no giant pandas.

Japan first received giant pandas in 1972 when Kang Kang and Lan Lan were sent to Ueno Zoo as a gift to commemorate the normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and China.

Could this be further marking of the move away from normalization in the wake of Takaichi, and Japan's push for a return to militarism?

Are pictures of them changing really that compromising? Everyone already hates them I dont think seeing their ass or balls is really going to change anything. Unless every prime minister has to get some compromising tattoo or something they need to hide.

China's bamboo industry thrives as eco-friendly plastic alternative

CPC continues to show how ready they are to accommodate the global green wave, while continuing development of the productive forces at home.

You are seemingly misunderstanding my argument, leading you to arguing against a position I did not make.

At no point did I ever infer or imply Chairman Mao was an extremist, irrational, or motivated by chaos. That framing is your insertion, not a logical consequence of what I said. Recognizing the limits and contradictions of the Cultural Revolution is not equivalent to repeating Western liberal narratives. Marxism does not require us to sanctify every tactic in order to defend the revolutionary line behind it.

Chairman Mao was obviously correct that class struggle continues under socialism. He was again obviously correct that bourgeois elements can emerge within the Party itself. He was yet again correct that institutions alone do not guarantee socialist consciousness. I disputed none of this.

Your reasoning begins to depart from dialectical materialism through what you identify as the material source of those contradictions.

You are treating “culture,” “tradition,” and long civilizational memory as semi-independent causal forces, capable of reproducing class society even after the economic base has been transformed. That is the upmost of idealism.

Marxism does not deny that ideology exists. It insists that ideology is shaped and reproduced by material relations. If culture itself were decisive, then land reform, collectivization, and socialist industrialization should have failed immediately. Instead, they succeeded in abolishing entire classes that had ruled China for millennia. That alone falsifies the idea that tradition possesses autonomous historical power.

What Chairman Mao identified was not tradition acting on socialism, but material contradictions produced inside society:

1. the persistence of commodity production
2. unequal authority within the division of labor
3. administrative privilege
4. uneven development between town and countryside
5. separation between leadership and masses

These are not cultural remnants. They are structural contradictions of transition. This distinction is important.

If reaction emerges because “Chinese tradition reproduces hierarchy,” then socialism is impossible not only in China, but anywhere with history. Marxism collapses into civilizational pessimism.

Chairman Mao never argued that. He argued that new bourgeois relations emerge from socialist production itself, not from the Tang dynasty.

On the USSR: its collapse does not demonstrate the supremacy of tradition over institutions. It demonstrates the failure to maintain proletarian political power over the state and economy. The material base had already shifted long before 1991, market mechanisms, managerial autonomy, labor commodification, and elite reproduction were already dominant.

What collapsed in 1991 was not socialism’s cultural shell reverting to tsarism. It was a system whose class character had already changed. There was no feudal restoration in Russia. There was capitalist restoration. Another important distinction.

Regarding education and class mobility: yes, examination-based advancement historically functioned as a route out of poverty. But again, you are mistaking continuity of form for continuity of essence. Modern educational competition exists because:

1. industrial economies require credentialed labor
2. developmental states allocate opportunity through standardized selection
3. surplus labor competes for limited upward mobility channels

This is true in China, South Korea, Singapore, and also in France, Japan, and Germany. The Gaokao is not the imperial exam reborn. It is a modern mechanism of labor allocation under industrial conditions.

Forms may resemble each other. Their class content does not. This is precisely why Marx warned against superficial historical analogy.

Now to dialectics. You are absolutely correct that dialectical analysis must have explanatory and predictive power. But dialectics does not mean identifying one contradiction and projecting it linearly forward forever.

Dialectics analyzes motion through contradiction under specific material conditions. Your capitalism example works because Marx identified:

1. capital accumulation as the dominant motion
2. proletarianization as its necessary condition
3. surplus extraction as its internal contradiction

Now apply the same rigor to socialist transition.What is the dominant motion today? It is not tradition reproducing itself. It is the contradiction between:

1. socialist political power
2. and partial commodity-based economic mechanisms
3. under conditions of uneven development and imperialist pressure

From that contradiction arise:

1. wealth polarization
2. bureaucratic stratification
3. corruption
4. ideological tension

These phenomena are not residues of feudalism. They are contradictions produced by development itself. This is why Chairman Mao emphasized continuing revolution , not because ancient culture would resurrect itself, but because new bourgeois relations continuously emerge unless actively constrained.

That struggle cannot be permanent chaos. It must be institutionalized, regulated, corrected, and rebalanced, precisely what was missing in the late Cultural Revolution period.

To say this is not to reject Chairman Mao and Mao Zedong Thought. It is to apply Mao Zedong Thought materially, not dogmatically.

Finally, your accusation that my position reduces to “there are problems and they are being corrected” misses the point entirely. The explanatory power lies here:

1. China’s contradictions arise from accelerated socialist development using limited market mechanisms
2. those mechanisms generate bourgeois tendencies
3. the Party retains political dominance over capital
4. struggle therefore occurs primarily within the socialist state itself, not between external classes

That predicts instability, anti-corruption cycles, policy reversals, re-centralization, and ideological tightening, exactly what we observe.

That is dialectics. Not cultural fatalism. Not civilizational inheritance. Not pessimism disguised as depth. Contradictions are real. They are sharp. They are dangerous. But they are not proof that history is repeating itself, only that socialism, is a long and uneven process of transformation, not a clean rupture where motion ceases.

I think you are mixing real problems with analyses that are not always materialist, and that has lead you to several incorrect leaps.

First, the existence of corruption cases does not demonstrate that the anti-corruption campaign has “failed.” From a dialectical perspective, the continued exposure of corruption indicates that contradictions inside the Party and state apparatus still exist and are being actively struggled over. Class struggle does not disappear under socialism; it changes form. To expect corruption to vanish permanently after one campaign misunderstands Marxism and treats socialism as a static condition rather than a transitional process.

Second, attributing corruption primarily to “thousands-year-old Chinese culture” is an idealist explanation. Scientific socialism through dialectical materialism does not locate social problems in culture or civilization essence, but in material conditions, institutional incentives, and class relations. 关系 is not some eternal cultural defect; it expands or contracts depending on whether material power and resources are concentrated without sufficient supervision. Similar patronage systems exist in every bureaucratic society. History does not operate through inherited moral DNA.

Third, the comparison between today’s anti-corruption struggle and the Cultural Revolution is not accurate. Mao identified the danger of capitalist restoration correctly, but the form that struggle took in the late 1960s severely damaged the productive forces, and Party unity. Scientific socialism requires not only correct political direction but correct methods. Rectification through institutional discipline, mass supervision, and rule-based governance is not “liberal victory,” but a lesson learned from earlier contradictions.

Fourth, framing current investigations as proof that “the entire bureaucracy and military chain of command is corrupted” is empirically and theoretically unsound. Marxism does not treat individual corruption cases as proof of total systemic collapse. If anything, the fact that senior figures (including those with strong political backgrounds) can be investigated demonstrates that no fixed aristocracy has been allowed to solidify, which is precisely what socialist discipline is meant to prevent.

Finally, reform does not mean abandoning socialism or repeating destructive cycles of upheaval. It means resolving contradictions at a higher level of development. The socialist state must constantly balance centralization with supervision, authority with accountability, and stability with struggle. That is not a betrayal of Mao’s analysis, but its continuation under new historical conditions.

Corruption is real. Internal contradictions are real. But explaining them through cultural fatalism, or assuming that purges alone define success or failure, moves away from dialectical materialism and toward pessimistic determinism. Socialism is not proven by the absence of contradictions, but by the capacity to recognize, confront, and resolve them over time.

I have activated the wehrmacht to gas and beat those who dare attempt to protest the gestapo. Applause please.

The burger reich is so fucking unserious

Rare western leftist W but if they don't purge the weasels, rats and lib bootlicking fucks then it will likely amount to nothing.

The inability of the average shitlib to even entertain the ideas of those outside of the echo chamber of hegemonic global liberalism is so interesting.

Almost the entirety of the old media and basically every non specifically counter educated person in the western world catering to them isn't enough, they feel compelled to just completely isolate themselves.

I think a terrifying thought is that this is people taking it seriously in their mind. They're so propogandised against effective action it doesn't even register as a possibility, thus voting becomes the most serious action one can take in between their parades and slogan shouting.