(Just to preface this I am neither and American nor a European)

If you had simply made that point you would have been taken more seriously than the nonsense hypothetical. However it is still a dumb point. Voting for the lesser evil over and over with no reservations is how you have gotten to where you are now. You should vote for things not against things. If you vote for the D fascist over the R fascist they’re still a fascist even if they’re nicer at home (plus that niceness will only last as long as there is no real threat posed by national movements).

What an interesting non sequitur

It’s literally the same map just shifted down 1 colour so that light green is the top instead of dark green.

“what if the world was made out of pudding” if you want people to take you seriously make a serious point instead thinking up nonsense hypotheticals.

absolute waste of money!

The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being.

This is the most 12 year old “what if” nonsense retort I’ve ever seen.

China has the second most billionaires in the world

How about you look at it by rate as opposed to using raw numbers when comparing a country of 1.4 Billion to much smaller countries (you might then come to realize by rate China is down near India while being far more developed).

economic inequality like that is a clear sign of oligarchy

No its not. Its a symptom of a private sector (and thus some private property) continuing to exist.

If the workers own their excess, why do you still have hoarders? How do you still have hoarders?

Because the trade off was refusing to make use of market relations and remain spreading equal poverty under the Gang of Four.

I was right you really have no idea what you’re talking about.

China is an oligarchy, my man. They’re better than the west for now, but the same kind of greedy bastards run their country as do the rest of ours.

Really showing you have exactly 0 (or in fact possibly a negative) understanding of China, and the Chinese state.

i recognize that the US is rapidly enshittifying people’s economic situation these days

Since it’s inception through it’s long campaign of perpetrating, funding, and backing colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism across the periphery.

I never said there were 0 losses but a Ukrainian government owned fundraising initiative for their war effort running a story about how they killed 1.2 million Russian troops is so clearly nonsense.

Merz kicking his feet in glee that his suggestion from March is still at the front Trumps mind

I don’t think this meme is even against voting, just against voting for fascists with a D next to their name over fascists with an R.

United24 🤣

I enjoy my socialism with a dose of reality

Care to elaborate?

If you criticize the government there in any reasonable way you get locked up.

This is just not true. (Also even if it was I don’t see how it supports your point given criticism is not tied to ethnicity).

Could you name some privileges a Han Chinese person has that I don’t?

I have read Lenin, and if you think he is advocating for electing socialists to the bourgeois government as something to strive for in and of itself, you have completely misread him. Winning bourgeois elections is not the goal, or even in the same playing field as the goal, for communist electoral work. The goal is agitation: using elections to expose bourgeois democracy, spread an independent communist programme, and sharpen the working class’s understanding of the state’s class character.

This quote, and the invocation of Lenin in general, does nothing to strike against the criticism I was making. My criticism was not “organization is bad” or “a political party is unnecessary.” The opposite being obviously true. My criticism was that putting socialists into a bourgeois government does nothing to alter the class character of that government. The state remains bourgeois, and anyone entering it is forced to operate according to its rules, pressures, limits, and class function.

Again, a socialist entering a capitalist government does not make that government socialist. Rather, the socialist is pressured to act as a bourgeois minister in order to administer capitalism and get minor reforms through. The result is not the conquest of the bourgeois state by socialism, but the partial conquest of the socialist by the bourgeois state.

Lenin was arguing for an independent proletarian party capable of organizing the working class for a determined struggle against the whole of capitalist society. He was not arguing for socialists to measure power by how many seats they win inside capitalist institutions, still less for tailing a reactionary party such as the Democratic Party (which the DSA appears quite fond of, which can be seen in their actions, such as the recommendation to vote for Graham Platner: another campaign inside the Democratic Party, another refusal to break from its shadow, another retreat from building a truly independent working-class party.).

DSA candidates are beholden to the demands of the working class, not the Democratic or Republican party nor capitalist donations.

A socialist entering a capitalist government does not make that government socialist. The government’s class function remains bourgeois, and the socialist is pressured to act as a bourgeois minister in order to get their (generally minor) reforms through.

Additionally, electing candidates to deliver material gains is only a single aspect of DSA. Along with mutual aid, labor organizing, and International solidarity campaigns to name a few

Not really related to the criticism I was making at all.

With the entry of a socialist into the government, and class domination continuing to exist, the bourgeois government doesn’t transform itself into a socialist government, but a socialist transforms himself into a bourgeois minister. […] The entry of a socialist into a bourgeois government is not, as it is thought, a partial conquest of the bourgeois state by the socialists, but a partial conquest of the socialist party by the bourgeois state.