Cowbee

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so I see Mao more favorably than not. He made mistakes, but was also a critical figure in establishing socialism in China, and is beloved in China because of it. That being said, Mao did not invent the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge nor the necessity of unifying theory with practice, that's a core part of Marxism from the beginning. Mao just had a poetic and direct way of writing that is immensely quotable in ways Marx, Lenin, etc. don't often compare.

I deliberately make it a point not to, when I can.

No investigation, no right to speak.

• Oppose Book Worship

Well, first, MAGA isn't really a qualitative change to the GOP, and is fully compatible with bourgeois rule, unlike trying to get socialism to overtake the DNC. Secondly, revolution is by far the most successful way at bringing about what those engaged with it wanted, not sure what you're talking about here.

There is no chance of genuine "anti-monopoly laws" in an economy where the bourgeoisie is in control of the large firms. Even if necessities are publicly owned, the proletariat and even lesser bourgeoisie lose out in influence over the state, lacking the political control to enact such laws that directly go against the most powerful in society. The only way is socialism, which requires that not just the necessities, but also the large firms be publicly owned, and the medium firms tightly controlled by the state.

I'm a materialist, not an idealist. If a stance is correct, then it should be pushed for, regardless of its acceptability. In tine, through testing theory to practice, acceptability will rise. Commandism and tailism are wrong, but pushing for the correct line is correct.

As for the state owning the large firms and key industries, and allowing the bourgeoisie only small and medium firms (and siezing them if they grow to be large), is socialism, which is the path to communism. The state does not need your toothbrush, but if you own a large company? Too bad.

I disagree with your erasure of class dynamics as they relate to the state. The class that is in control of the state is the class that controls the large firms and key industries, the economic base of society. There isn't a middle ground, this is a class war, and the one that has supremacy weilds it in their favor and cements it.

Further, the disparity in capitalism is leagues beyond socialism. In the USSR, the difference between the top and the bottom was around 5-10 times, on average. In capitalist countries, that figures in the hundreds to thousands range, to far, far more than that even. These are not equivalent in any way. Privledged individuals exist in socialism, to be sure, but the sheer scale of privledge pales in comparison to capitalism.

Further, everyone being capable of voting makes no analysis of the media, the state, how candidates are selected before coming to the election table, what parties are allowed and which are financially backed by the capitalists, and like I showed, the state is taking an active role in suppressing socialism. This is not democracy for the people, this is bourgeois democracy, and it extends from bourgeois control of the economic base of society.

Why is radicalism bad? A viewpoint being closer or fartger from the median viewpoint in society has no bearing on its correctness or incorrectness. At one point, heliocentrism was radical, most people used to see the Earth as the center of the solar system. At one point, abolition of slavery was radical. Radicalism isn't bad in and of itself.

As for the system you describe, it's just not possible. In a capitalist economy, ie one where the large firms and key industries are privately owned, through ownership of the economic base the bourgeoisie has control of the political arms of society, the state. As such, regulation will only be with the explicit consent and approval of the bourgeoisie, including at the expense of lesser capitalists and of course the working class. The system cannot genuinely be tweaked into working better, even the Nordic countries are decaying, and they already depend on imperialism to function.

What works is socialism, ie public ownership of the large firms and key industries, with the working class in control. Rather than the ruthless nature of monopolized markets, we should work towards collectivizing and planning the economy. Humanity can become the masters of its destiny, rather than profit. In time, this results in gradual sublimation of all property, until all of production is collectivized and classes cease to exist, ie communism.

Thanks, I appreciate it!

One thing I want to stress, is that this does not exonerate imperialism. It's easy to label a country imperialist if it has significant influence, but identifying if that influence is positive or negative is important, and doing so is best looked at from the underlying materialist perspective, ie analyzing the mode of production. That's why Marxists identify imperialism the way we do, and further, why Marxists can say we are definitively anti-imperialist. We have a strong understanding and clear identification of what we oppose, why, and how.

Returning to the PRC, they are focused on multilateralism. As a socialist country, they lack the dictatorial control of a financial oligarchy, and they focus on export of commodities. The more customers for their commodities, and the easier access to raw materials, the better. It's in their interest to not be predatory for the global south.

Returning to the Russian Federation, it's a capitalist country, absolutely, but unlike the US, it straight up doesn't have the financial capital to imperialize. They are too poor as a country, they mostly export oil. They have strong-ish industrial production, but are kept out of the circle of imperialists through western millitary lines. Russia has the materialist desire to imperialize, but lacks the ability to do so.

The US, on the other hand, has both the means to do so, and the financial interest in doing so. The US isn't very industrialized, it in fact relies on imperialism to keep its economy running. Whereas with the PRC they lacked the reasons to imperialize, and with Russia they lacked the means, the US is lacking in neither.

That's generally the Marxist understanding of imperialism. The RF isn't selfless, neither is the PRC, but because their underlying material basis is distinct and qualitatively different from that of the US (and other imperialist countries), they are more materially interested in engaging with the global economy in different means.

So, in essense, it's a vibe in your views, right? Since all nations with sizable power use it to develop at minimum soft-power and in other cases hard-power, by nature a large country is definitionally imperialist? I can't say I agree with that.

For starters, it isn't something actionable to combat, unless you're in favor of balkanizing every major country, and this would work against the continuing process of globalization and decreasing friction in production and circulation. If anything, centralization is a natural force, and thus it makes most sense to take an internationalist, socialist stance.

Secondly, it isn't really measurable in your definition. It's a process defined by its lack of definition, just large countries having influence, and in turn erases whether this process be for good, like assistance with national liberation or multilateral development, or for bad, such as predatory systems of extraction.

The reason Marxists hold to our outline of imperialism is because we can measure it, track it, combat it, and move beyond it:

1. The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.

2. The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.

3. The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.

4. The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels).

5. The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.

If we compare, say, the US with the PRC, then the nature of just how different these economies are with how they interact with the world is immediately apparent. The PRC absolutely does not fit this definition, while the US fits it to a T. This is helpful, because it explains why the global south is ditching the US and siding with China.

Further still, the implication that valuing "ideals" is what is counterposed to "idolizing nations" is a false dichotomy. What matters is materialist analysis. Why do systems exist? Where did they come from, where are they going? Morals are nice and all, but they don't explain the world, or help us change it.

Does that make sense?

Interestingly about the PRC, even though the WEF is a right-wing, pro-imperialist org, it still acknowledges that China is rapidly improving:

China, one of the world’s most populous countries, improves gender parity by +0.2 points since the last edition of the report, with a 2025 score of 68.6% and climbs three ranks since last year to 103rd rank. China has been on a positive trajectory for the past three editions, and on course to approach its highest score to date (69.1%, 2013). This shift results from parity increases in Political Empowerment (+1.2 points) and Health and Survival (+0.7 points) and is achieved despite a slight reduction in economic parity (-1.2 points). In Economic Participation and Opportunity, while income parity rises from 64.2% to 63.9%, it is not sufficient to counter the drop in wage parity, of –0.3 percentage points. However, compared to 2006 China has advanced economic parity by an overall +10.5 percentage points. In Educational Attainment, parity ratios are maintained with the exception of literacy rates, which show the score modestly improved from 96.6% to 96.9% despite a minimal but overall reduction in values. China’s improved sex ratio at birth has a significant effect on its Health and Parity subindex performance, raising the score from 94.0% to 94.7%. Unlike a large share of economies this year, China’s healthy life expectancy remains virtually unchanged. Political parity improves as female ministerial representation nearly doubles in 2025, from 4.7% to 8.3%, and boosts the overall subindex score from 12.3% to 13.5%.

In general, the introduction of capitalism into Eastern-Europe after the dissolution of the USSR was disastrous for equality, so the data checks out there.

As far as education is concerned, being more educated puts one into a more privledged subsection of society, without actually making them "smarter." Those with privledge tend to support the system, even if it isn't as scientifically logical. The fact that less-privledged people prefer more equitable economic formations is indeed natural, I agree with you on that.

As for "true" capitalism, there's no such thing. Capitalism is capitalism, either the large firms and key industries are public, or they are private. There's no such thing as a "checked" capitalism, the system will always adapt to suit its class structure. The reason socialism is appealing is because it's equitable, scientific, and resolves the contradictions and inherent flaws in capitalism. It isn't simply another "extreme," it's shifting from a privately driven economy to a publicly driven economy. There is no "middle ground" in class dynamics, either the bourgeoisie are in charge, or the proletariat is, and in the Czech Republic that class is absolutely the bourgeoisie. It isn't democratic except for the privledged few, the state bans communism and tries to root out its influence.

What facts did I deny?

What do you think imperialism is? Is it a vibe, or is it something we can measure? Marxists have a coherent and measurable working theory of imperialism, but I want to know what you're claiming here.