tiredturtle

Interesting thread of comments. I had joined this instance before I knew about the reputation and let it be. For the topic, the wording felt essential, then again with meme shitposts I write more terse :shrug:

Your comment reflects a tendency to prioritize appearances over structural critique, echoing the rhetoric of capitalist development. It is crucial to recognize that China’s claims of "lifting people out of poverty" and "building infrastructure" serve as ideological justifications for the contradictions inherent in its system—a system that, despite its nominal commitment to socialism, increasingly operates within the framework of global capitalism.

GDP growth, real or exaggerated, is not an end that inherently benefits the proletariat. It masks the exploitation of labor, the suppression of dissent, and the commodification of essential resources, all hallmarks of capitalist production. While infrastructure projects may symbolize "progress," they often come at the cost of dispossession, ecological destruction, and deepening inequalities—a logic that mirrors the global capitalist order.

The repression of Gao Shanwen illustrates the prioritization of state legitimacy over the dialectical process of critique and reform, which socialism should embrace. Instead of addressing the material realities of stagnating wages, housing crises, and debt spirals, China leans into controlling "expectations," reinforcing an ideology of growth as virtue while deflecting accountability for structural shortcomings.

This is not the collapse of an economy but the entrenchment of capitalist contradictions. True progress lies not in GDP metrics but in the emancipation of labor from exploitation and the alignment of development with human and ecological needs.

Manmohan Singh's legacy as a "liberal" is emblematic of the contradictions inherent in the neoliberal project that has swept India since the 1990s. While Singh's decency as a public figure is often extolled, his economic policies marked a historic capitulation to capital's global imperatives, institutionalizing inequality under the guise of modernization. What is often overlooked in these tributes is that the term "neoliberalism" itself has been co-opted by capitalist forces to market a deeply conservative, hierarchical agenda as a liberating and progressive movement.

Far from embodying the values of emancipation, equality, and justice traditionally associated with liberalism, neoliberalism in India has entrenched wealth disparities and undermined democratic institutions. As the World Inequality Lab aptly notes, India's "Billionaire Raj" is more unequal than even the exploitative British colonial regime. The reforms championed by Singh, far from ushering in a golden era of liberalism, laid the groundwork for today's corporate-dominated, exclusionary politics and the rise of Hindu nationalism—a stark departure from the secular, egalitarian ideals of India's independence movement.

In this context, the last true liberals in India are not the architects of neoliberalism but the communists of Kerala, who continue to uphold a vision of society rooted in social justice, public welfare, and collective emancipation. Kerala's commitment to universal education, healthcare, and progressive labor rights starkly contrasts with the neoliberal commodification of these essential services. The state's communist-led governance offers an alternative that aligns with the original spirit of liberal values, emphasizing equity and human dignity over market supremacy.

Thus, to mourn Singh as India's "last liberal" is to misread the trajectory of India's political economy. It is not neoliberal technocrats but those resisting the capital-first order—whether through the Left's steadfast advocacy for workers' rights or Kerala's example of people-centric governance—who carry the torch.

Good point. The issue at hand must be understood within the broader framework of state power and ideological control. While it's true that the immediate justification for these arrests is rooted in anti-pornography laws, the enforcement of such laws is not ideologically neutral. Under a socialist analysis, we must examine who these laws serve and who they suppress. The targeting of erotic writers—particularly LGBTQ+ creators—fits into a pattern of reinforcing bourgeois morality and suppressing dissenting or marginalized voices.

Sexuality, as part of the superstructure, is inherently tied to the base. In a society where the state aligns itself with heteronormative and patriarchal values, laws purportedly aimed at "protecting morality" often become tools of repression against communities and expressions that deviate from the status quo. The absence of legal protections for LGBTQ+ people and the lack of recognition for same-sex marriage in China is a clear indication of the state’s alignment with reactionary values, even as it claims to uphold socialism.

Marxists should oppose the imprisonment of writers for exploring erotic themes because these laws serve to restrict the free development of human creativity and reinforce the control of the state over the personal lives of individuals. Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, critiques how oppressive social norms are used to maintain class society. Similarly, the suppression of erotic fiction is not about protecting the people but about consolidating ideological control over the masses, maintaining a culture of obedience and fear.

We must also critique the broader pattern of repression. Mass arrests, whether for writing fiction or other nonviolent expressions, represent the actions of a state more concerned with controlling its people than advancing their material conditions. A truly proletarian state would encourage the flourishing of diverse cultural expressions as part of the revolutionary process, not silence them under the pretext of "morality."

This crackdown is not an isolated incident but part of a larger reactionary turn in the governance of China. As communists, we must oppose these repressive measures and advocate for a society where the working class—not the state bureaucracy—has control over cultural and ideological production. Liberation includes the liberation of human expression from the chains of both commodification and state repression.

Yes, and while the Democratic Party under Biden has continued to erode the legitimacy of international law, this does not absolve the MAGA movement of its reactionary role in dismantling accountability mechanisms such as the ICC. From a communist perspective, both parties serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, prioritizing the preservation of U.S. imperialism over global justice.

Yes, Russia and China have distinct geopolitical ambitions, but they share a material interest with the U.S. ruling class in rejecting supranational institutions that challenge state sovereignty or expose crimes against humanity. The Trump administration’s sanctions against the ICC represent a counter-revolutionary act aligned with the broader global bourgeois strategy to suppress mechanisms that empower the proletariat through international solidarity.

And while the Democrats have contributed to this erosion, the actions of the MAGA movement reveal a more overt alignment with authoritarian tactics. MAGA, along with Russia and China, participates in a dialectical process that consolidates power in reactionary blocs, protecting bourgeois domination and suppressing proletarian struggle. Recognizing this unity of interests across seemingly opposed regimes is essential for the international working class to advance revolutionary praxis and dismantle the oppressive systems that thrive on the destruction of international law.

The reported plans of Donald Trump to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) fit within a broader reactionary agenda aligning with the goals of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. This move, which aims to delegitimize international accountability mechanisms, highlights the shared priorities of MAGA and authoritarian states: undermining global institutions that challenge their power.

By targeting the ICC—an institution designed to hold individuals and states accountable for crimes against humanity—Trump’s actions echo Russia’s and China’s longstanding rejection of international judicial oversight. Russia withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute in 2016, while China has refused to ratify the treaty. These regimes, along with MAGA-aligned U.S. leadership, oppose any supranational authority that could limit their sovereignty or expose their abuses.

This attack on the ICC serves multiple reactionary purposes:

1. Reinforcing Nationalism: Trump’s move isolates the U.S. further from global accountability, mirroring the nationalist rhetoric used to suppress class solidarity and justify state power.

2. Protecting Bourgeois Interests: The ICC’s focus on human rights violations threatens the ruling classes in authoritarian and reactionary states. MAGA, Russia, and China share an interest in shielding the bourgeoisie from legal consequences.

3. Weakening International Solidarity: By delegitimizing institutions like the ICC, MAGA contributes to the erosion of global frameworks that could unite workers against exploitation and oppression.

This development underscores the convergence of MAGA and authoritarian regimes into what we term M(ARC)GA—a reactionary alliance that prioritizes authoritarian control and the preservation of capitalist hegemony over international justice. The global proletariat must recognize and resist this bloc’s efforts to dismantle institutions that promote accountability and cooperation. Only through solidarity and revolutionary action can we counter these reactionary strategies and advance the fight for a just and equitable world.

So [strawperson]? No

Not oc