Lib judging from his Twitter but he's got some interesting insights on China

I listen to him a lot but I feel like he's gotten too idealist and comfortable talking bout things he's not that knowledgeable about

like what? I saw some ppl upset with his interpretation of Dawn of Everything and others saying he doesn’t know enough European history

aii thx just wanted to to mimic Marx and Lenin before they wrote Capital and State and Revolution (i think) before i start my quest of Captial since i’m almost done with Mao selected work, i’ll just try to extrapolate it from Marx then since i kinda saw Capital being a philosophy manuscript hidden inside an economic one with Marx method of Dialectical Materialism

I agree with his takes on DoE, don't know that much European History. I get tired of hearing him trying to tie every historical trend to Christianity and how socialism needs to be spiritual or whatever. His breakdown of American domestic politics is limited to psychoanalysis, with the conclusion that "both sides are the same in every way but they consume different media"

my reading plan right now is finish Mao selected works then go at all the Capitals then after that i’m not sure if i wanna dive into the published Indian Maoist works on FLP or dive into Lenin selected works or into Existentialism

💀💀💀💀💀💀💀

Idk if socialism needs to be spiritual, what does he mean by that really? I haven't heard him say that word for word but i feel like it's just a way of saying socialism should end alienation. I've also heard him talk about the lack of true selflessness under capitalism (especially in the west) and how revolution takes a huge amount of selflessness and genuine heroism and sacrifice, and how transforming people's consciousness would be necessary or something along those lines, which reminds me a lot of what Che said in that essay about individual consciousness and becoming the new man

That essay is a must read btw

marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/03/man-socialism.htm

Now, I would like to explain the role played by the personality, by men and women as individuals leading the masses that make history. This is our experience; it is not a prescription.

Fidel gave the revolution its impulse in the first years, and also its leadership.49 He always set its tone; but there is a good group of revolutionaries who are developing along the same road as the central leader. And there is a great mass that follows its leaders because it has faith in them. It has faith in those leaders because they have known how to interpret its aspirations.

It is not a matter of how many kilograms of meat one has to eat, or of how many times a year someone can go to the beach, or how many pretty things from abroad you might be able to buy with present-day wages. It is a matter of making the individual feel more complete, with much more inner wealth and much more responsibility.

People in our country know that the glorious period in which they happen to live is one of sacrifice; they are familiar with sacrifice. The first ones came to know it in the Sierra Maestra and wherever they fought; later, everyone in Cuba came to know it. Cuba is the vanguard of America and must make sacrifices because it occupies the post of advance guard, because it shows the masses of Latin America the road to full freedom. Within the country the leadership has to carry out its vanguard role. It must be said with all sincerity that in a real revolution, to which one gives his or her all and from which one expects no material reward, the task of the vanguard revolutionary is both magnificent and agonizing.

At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. Perhaps it is one of the great dramas of the leader that he or she must combine a passionate spirit with a cold intelligence and make painful decisions without flinching. Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice.

The leaders of the revolution have children just beginning to talk, who are not learning to say “daddy”; their wives, too, must be part of the general sacrifice of their lives in order to take the revolution to its destiny. The circle of their friends is limited strictly to the circle of comrades in the revolution. There is no life outside of it.

In these circumstances one must have a large dose of humanity, a large dose of a sense of justice and truth in order to avoid dogmatic extremes, cold scholasticism, or an isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity is transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.

Read Fichte

NEOM gotta be the smartest government led tax/investor scam oat
as someone who can read a decent amount of arabic the internet stuff discussing NEOM is hilarious

I'm so confused why do people think this is real

Wikipedias top editor guy is most likely a front for feds

He edits stuff at an inhumane pace and a lot of it is political

wikipedia is largely indirectly run by govt orgs the same way TOR is or any major sizable nonprofit. even """NGOs""" largely are just govt agenda operations

you can always tell the lib ideology bs behind wikipedia because of how they classify pages and related categories, and how they feign neutrality in what sources/citations they allow or how they cover controversial figures

throwback to a few pages ago "Totalitarianism. Also See: Thomas Sankara"

"晚上好 Chairman Xi, Yes, yes...they still think I'm dead and mentally unfit to govern. Now, onto our 20 year plan, they will never suspect the formation of the vanguard. 光荣于毛泽东，光荣于共产主义."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salazar#Evaluation

imo my hottest take is Salazaar is like among the less than a handful of based modern right wing leaders in history. was never gonna succeed on the long term regardless though
his regime was destined to fail anyway because he leaned too hard into great man theory inadvertently and was too paranoid to consider future prospects beyond his immediate rule.
also dude got smoked by his own bathtub

of course salazar isn't anywhere near the most based rw person ever that distinction goes to Huey Long rip to a real one

This post said aloud would be a great intro quote for the ktt commie biopic (coming 2033)

What's crayz is that people that think they're against socialism actually want it when they start listing the things they wish were different

unless its about some hateful stuff,

most people who say like "i'm against socialism" have legitimately no idea what socialism is other than the historical precedent or social partisan implications
like step 1 of understanding socialism should be that its not a moral or ethical system. literally one of the main reasons for the marxist/etc formulation of materialist socialism was specifically because utopian socialism did attempt to be an ethical system/framework. all the people like Fourier and Proudhon were literally trying to formulate ethical socialism and it was just utopian nonsense
once you understand socialism is not meant to be related to intrinsic moral structure but rather enable a moral structure to properly exist (admittedly very hard) , socialism becomes a very different topic to discuss

Fourier and Proudhon were literally trying to formulate ethical socialism and it was just utopian nonsense

Any way to summarize what they said? or is it too complex to be brief about