I mean you can’t just say you’ll never use it it ruins the whole point
Reverse psychology
The real Chinese COVID numbers must be crazy these days.
I know 5 girls, 1 guy who have it right now. Then I know 1 mother, 1 father, 1 roommate, 2 colleagues of a friend each who have it.
After those weak ass protests the CPC said aight bet and now half the country is sick
The real Chinese COVID numbers must be crazy these days.
I know 5 girls, 1 guy who have it right now. Then I know 1 mother, 1 father, 1 roommate, 2 colleagues of a friend each who have it.
After those weak ass protests the CPC said aight bet and now half the country is sick
You really think the CCP would do that? Go on the internet and just lie?
You really think the CCP would do that? Go on the internet and just lie?
They practically went from zero covid policy to full sweden in a week, I doubt they would even have the capacity to get real numbers rn. Every 2nd post on chinese twitter is a Paxlovid ad now
The real Chinese COVID numbers must be crazy these days.
I know 5 girls, 1 guy who have it right now. Then I know 1 mother, 1 father, 1 roommate, 2 colleagues of a friend each who have it.
After those weak ass protests the CPC said aight bet and now half the country is sick
zero covid was a losing policy long-term. the initial idea of doing a complete & full lockdown for like however long in the beginning wasn't inherently a bad idea but keeping it as a full on, no alternatives, long term solution was never going to end well.
zero covid was a losing policy long-term. the initial idea of doing a complete & full lockdown for like however long in the beginning wasn't inherently a bad idea but keeping it as a full on, no alternatives, long term solution was never going to end well.
Saying f*** it and doing full Sweden was the worst solution they could have used tho
Saying f*** it and doing full Sweden was the worst solution they could have used tho
yeah i agree, all in all they put themselves in a bad position though policy wise

Yeah I'm a Centrist
expected us to differ in the leader aspect, found it interesting we’re basically the same on focus axis guess that’s just the vanguardist in us
i’m getting over my philosophy binge and getting more into economy and history recently guess cause i don’t study those for school so it’s nice to study something else in my free time
"The astonishing speed with which democracy can transform itself into fascism has its roots in the blindness produced by the division of labor and by consumption, which, to varying degrees, affects everyone"
--
"Hans-Jürgen Krahl—also known for theorizing the mutation of intellectual labor—suggests that one mustn't just consider the working class as the “producer of capital,” but also as a force that destroys capital.
This second function is overlooked by the contemporary Marxist theories (including the theory of cognitive capitalism) that measures labor's revolutionary action in terms of its “productivity,” its creativity, its “autonomy.”
The idea of “destructive force” dislodges the “economism” that often affects Marxism on the strategic terrain"
Lazzarato(2019)
--
the destruction of capital doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing imo 🤷
yeah i agree, all in all they put themselves in a bad position though policy wise
I talked to 3 chinese people today and all 3 said their parents have corona
All from different provinces too
my favorite part of this image is the innate inability to tell the political views of who made it the more you think about it
anyone know anything about MN Roy
founded the communist party of mexico and the communist party of india, also worked in China during the 20s
fell off later in life and became a humanist or something
Though there were several points of disagreement between Lenin’s and Roy’s original draft theses on the national and colonial question, the main issue revolved around Lenin’s assertion that Communist parties in all colonial areas must assist “bourgeois-democratic liberation” movements. In his draft theses and in discussions with the National and Colonial Commission, Roy opposed alliances with certain bourgeois-democratic movements—it was evident that he had the Indian National Congress in mind—which might desert to the imperialist camp in a revolutionary situation. According to official Russian newspaper summaries, Roy argued that in countries such as India, which are characterised by the absence of “reliable” nationalist movements, the Comintern, rather than supporting such movements, should “assist exclusively the institution and development of the communist movement...” and the indigenous Communist parties, or groups, avoiding entanglements with these potentially reactionary bourgeois-nationalist leaders, should “devote themselves exclusively to the organisation of the broad popular masses for the struggle for the class interests of the latter.”
The first disagreement centered on the role of Gandhi. Lenin believed that as a leader of a mass movement Gandhi was a revolutionary. Roy maintained that “as a religious and cultural revivalist, he was bound to be reactionary socially, however revolutionary he might appear politically,” and, in support, he cited Plekhanov’s similar judgment of Russian Populist and Socialist Revolutionary Movements, which Roy felt corresponded with Gandhiism in that, believing in the special genius of the Slavic race, they had denounced capitalism as a Western vice and championed a return to the village and the revival of the “Mirs.”