?

The USSR is hiding out in Red Shambhala consolidating power to fight the fascists in the hollow earth.

A big Freikorps fan? Imperialist pillaging of the periphery isn’t a major issue in your mind so long as you get “your” cut of the spoils?

The CIA (but mostly Allen Dulles and his cronies)

Elevating Kim Jong Nam as some poor detefector who was killed for speaking out is kind of funny given he was a CIA asset. And on all those who “disappear” for speaking out you wouldn’t happen to have a source? Ideally one that avoids the ROK defector industrial complex, ROK tabloids or RFA. “It is known” isn’t really enough to assert claims like that

Apologies on advance for the length got very invested while typing this.

The 2021 ruling followed by 2025 reinforcement doesn’t mean the problem is “solved,” but that’s actually how good governance is supposed to work. You set a standard, you monitor where enforcement falls short, you gather feedback from workers and local courts, then you adjust the framework as necessary according to feedback. The Supreme Court explicitly ruled 996 illegal in 2021, and the 2025 Consumption Boost Plan reinforcing those protections after a period of monitoring and feedback is good governance. Chinese reporting shows this cycle in action: enforcement is still uneven, yes, but the trajectory is consistently toward stricter oversight. It’s not perfect, but the direction is clearly negative for illegal overtime practices, and that matters more than pretending one decree could fix decades of practice overnight.

On billionaires and inequality, I think the analysis China Has Billionaires helps clarify the confusion in English. As that piece explains, socialism isn’t defined by the absence of wealthy individuals or by hitting a specific Gini coefficient. It’s defined by who holds ultimate control over capital and whether the state can subordinate profit to social goals. In China, billionaires exist, but they operate within boundaries set by a socialist state. When tech platforms overreach, when property speculation threatens stability, when capital tries to dictate terms, the state steps in. The Jack Ma case is a good example here: when Ant Group pushed for high-risk microloan products that threatened people’s and the countries financial stability, regulators halted the IPO and restructured the company. That’s not capitalist logic. That’s capital being managed, not ruling. If we look at how capitalist states like the US or those in Europe have generally allowed high-risk consumer lending models like Klarna to expand with minimal restraint, the contrast with China’s intervention is fairly stark.

The same logic explains the 2021 crackdown on for-profit private tutoring. Excessive academic pressure was harming student wellbeing, but more fundamentally, the state moved to stop education from becoming a commodity where money buys advantage. China’s public schools remain the primary pathway to success, with the gaokao system designed to be merit-based. Contrast that with the US or Europe, where wealthy families can purchase extensive tutoring, legacy admissions, or even direct donations to secure college placement. The Didi case mentioned in the redsails article fits here too: when the company rushed a US listing while holding sensitive geographic and user data, regulators intervened, not to punish growth, but to assert that capital cannot override data sovereignty or social stability. That’s the socialist boundary in action.

Also the number of billionaires in China has plateaued and even begun to decline as redistribution mechanisms and regulatory pressure intensify. That’s consistent with a transitional socialist project: allowing market mechanisms to develop productive forces while retaining the political capacity to rein them in when they conflict with collective interests. And it’s worth remembering what the socialist state has delivered: over 800 million people lifted out of poverty, infrastructure built in less developed regions even when it’s not profitable because state-owned enterprises serve a redistributive role, and public systems that prioritize collective welfare over short-term returns.

The socialist principle for this stage isn’t “equal outcomes regardless of contribution.” High aggregate wealth inequality metrics can coexist with massive improvements in living standards, public infrastructure, and social mobility, which is precisely what China has delivered. The real test isn’t whether a few people get very rich, but whether the working majority sees their conditions improve and whether the state can redirect surplus toward collective needs. By that measure, China’s trajectory aligns with a socialist project navigating a complex, globalized transition. If you haven’t read it yet, the redsails piece walks through these tensions with historical context and avoids the checklist approach that often leads to premature judgments about what socialism must look like at every stage.

Edit: Also a fun graph I found the data is from the world inequality database

I see two main issues with your comment. First, it feels like you’re relying mostly on non-Chinese sources here(correct me if I’m wrong). I feel if you were in China or actually reading Chinese-language reporting, you’d see that while overtime pressure and stuff like 996 still exist, the trend is clearly negative. As in, it’s being actively cracked down on. The Supreme Court ruled 996 illegal in 2021, and recent policy pushes like the 2025 Consumption Boost Plan are specifically targeting illegal overtime and pushing for better enforcement of rest/vacation rights. It’s not perfect, obviously, but it’s hugely improved from where things were in the 2000s, and honestly it’s just not the omnipresent norm that English-language coverage sometimes makes it sound like.

Second, capitalism vs. socialism isn’t really defined by work hours, pay conditions, or how hard people are pushed, that’s a misunderstanding of what those terms actually mean. What matters is who owns the means of production. In China, it’s without a doubt the people, exercising that ownership through the state. The state being the apparatus through which people collectively wield power. Around 70% of the largest companies are state-owned, and all the strategic sectors (energy, transport, telecoms, finance) remain under public control. So yeah, China is socialist. The real question isn’t if, just how far along it is in the transitional period that socialism entails.

996 is way less common than you people seems to think. It was a fringe practice in ~40 companies during the tech boom. It has since been made illegal and is declining from it’s already fringe position.

Anecdotal story and all but I feel this encapsulates why most people support kicking Nazis out even if they seem polite to start.

It was just a fairly tone deaf reply given the topic. It comes off very much like the standard nazi defense when they get called out on dog whistles. Maybe that wasn’t your intention but I’m sure if you read them again you can see how it gives that impression.

You are taking all this time to run defense about how it’s actually bad to force Nazis out of spaces like the punk scene because some of them might just be mislabeled. I assumed if you were going to talk shit you’d at least have a solution? If it’s bad to force Nazis out of spaces then should they be allowed in all spaces or did you perhaps receive a divine revelation about how it’s actually possible to beat them in the marketplace of ideas or some such nonsense?

So what’s your solution? Just accept all the Nazis for fear of it really being a mistake? That’s how you get a nazi bar.

Who is people like me? Non whites? Who have I called a nazi? You replied to a post about nazi punks (a hyper well documented phenomenon) and how punks have to make it clear they are not welcome much like bars to avoid becoming nazi bars. What is your point? Nazis should be welcome? Because your spiel about mislabeling isn’t relevant.

The statement you replied to was specifically about Nazi punks a well documented issue? Are you fucking illiterate?

“Nazi opinions are just as valid as everyone else’s”

No. All Nazis should be shot.

Lmao typical crackkker straight to badjacketing when you get caught out in your lies. 🤣 👉

I checked the modlog and you were very much banned for concern trolling about “Israelis being victims” while Gaza was getting flattened. You had another gem just before that where you fantasize about re-educating “brown folk”.

Both sidesing genocide is still bad even if you are “debunking” hard-line pro genociders. If your position is anything short of Israel shouldn’t exist it’s liberal Zionism. You should have nothing but support for the liberation movements of oppressed nations even if they don’t fit your pr standard.

We’ve arranged ourselves to be in compliance with the content of one, doddering racist’s fever dream of America.

This war is possibly the most American thing he has ever done. He’s simply following the long tradition of American imperialism in the Middle East: from the CIA-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Mossadeq in 1953 to protect oil interests, to arming the Mujahideen against the Soviets, funding the very networks that would fracture into the Taliban and al-Qaeda; from Bush Sr.'s 1991 Gulf War that entrenched permanent bases in the region, to Bush Jr.'s 2003 invasion of Iraq built on fabricated WMD claims; to Obama’s 2011 NATO intervention in Libya that toppled Gaddafi under a “responsibility to protect” mandate, then abandoned the country to militia warlords and slave markets. Each chapter follows the same script: regime change, chaos, retreat, and the next generation of blowback.

“Nuanced” Both sidesing in the face of a genocide? Condemning the oppressors and oppressed in equal measure? Do you not see the issue with that?