Excellent questions and I wouldn't be able to answer them as lengthy as I should, in the amount of time I have atm, But I shall try since you asked :) ; and sorry for any extra typos/grammer, as my keyboard is dying.
Some quick framework background:
Most leaders of marxism (the ones who get to power) don't actually believe in marxism; it's mearly the tool/vehicle they use to achieve power (which is also why they tend to do "purges" of their other fellow comrade/marxist leaders, usually the "true believers" not just political rivals.)
These "sucessful" leaders tend to be the mass murdering (very bad/evil mental brains), and thus they know not to trust each other too much; or in cases where there's a further cultural gap, really know to not trust each other; as they'd just as easily kill off a few million of the other countries' people as a few million of their own country's people; or sell out the other guy and that country just as easy as conquer/takeover a 3rd one. (There is some honor among thieves, as the saying goes.)
These leaders adopt their various flavors of marxism, based on where they are located-ie to fit the cultural, economic, political, demographic, geographic, historical, etc particulars of their country/region/time.
So like take current Governor of CA, Newsom; he wouldn't call for nationalizing industries of Big Tech of Chi-Comm Valley, or Hollywood, or universities, because the maxists have already taken them over; but he wants to/is taking over PG&E (the major private electric & gas company) because marxists don't control that yet. Same goes for all other marxist leaders, when you analize their "economic/political" positions were/are it fits with what their gameplan is to get to power for their location.
So the various "leaders" tend to not exactly get along as well as people might imagine; and there is very real differences and dislikes; similar to say the Comic Books of villians all together, they may not like each other at all, but they work often towards a similar goal (against the good guys). And because each "sucessful leader who got to power" had to adapt marxism to that countries/peoples/etc particulars, means the type/flavor/brand of marxism which "works" in one place, likely wont be an exact cookie-cutter fit to "work" to take over another place. So Fascism of Italy or Germany, is not the same as Stalin, is not the same as Mao, is not the same as Castro, etc.
This is also where the classic "university" coffee-shop type arguments of "X type communism is nothing like Y type Fascism, is nothing like Z type Socialism" come from; as they're arguing that chocolate ice cream is nothing like strawberry ice cream is nothing like vanilla ice cream; while not acknowledging or realizing the redpills that they're still talking about ice cream, just arguing over the flavors.
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." —Ronald Reagan
Another key thing to realize about Marxism, is it cannot continue without theft or fresh infusions of money/labor/tech/resources/etc. It's not economically self-sustainable like Capitalism is. So Marxism is like de-forestation (or like computer/board games where the amount of resources in the game is fixed at the start, and get used up along the way; eventually there's no more resources.)
To your more specific questions:
How do you know the fall of Communism was just the commies moving everything from the USSR to China?
There's two main ways at coming at this issue, one is the inside information track which is rather difficult. The second way is the use the "de facto" by just looking at it from the outside & lens of history. Just as the geopolitical redpills above: If in 1940 trying to explain as some did, that WW2 was going to be another rouse of pretense, and like WW1 in the marxists were coordinating in expanding the maps; that's like screeming into the wind. Without reading firsthand information, but by just looking backwards, it's easy to see, or at least rather undeniable to not at least notice.
So (this is where I'm not going to end up doing this topic justice as too short but I'll try to condense) by the time of the "open China" gameplan, most of the USSR resources/money/population/tech had been going full marxism from 1917 to 1970 ish (and obviously countries start at various different starting places; like Russia 1917 is different than China 1940 or Venezuela pre-Maduro)
So too put it far too shortly; where the USSR was in 1970 was about 1 generation (30ish years) ahead in self-marxist pilliaging (mal-investment of capital, as Ron Paul might say) from where Commie China was. The USSR's marxism was going to "burn itself out" without enough runway left in it, before just slipping into straight dictator-mode (without needing or promoting the veil of marxism) to hold onto/keep power or to hold it's borders together.
So there needed to be another place with more resources and be able to pour more capital/money/tech stolen/transfered from the rest of the world.
Thus,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#D%C3%A9tente_and_the_opening_to_China
the plan was "sold" to anti-commies like Nixon, as a way to "hurt the commies" by driving a split between China & USSR. This btw is the similar logic how many other actions were used to "sell" plans which help marxists by seeming to "hurt" them. Similar to how people call marxists "Liberals" as an insult, but they're not really insulting them, it's giving the marxists the exact cover-word/language which FDR adopted which is 180 degrees from marxism. Thus, by anti-commies using the word LIBERALS, they not only aren't hurting the commies, but helping them.
"Containment Policy" was another major selling to anti-commies as a way to hurt commies, but it of course also did the opposite.
Then when Deng came to power, Kissinger, Nixon and Trudeau Sr guided China through Communism into Fascism. Now Xi is giving China their newest identity: National Socialism. What are your thoughts?
So Kissinger's fingerprints of course where all over it (key player); as well as the other key players who do such crafty things with surnames everyone would recognize.
The differences between Stalinesque and Maoesque economicis; and their famous disagreements; and the "reforms" which the USSR tried too late; and which current CCP China adopted (which again against what Mao said)... is in order to get the flow of capital/tech/resources to sustain the marxism.
The CCP basically created a "capitalist class" which of course now is well known. This can be seen as you described it, going from communism to fascism, and now to socialism; but when looking at the framework I mentioned in previous comment above:
-
Marxism (heavy) = Communism
-
Marxism (medium) = Fascism
-
Marxism (light) = Socialism
The reality is CCP China hasn't lightened up its marxism, it can and will purge its created "capitalist class" at any time it wants to. It can and will pull back its softer Socialism, at any time it wants to. The softening and capital class is a facade over the Communism, serving to provide imputs of theft for tech, money, resources (ie the means of production & efficiency; which marxism rules over all other aspects: property, rights, environment, religion, family, health, life, nature, etc.)
And when you put the timelines of say the Marxists in Russia up to the Marxists in China; you'll still see that 30 year ish time lag (More precision is a much longer discussion.) but in short, this means that where the USSR went bust in 1991; is coming up pretty soon (in a few years) on the horizon for CCP China.
The "reforms" within the Party by Xi, are the precursors which are in that last-gasp from marxism-controlled government to just dictator-controlled goverment.
To stave this off, massive infusions of cash/resources/tech/etc. would be required to keep CCP China going as a marxist country (eg Paris Climate Accords; Zero Tarrifs; The FED & Brussels printing presses at Trillions/year more eg Cares Act; massive quantities of food (soybeans, corn, wheat, pork, chicken, beef, etc.), iron ore, oil, etc.; and tens of thousands of new stolen technology ideas/inventions/trade secrets.)
The FED already devalued the USD by increasing money supply at least 25% this year, maybe more like 33% or more; and that's without any of these current trillion+ spending bills being passed into law.
This is one reason why for the global commie kin, and CCP China in particular; and every corrupt and commie who's in on the game; needs BIDEN/HARIS/NANCY/CHUCK to be the "elected leaders in DC", and rigged the ballots & counting machines & processes to do it with fraud/theft/cheating.
Needless to say, Americans aren't going to let the fraud stand. Americans voted in an epic Republican Landslide for DJT/Pence/Republicans all across the board.
:::
Interesting article for a key reason--This article you linked is a fairly, talented piece of Leftie propaganda. I can say that I haven't read a more (elegantly) densely-packed article full of bluepills in one article this calendar year.
It goes back above to the flavors of ice cream discussion in a college coffeshop, "Look, CCP is Rocky Road, and that's NOT communist chocholate!"
Thanks for the link. I should do a full rebuttal to the article, but it's Christmas Eve/Christmas Day :)
*hugs & Merry Christmas!!!! Let me know if you have any thoughts/questions.
Excellent questions and I wouldn't be able to answer them as lengthy as I should, in the amount of time I have atm, But I shall try since you asked :) ; and sorry for any extra typos/grammer, as my keyboard is dying.
Some quick framework background:
Most leaders of marxism (the ones who get to power) don't actually believe in marxism; it's mearly the tool/vehicle they use to achieve power (which is also why they tend to do "purges" of their other fellow comrade/marxist leaders, usually the "true believers" not just political rivals.)
These "sucessful" leaders tend to be the mass murdering (very bad/evil mental brains), and thus they know not to trust each other too much; or in cases where there's a further cultural gap, really know to not trust each other; as they'd just as easily kill off a few million of the other countries' people as a few million of their own country's people; or sell out the other guy and that country just as easy as conquer/takeover a 3rd one. (There is some honor among thieves, as the saying goes.)
These leaders adopt their various flavors of marxism, based on where they are located-ie to fit the cultural, economic, political, demographic, geographic, historical, etc particulars of their country/region/time.
So like take current Governor of CA, Newsom; he wouldn't call for nationalizing industries of Big Tech of Chi-Comm Valley, or Hollywood, or universities, because the maxists have already taken them over; but he wants to/is taking over PG&E (the major private electric & gas company) because marxists don't control that yet. Same goes for all other marxist leaders, when you analize their "economic/political" positions were/are it fits with what their gameplan is to get to power for their location.
So the various "leaders" tend to not exactly get along as well as people might imagine; and there is very real differences and dislikes; similar to say the Comic Books of villians all together, they may not like each other at all, but they work often towards a similar goal (against the good guys). And because each "sucessful leader who got to power" had to adapt marxism to that countries/peoples/etc particulars, means the type/flavor/brand of marxism which "works" in one place, likely wont be an exact cookie-cutter fit to "work" to take over another place. So Fascism of Italy or Germany, is not the same as Stalin, is not the same as Mao, is not the same as Castro, etc.
This is also where the classic "university" coffee-shop type arguments of "X type communism is nothing like Y type Fascism, is nothing like Z type Socialism" come from; as they're arguing that chocolate ice cream is nothing like strawberry ice cream is nothing like vanilla ice cream; while not acknowledging or realizing the redpills that they're still talking about ice cream, just arguing over the flavors.
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." —Ronald Reagan
Another key thing to realize about Marxism, is it cannot continue without theft or fresh infusions of money/labor/tech/resources/etc. It's not economically self-sustainable like Capitalism is. So Marxism is like de-forestation (or like computer/board games where the amount of resources in the game is fixed at the start, and get used up along the way; eventually there's no more resources.)
To your more specific questions:
How do you know the fall of Communism was just the commies moving everything from the USSR to China?
There's two main ways at coming at this issue, one is the inside information track which is rather difficult. The second way is the use the "de facto" by just looking at it from the outside & lens of history. Just as the geopolitical redpills above: If in 1940 trying to explain as some did, that WW2 was going to be another rouse of pretense, and like WW1 in the marxists were coordinating in expanding the maps; that's like screeming into the wind. Without reading firsthand information, but by just looking backwards, it's easy to see, or at least rather undeniable to not at least notice.
So (this is where I'm not going to end up doing this topic justice as too short but I'll try to condense) by the time of the "open China" gameplan, most of the USSR resources/money/population/tech had been going full marxism from 1917 to 1970 ish (and obviously countries start at various different starting places; like Russia 1917 is different than China 1940 or Venezuela pre-Maduro)
So too put it far too shortly; where the USSR was in 1970 was about 1 generation (30ish years) ahead in self-marxist pilliaging (mal-investment of capital, as Ron Paul might say) from where Commie China was. The USSR's marxism was going to "burn itself out" without enough runway left in it, before just slipping into straight dictator-mode (without needing or promoting the veil of marxism) to hold onto/keep power or to hold it's borders together.
So there needed to be another place with more resources and be able to pour more capital/money/tech stolen/transfered from the rest of the world.
Thus,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#D%C3%A9tente_and_the_opening_to_China
the plan was "sold" to anti-commies like Nixon, as a way to "hurt the commies" by driving a split between China & USSR. This btw is the similar logic how many other actions were used to "sell" plans which help marxists by seeming to "hurt" them. Similar to how people call marxists "Liberals" as an insult, but they're not really insulting them, it's giving the marxists the exact cover-word/language which FDR adopted which is 180 degrees from marxism. Thus, by anti-commies using the word LIBERALS, they not only aren't hurting the commies, but helping them.
"Containment Policy" was another major selling to anti-commies as a way to hurt commies, but it of course also did the opposite.
Then when Deng came to power, Kissinger, Nixon and Trudeau Sr guided China through Communism into Fascism. Now Xi is giving China their newest identity: National Socialism. What are your thoughts?
So Kissinger's fingerprints of course where all over it (key player); as well as the other key players who do such crafty things with surnames everyone would recognize.
The differences between Stalinesque and Maoesque economicis; and their famous disagreements; and the "reforms" which the USSR tried too late; and which current CCP China adopted (which again against what Mao said)... is in order to get the flow of capital/tech/resources to sustain the marxism.
The CCP basically created a "capitalist class" which of course now is well known. This can be seen as you described it, going from communism to fascism, and now to socialism; but when looking at the framework I mentioned in previous comment above:
-
Marxism (heavy) = Communism
-
Marxism (medium) = Fascism
-
Marxism (light) = Socialism
The reality is CCP China hasn't lightened up its marxism, it can and will purge its created "capitalist class" at any time it wants to. It can and will pull back its softer Socialism, at any time it wants to. The softening and capital class is a facade over the Communism, serving to provide imputs of theft for tech, money, resources (ie the means of production & efficiency; which marxism rules over all other aspects: property, rights, environment, religion, family, health, life, nature, etc.)
And when you put the timelines of say the Marxists in Russia up to the Marxists in China; you'll still see that 30 year ish time lag (More precision is a much longer discussion.) but in short, this means that where the USSR went bust in 1991; is coming up pretty soon (in a few years) on the horizon for CCP China.
The "reforms" within the Party by Xi, are the precursors which are in that last-gasp from marxism-controlled government to just dictator-controlled goverment.
To stave this off, massive infusions of cash/resources/tech/etc. would be required to keep CCP China going as a marxist country (eg Paris Climate Accords; Zero Tarrifs; The FED & Brussels printing presses at Trillions/year more eg Cares Act; massive quantities of food (soybeans, corn, wheat, pork, chicken, beef, etc.), iron ore, oil, etc.; and tens of thousands of new stolen technology ideas/inventions/trade secrets.)
The FED already devalued the USD by increasing money supply at least 25% this year, maybe more like 33% or more; and that's without any of these current trillion+ spending bills passing DJT's desk.
This is why for the global commie kin, and CCP China in particular; and every corrupt and commie who's in on the game; needs BIDEN/HARIS/NANCY/CHUCK to be the "elected leaders in DC", and rigged the ballots & counting machines & processes to do it with fraud/theft/cheating.
Needless to say, Americans aren't going to let the fraud stand. Americans voted in an epic Republican Landslide for DJT/Pence/Republicans all across the board.
:::
Interesting article for a key reason--This article you linked is a fairly, talented piece of Leftie propaganda. I can say that I haven't read a more (elegantly) densely-packed article full of bluepills in one article this calendar year.
It goes back above to the flavors of ice cream discussion in a college coffeshop, "Look, CCP is Rocky Road, and that's NOT communist chocholate!"
Thanks for the link. I should do a full rebuttal to the article, but it's Christmas Eve/Christmas Day :)
*hugs & Merry Christmas!!!! Let me know if you have any thoughts/questions.
Excellent questions and I wouldn't be able to answer them as lengthy as I should, in the amount of time I have atm, But I shall try since you asked :) ; and sorry for any extra typos/grammer, as my keyboard is dying.
Some quick framework background:
Most leaders of marxism (the ones who get to power) don't actually believe in marxism; it's mearly the tool/vehicle they use to achieve power (which is also why they tend to do "purges" of their other fellow comrade/marxist leaders, usually the "true believers" not just political rivals.)
These "sucessful" leaders tend to be the mass murdering (very bad/evil mental brains), and thus they know not to trust each other too much; or in cases where there's a further cultural gap, really know to not trust each other; as they'd just as easily kill off a few million of the other countries' people as a few million of their own country's people; or sell out the other guy and that country just as easy as conquer/takeover a 3rd one. (There is some honor among thieves, as the saying goes.)
These leaders adopt their various flavors of marxism, based on where they are located-ie to fit the cultural, economic, political, demographic, geographic, historical, etc particulars of their country/region/time.
So like take current Governor of CA, Newsom; he wouldn't call for nationalizing industries of Big Tech of Chi-Comm Valley, or Hollywood, or universities, because the maxists have already taken them over; but he wants to/is taking over PG&E (the major private electric & gas company) because marxists don't control that yet. Same goes for all other marxist leaders, when you analize their "economic/political" positions were/are it fits with what their gameplan is to get to power for their location.
So the various "leaders" tend to not exactly get along as well as people might imagine; and there is very real differences and dislikes; similar to say the Comic Books of villians all together, they may not like each other at all, but they work often towards a similar goal (against the good guys). And because each "sucessful leader who got to power" had to adapt marxism to that countries/peoples/etc particulars, means the type/flavor/brand of marxism which "works" in one place, likely wont be an exact cookie-cutter fit to "work" to take over another place. So Fascism of Italy or Germany, is not the same as Stalin, is not the same as Mao, is not the same as Castro, etc.
This is also where the classic "university" coffee-shop type arguments of "X type communism is nothing like Y type Fascism, is nothing like Z type Socialism" come from; as they're arguing that chocolate ice cream is nothing like strawberry ice cream is nothing like vanilla ice cream; while not acknowledging or realizing the redpills that they're still talking about ice cream, just arguing over the flavors.
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." —Ronald Reagan
Another key thing to realize about Marxism, is it cannot continue with theft or fresh infusions of money/labor/tech/resources/etc. It's not economically self-sustainable like Capitalism is. So Marxism is like de-forestation (or like computer/board games where the amount of resources in the game is fixed at the start, and get used up along the way; eventually there's no more resources.)
To your more specific questions:
How do you know the fall of Communism was just the commies moving everything from the USSR to China?
There's two main ways at coming at this issue, one is the inside information track which is rather difficult. The second way is the use the "de facto" by just looking at it from the outside & lens of history. Just as the geopolitical redpills above: If in 1940 trying to explain as some did, that WW2 was going to be another rouse of pretense, and like WW1 in the marxists were coordinating in expanding the maps; that's like screeming into the wind. Without reading firsthand information, but by just looking backwards, it's easy to see, or at least rather undeniable to not at least notice.
So (this is where I'm not going to end up doing this topic justice as too short but I'll try to condense) by the time of the "open China" gameplan, most of the USSR resources/money/population/tech had been going full marxism from 1917 to 1970 ish (and obviously countries start at various different starting places; like Russia 1917 is different than China 1940 or Venezuela pre-Maduro)
So too put it far too shortly; where the USSR was in 1970 was about 1 generation (30ish years) ahead in self-marxist pilliaging (mal-investment of capital, as Ron Paul might say) from where Commie China was. The USSR's marxism was going to "burn itself out" without enough runway left in it, before just slipping into straight dictator-mode (without needing or promoting the veil of marxism) to hold onto/keep power or to hold it's borders together.
So there needed to be another place with more resources and be able to pour more capital/money/tech stolen/transfered from the rest of the world.
Thus,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#D%C3%A9tente_and_the_opening_to_China
the plan was "sold" to anti-commies like Nixon, as a way to "hurt the commies" by driving a split between China & USSR. This btw is the similar logic how many other actions were used to "sell" plans which help marxists by seeming to "hurt" them. Similar to how people call marxists "Liberals" as an insult, but they're not really insulting them, it's giving the marxists the exact cover-word/language which FDR adopted which is 180 degrees from marxism. Thus, by anti-commies using the word LIBERALS, they not only aren't hurting the commies, but helping them.
"Containment Policy" was another major selling to anti-commies as a way to hurt commies, but it of course also did the opposite.
Then when Deng came to power, Kissinger, Nixon and Trudeau Sr guided China through Communism into Fascism. Now Xi is giving China their newest identity: National Socialism. What are your thoughts?
So Kissinger's fingerprints of course where all over it (key player); as well as the other key players who do such crafty things with surnames everyone would recognize.
The differences between Stalinesque and Maoesque economicis; and their famous disagreements; and the "reforms" which the USSR tried too late; and which current CCP China adopted (which again against what Mao said)... is in order to get the flow of capital/tech/resources to sustain the marxism.
The CCP basically created a "capitalist class" which of course now is well known. This can be seen as you described it, going from communism to fascism, and now to socialism; but when looking at the framework I mentioned in previous comment above:
-
Marxism (heavy) = Communism
-
Marxism (medium) = Fascism
-
Marxism (light) = Socialism
The reality is CCP China hasn't lightened up its marxism, it can and will purge its created "capitalist class" at any time it wants to. It can and will pull back its softer Socialism, at any time it wants to. The softening and capital class is a facade over the Communism, serving to provide imputs of theft for tech, money, resources (ie the means of production & efficiency; which marxism rules over all other aspects: property, rights, environment, religion, family, health, life, nature, etc.)
And when you put the timelines of say the Marxists in Russia up to the Marxists in China; you'll still see that 30 year ish time lag (More precision is a much longer discussion.) but in short, this means that where the USSR went bust in 1991; is coming up pretty soon (in a few years) on the horizon for CCP China.
The "reforms" within the Party by Xi, are the precursors which are in that last-gasp from marxism-controlled government to just dictator-controlled goverment.
To stave this off, massive infusions of cash/resources/tech/etc. would be required to keep CCP China going as a marxist country (eg Paris Climate Accords; Zero Tarrifs; The FED & Brussels printing presses at Trillions/year more eg Cares Act; massive quantities of food (soybeans, corn, wheat, pork, chicken, beef, etc.), iron ore, oil, etc.; and tens of thousands of new stolen technology ideas/inventions/trade secrets.)
The FED already devalued the USD by increasing money supply at least 25% this year, maybe more like 33% or more; and that's without any of these current trillion+ spending bills passing DJT's desk.
This is why for the global commie kin, and CCP China in particular; and every corrupt and commie who's in on the game; needs BIDEN/HARIS/NANCY/CHUCK to be the "elected leaders in DC", and rigged the ballots & counting machines & processes to do it with fraud/theft/cheating.
Needless to say, Americans aren't going to let the fraud stand. Americans voted in an epic Republican Landslide for DJT/Pence/Republicans all across the board.
:::
Interesting article for a key reason--This article you linked is a fairly, talented piece of Leftie propaganda. I can say that I haven't read a more (elegantly) densely-packed article full of bluepills in one article this calendar year.
It goes back above to the flavors of ice cream discussion in a college coffeshop, "Look, CCP is Rocky Road, and that's NOT communist chocholate!"
Thanks for the link. I should do a full rebuttal to the article, but it's Christmas Eve/Christmas Day :)
*hugs & Merry Christmas!!!! Let me know if you have any thoughts/questions.