Scientific socialist theory has a pretty great track record of being proven right and affecting massive positive change throughout it’s history.

Who do you think controls the state in China? Do you know how the Chinese state is structured? Do you know how Chinese democracy and political involvement works? What sources did you use to study China, the Chinese government and China’s democratic methods?

Why do you believe that? Just like how Obama didn’t “intervene” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan? Or Clinton didn’t “intervene” in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo?

Amerikkkan imperialism is bi-partisan.

What no theory does to a mf 😭

Going to respond to all your comments in one go here for ease of reading.

It is understandable to a degree that dialectical terminology can seem opaque if encountered without context, but dismissing it as word salad without engaging the framework is ridiculous. You entered a space built by communists, for communists, using the conceptual tools developed within that tradition, and then criticized the vocabulary without first learning the grammar.

Let’s start with the simplest example of a dialectical contradiction: the relationship between worker and owner under capitalism. These two classes are not merely opposed in the sense of having different preferences. They are bound together in a single productive relation, yet their fundamental interests are antagonistic. The worker must sell their labor power to survive. The owner must extract surplus value from that labor to accumulate capital. This is not a logical contradiction like A and not-A. It is a material contradiction: two forces that coexist, depend on each other, and simultaneously undermine each other. This tension drives wage struggles, technological change, crises of overproduction, and potentially, revolutionary transformation. Chairman Mao’s 《矛盾论》(On Contradiction) explains this, showing how to identify the principal contradiction in any given period and how secondary contradictions shift around it. Applying that method today, many Marxists argue that imperialism is the principal contradiction of our era. Not because empires vanish by fate, but because globalized production, financialization, and interimperialist rivalry generate concrete antagonisms: between core and periphery, between capital’s global reach and national political forms, between endless accumulation and ecological limits. These are the material tensions that shape war, migration, debt, and crisis.

Your “critique” leans on an idealist expectation: that theory should offer tidy, linear narratives or falsifiable predictions in the positivist sense. But dialectical and historical materialism are not idealist schemas imposed on history. They are methods for analyzing the material basis of social life. Historical materialism starts from the premise that the mode of production shapes social relations, politics, and ideology, not the reverse. Dialectical materialism adds that these relations are not static but contain internal tensions that propel development. This is not post-hoc storytelling. It is a framework for identifying which contradictions are principal at a given moment, how they interact, and where leverage for change might exist. Chairman Mao’s 《实践论》(On Practice) and Engels’ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific both emphasize that knowledge arises from material activity and that socialist theory becomes scientific when it grounds itself in the analysis of real contradictions, not moral aspiration.

Terminology matters because names define tools. Every field has its lexicon. Blockade in graph theory (as was already pointed out to you), work in physics, contradiction in dialectics. To reject Marxist terms in a Marxist space without engaging their defined meaning is equally as ridiculous as rejecting any of these other lexicons. The point is not obscurantism. It is precision. Contradiction in dialectical materialism carries a specific theoretical weight. It signals a dynamic, historically situated antagonism, not just any opposition. Using the correct term is how we avoid conflating distinct phenomena and how we build cumulative analysis.

For anyone seeking a structured introduction, the Chinese university textbook 《马克思主义基本原理概论》(Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism) systematically walks through these and more concepts with some concrete examples.

Finally, the charge that dialectical materialism is teleological belief shows a deep lack of understanding. Communism is not an inevitable endpoint guaranteed by history. It is a possibility opened by the resolution of capitalism’s contradictions through conscious praxis. When developments do not follow a predicted path, the response of serious Marxists is not wait longer, but to re-examine the analysis. Was the principal contradiction correctly identified? Did secondary contradictions shift? This is scientific in the sense of being self-correcting, materialist, and grounded in practice, not in the positivist sense of generating lab-style predictions.

If you wish to engage dialectical materialism seriously, contemporary Chinese Marxist scholarship offers rich resources for seeing the method applied to current conditions. Journals like 《马克思主义研究》(Marxism Studies) and platforms like 求是网 (Qiushi Journal) or 人民网理论频道 (People’s Daily Theory Channel) regularly publish analyses that apply dialectical materialism to issues from global supply chains to ecological crisis.

If you wish to critique dialectical materialism, we welcome that. But do so by engaging its actual concepts, its canonical texts, and its contemporary applications. Dismissing its language from outside the framework, in a space explicitly built around that framework, is again ridiculous.

You are a polish nationalist who has done no research on China and thus should stop speaking on it until you do

Adolf Heusinger was not conscripted; he joined the German Army as a volunteer in 1915 and later became a professional soldier, serving in various capacities during both World Wars. He held significant positions in the Nazi military(Operations Chief within the general staff of the High Command of the German Army from 1938 to 1944 and acting Chief of the General Staff for two weeks in 1944) before transitioning to roles in post-war Germany and NATO.

Why are you running ridiculous (untrue) defence for Nazis?

So you’re a troll? You are just saying things, you haven’t investigated at all?

Out of curiosity who do you think controls the state in China? Do you know how the Chinese state is structured? Do you know how Chinese democracy and political involvement works? What sources did you use to study China, the Chinese government and China’s democratic methods?

When you both sides the imperial hegemon slaughtering thousands and the resistance movement born from the slaughter you are doing imperialist propaganda.

Again citation? (Not that I really expect any from a troll like yourself)

Citation? It is known isn’t really good enough. Also who brought up Stalin?

Good things are bad actually because I read a book by a rabid racist, anti-Semite, colonial cop, snitch and rapist that was pushed hard by the CIA.

Truly an intellectual titan of our time.

On Orwell

You clearly have no coherent ideology underpinning your thoughts beyond what you’ve osmosised from western media and fighting the tyranny of bedtime. Authority is not inherently evil. Fascists and their supporters deserve to have the boot of the people stamping on their face.

Also “authoritarian regime”. Authoritarian is a useless pejorative. All states in class society are necessarily “authoritarian”. And “regime” just say what you really mean non white.

https://www.sintelins.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Boer-2023-Socialism-in-Power.-Singapore-Springer.pdf

99/100 search the name and add pdf at the end then you can just covert to epub if you really need.

A rapist, a snitch, and a colonial cop walk into a bar.

The bartender says, ‘The usual, Mr. Orwell?

That couple in Kunming. No amount of progress erases that. They deserved better.

But, so much has changed since then. Even just since 2021. Housing market cooling down, 996 ruled illegal by the Supreme People’s Court, new protections for delivery riders rolling out in Zhejiang, Guangdong. And the corruption crackdowns, “Tigers and flies” clearly wasn’t just propaganda.

On .ml people seem tired of the constant negative spin on China, so they swing hard the other way. Sometimes too hard (though I’ve yet to see it too many times). And, even folks here can still slip into old “China bad” habits (seen a lot of this recently). Like saying China does nothing for the Global South when you’ve got the Ethiopia-Djibouti railway, Gwadar Port, vaccine donations, debt relief and much more showing how patently false that is.

I’ll just say it plain. I think China’s model, the way we do democracy, foreign policy, the whole political economy, is the best working option we’ve got right now. Not because it’s perfect, but because it actually moves the needle for hundreds of millions. It’s not even playing the same game as the Euro-Amerikan hegemony that’s been exporting crisis forever. Why throw out the good, or spend all day demonizing it, when so much worse is happening way closer to home for most people on here. Stick in their eye vs a speck in mine, yknow?

Edit: a graph just to show how much things have changed

China isn’t perfect, none of us pretend it is. I hear and partake in the gossip too, the stories about connections and KTV backrooms (and more you’ve probably yet to even hear of). But here’s the thing I’ve seen firsthand, especially when I visit family in the countryside: the villages that had dirt roads and no running water when I was a kid now have high-speed rail stops, 5G, and clinics that actually stock medicine.

And yeah, people complain, gossip, spread rumours. Of course they do, we’re human too. But the trust isn’t blind. It’s earned. When a pilot program for rural healthcare or poverty alleviation works in one county, they scale it to the province. When something fails, they tweak it or scrap it. You see it in the towns that went from abject poverty to being connected, electrified, and lifted up in a single generation.

Even the sources you’d expect to be critical can’t ignore it. Harvard’s Ash Center ran the longest independent survey of Chinese public opinion, interviewing over 32,000 people between 2003 and 2016. They found satisfaction with the central government at 95.5% in the final wave. Edelman’s 2022 Trust Barometer put China at 91% trust in government, the US at 39%. These aren’t state media. They’re Western institutions. They see the same trend we feel on the ground.

That’s possible because of how our democratic system actually works. Democracy isn’t just about voting for different parties or the spectacle of elections. It’s about whether people are heard and whether their lives get better. If you think Chinese people aren’t being heard, or that the feedback doesn’t translate into action, you’re plainly wrong. The proof isn’t in the theory. It’s in the roads, the rails, and the fact that trust stays high even when the gossip is rampant (who doesn’t love a bit of gossip).

No you’re not understanding what I’m saying. “ML” is not a group in the fashion of Ansar Allah or Hamas or so on. It’s a descriptor applied to an individual who is then a member of a group with others who may or may not also fit that descriptor. That group then does things and takes credit as a group.

An important distinction here is that Ansar Allah is a militant group while “ml” is simply a political descriptor. There is no group or party called ml. ML’s make up a large portion of communist party and other groups membership alongside others who describe themselves with other labels.

I don’t see mls driving out ICE from MN.

Well the server you are on ends in .ml to mean marxist lenninist, so yeah they are kind of labeled.

Didn’t really answer my main question since that doesn’t really apply in the situation described.