秦始皇帝

Removed by mod

Love to see some sources/research that has led you to this conclusion. From everything I’ve seen the strikes on refineries and Russia in general have had little real effect as Russian energy exports appear to be at a record high. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-16/russia-s-oil-exports-near-record-pace-as-ukraine-s-drones-target-its-refineries

The biggest effect I’ve seen is that it is pushing the Russian populace away from the moderate factions under Putin and more towards the more hard-line and extremist factions like those in line with Karaganov who wish to "reestablish nuclear deterrence ".

And honestly even besides all this as far as I can tell with the amount of citizens kidnapped and fed to the meat grinder by the Ukrainian government as far as I can see the literal best case scenario they can hope for is some sort of Pyrrhic victory where status quo is returned but with Ukraine effectively in ruins and with a major demographic crisis.

My bad I should have said the beginning of this round of escalation the point remains you genocide enabling racist.

No you voted for biden and copmala who personally oversaw and armed the beginning of the genocide. Why do you not see non white people as human?

It’s so trumpian for me to point out you started this conversation with a lie and then admitted you haven’t studied what you’re talking about because “it is known”. You are a joke.

things so loud and obvious I can see them from here, without relying on either your or my state media and propaganda

So you’re admitting I’m right you just osmosised a load of nonsense and now take yourself to be an expert. It makes sense given the very first thing you said was a complete lie said with total confidence. Very impressive truly an intellectual titan.

I didn’t say anything about America what the fuck are you talking about?

And the violent suppression of viewpoints in China is well verified.

Yes please continue to double down and lecture me about my country with your understanding straight from the yellow peril handbook.

On the DPRK you really just did the thing I knew you would, no recognition of how the situation imposed on the DPRK has shaped it’s political landscape, no recognition of the fact that with each generation the Kim family distributes power for example, the position of President, held by Kim Il-Sung, was abolished and split into multiple positions upon his death, nothing but hearsay nonsense you’ve osmosised and regurgitate with unearned arrogance.

My reaction is completely normal of someone from China being told how my government is secretly suppressing me in ways they absolutely are not by an arrogant chauvinist with no real understanding of the situation on the ground. And I didn’t touch on the DPRK as despite it being a massive exaggeration to the point of effectively being a lie I understand for most white people nothing I say about it will ever invite a real reconsideration and proper investigation as the truth of the Kim family having outsized influence at current (despite it declining with each generation) is enough for them to dismiss all of the context and surrounding information.

the country with the (barely) second largest concentration of billionaires

A rate of 0.2, 0.1 under the world average of 0.3 (down near India despite being far more developed and with far less poverty) so wrong. Also going by absolute numbers (despite this being idiotic given China’s population) still half of America despite being 4 times as populous. Have you considered investigating before speaking and embarrassing yourself. Also this is largely irrelevant to the fact that billionaires hold no politics power in China.

and the second tightest stranglehold on individual free speech?

Chauvinist idiot.

China does not have a single nationwide “social credit score” that rates every citizen.

What actually exists is a set of legal blacklists, the most famous being the court judgment defaulter list (失信被执行人). It applies to people and businesses who refuse to comply with a court decision, usually things like unpaid debts.

If you ignore a court order, the court can place you under a high-consumption restriction (限制高消费). That means you can’t spend money on certain luxury services (first-class train tickets, flights, five-star hotels, or other high-end purchases) until you comply with the judgment.

You can still travel normally, stay in regular hotels, work, shop, and live your life. The restriction is specifically designed to stop people who refuse to obey court rulings from enjoying luxury spending while ignoring their legal obligations.

The popular idea in the west that everyone in China has a constantly changing personal “score” based on everyday behavior is simply western fantasy.

I understand that but do you not think it’s weird that almost all at once a while back every lib on earth almost in unison decided it was a 3 day special military operation gone wrong despite no one in the Russian government saying anything of the sort as far as I can tell.

Russian propaganda is when you accurately retell events in their full context and don’t worship Ukrainian neonazis as innocent little guys who could never do any wrong.

Your first source doesn’t prove anything. Newspapers pre-write victory, obituary, and election-result pieces all the time; an accidentally published state-media article is embarrassing, not proof that the Russian government officially said “three days.” Lukashenko is, last time I checked, not a member of the Russian government. And the Putin “two weeks” claim traces back to some EU diplomat saying Putin said it privately, while Russia denies it. Maybe true, maybe not, but still not proof. All of this still leaves me confused as to why, seemingly all at once a while back, every lib on earth decided Russia/Putin had declared it a “3-day special military operation.”

On 2014, skipping the Western-backed Banderite coup and jumping straight to Crimea and “little green men,” while leaving out the fact that locals actively petitioned and asked Russia to intervene against Banderite violence and ethnic cleansing, is certainly a choice.

You also brush past the Donbas as if ethnic cleansing and years of shelling are irrelevant. If your position is that Kiev had the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbas while Russia had no right to intervene, even after locals again asked for intervention to let them break away from the Banderites repressing and ethnically cleansing them, just say that.

And dragging up “the Holodomor” in 2026 is again certainly a choice: the “deliberate anti-Ukrainian genocide” framing is straight from Goebbels Nazi propaganda.

3-day special military operation

I’ve seen loads of people say this but never any proof of anyone in the Russian government saying anything of the sort. Would you happen to have any to hand?

You know who started this war 3-day special military operation, right?

The west backing a banderite coup who then went on an ethnic cleansing bend of ethnic Russians as well as trying to then pivot the country away from neutrality towards a hostile military alliance certainly absolutely is completely irrelevant as we all know history started in 2022.

“If the American oligarchs convert their wealth to Chinese yuan prior to the collapse of that pillar… the elite of the west remain elite…”

This still treats currency as if it were social power in itself. Under the Chinese system, currency buys exactly zero political command. It buys no control over the Party, the PLA, the police, intelligence, courts, planning organs, SOEs, land policy, capital controls, or the strategic direction of the state. At most, money can still purchase limited command over labour inside the private sector, but even that is precisely the sphere being narrowed by the tightening of the birdcage since 2014.

You also vastly underestimate how difficult it is to simply “move into yuan.” China has strict capital controls for a reason. The RMB is not a frictionless liberal reserve currency designed to let foreign billionaires freely enter, exit, speculate, and dominate. The whole point of China’s financial architecture is that money remains subordinate to state policy. A Western oligarch holding yuan is not transformed into a Chinese power-holder. He is merely holding a claim inside a system whose commanding heights he does not control.

“The existing configuration is failing and the American elite are aware of it… they hype anti-China rhetoric because they still have some need to appeal to the masses but are quietly planning…”

This is not analysis it’s a fantasy. The Western bourgeoisie is not pushing anti-China propaganda as some cynical cover before peacefully jumping into China’s orbit. They are doing it because China is an objective threat to the material basis of their global rule: dollar hegemony, military encirclement, technological monopoly, sanctions power, control over supply chains, and the ideological monopoly of liberal capitalism.

Anti-China propaganda functions much like earlier fascistic scapegoating campaigns: it manufactures an external and racialised enemy while the bourgeoisie brings the teeth of imperialism home. As crisis deepens, the ruling class does not simply retire into yuan-denominated comfort. It intensifies repression, attacks labour, expands surveillance, militarises society, disciplines dissent, and moves toward fascistic consolidation. That is already visible in crackdowns on labour, protest, migrants, communists, anti-war forces, and dissenting media across the imperial core.

The idea that these people are preparing to “become Chinese” is not analysis. It is vibes. They are not trying to join China’s system, because China’s system would not give them command. They are trying to preserve their own system by escalating against the force that most clearly exposes its decline.

“What do you expect to see domestically and internationally once China assumes the position of the financial pillar?”

First, there is no single coronation moment where China becomes “the financial pillar” and then chooses whether to abolish capitalism globally. Transitions in world systems are uneven, conflictual, and determined by the balance of forces. The more likely path is continued de-dollarisation, expansion of alternative settlement systems, greater South-South development, and the erosion of imperial coercive capacity.

Domestically, I would expect a continuation of tightening the birdcage: disciplining private capital, strengthening planning capacity, prioritising productive over speculative development, expanding state and collective capacity, and preventing finance from becoming sovereign. That does not mean abolishing all private economic activity overnight. It means progressively subordinating it to social and national development as has been happening.

Internationally, much depends on the trajectory of the Euro-Amerikan empire. At present, it appears to be moving toward fascism, remilitarisation, labour repression, and intensified imperial aggression. As US dominance weakens, China will likely continue supporting national development and anti-imperial sovereignty across the Global South, with greater room to back progressive and national-liberation forces as the constraints of encirclement lessen.

“Do they flex their new power and begin to undermine the entire capitalist system when they control the value of ‘money’?”

This is idealist nonsense. No one “controls the value of money” in abstraction. Money is not the motor of history. It is a social relation resting on production, state power, military force, trade structures, class rule, and institutional trust. You keep treating currency as the master lever, when it is actually a concentrated expression of deeper material relations.

If China gains greater financial centrality, that does not mean it can press a button and abolish capitalism. What it can do is weaken the mechanisms through which imperialism disciplines the world: dollar sanctions, debt traps, unequal exchange, technological dependency, military blackmail, and control over development finance. That is how the ground is prepared for further transition. Not through monetary voluntarism.

“The threat can be minimized should China take the reins of global finance and allow billionaires… to maintain their fiefdoms…”

This misunderstands the nuclear danger. The threat is not primarily that individual billionaires fear losing their personal bank balances (again substitutingbindividualism for systemic analysis). The threat is that the American imperial state may face irreversible systemic displacement. A declining hegemon does not need to be literally expropriated before it becomes dangerous. It only needs to perceive that its command over the world system is ending.

American power is not just wealth. It is bases, fleets, sanctions, intelligence networks, finance, media, treaties, comprador elites, technology chokepoints, and ideological dominance. If that architecture breaks, the bourgeoisie loses far more than “influence.” It loses the world-historical conditions of its reproduction as a ruling class. That is why nuclear escalation cannot be dismissed as bluff.

Your error is that you reduce class rule to portfolio management. You imagine oligarchs can preserve themselves by swapping dollars for yuan, while ignoring that their power depends on states, armies, laws, property regimes, labour discipline, and imperial hierarchy. They cannot simply exit the system that constitutes them. And China cannot simply inherit global finance and decree socialism by currency policy. The actual struggle is over productive forces, state capacity, class power, and the dismantling of imperial coercion. I don’t know what it is about systemic analysis that you’re so afraid of.

You conflate financial assets with social power. This is a major category error that obscures the material foundations of class rule. Money is not power in itself but a token of command over labour and territory, mediated by the state under the current system. When the load bearing pillar of the current order (America) falls, portfolio diversification into Swiss francs or Trump coin will do nothing to preserve elite dominance under a new order. The American ruling class does not uphold global capitalism because of sentiment or long term vision, but because its reproduction as a class is bound to the existing configuration of productive forces, military reach, and institutional hegemony. To suggest they would willingly abandon this architecture misunderstands how class interest operates structurally. It is also analytically weak to carve out neoliberals as distinct from the broader imperialist bloc. Neoliberalism has been the hegemonic ideology of American capital (and thus global hegemonic capitalism which they uphold through their military and international institutions) since Reagan, guiding both parties in the project of financialisation, deregulation, and global labour arbitrage. The factional noise does not alter the class content.

The David versus Goliath framing appears in your reply, not mine. I made no appeal to underdog narratives. My point was that a conflict with China would not be a limited engagement but a struggle over the terms of global reproduction. That is why nuclear escalation cannot be dismissed as bluff; the stakes would be existential to the bourgeoisie.

Transition is not a future possibility but is ongoing in China, where public ownership remains primary and the birdcage around the secondary private economy has been systematically tightening since 2014. The disciplining of Jack Ma was a demonstration that financial capital operates only within boundaries set by the state. The purposeful deflation of the housing bubble, also reflects a prioritisation of long term productive capacity and social good over short term speculative gain. Contrast this with the capitalist core, where private ownership is primary and the retreat of public provision in healthcare, transport, energy, and water has accelerated. Financialisation of the sort Jack Ma championed (which got him disciplined) is not restrained but encouraged, while housing is treated as an asset class rather than a social good. This is not a difference of policy preference but of underlying social relations. In China, the state (answering to the people) retains the capacity to subordinate capital to social objectives; in the West, capital subordinates the state to accumulation.

Your analysis substitutes individualist psychology for systemic class forces, treating the ruling class as atomised actors free to exit the system that constitutes their power. You misread transition as a future event rather than an active process already reshaping global relations of production. And you sidestep the central question: when the material basis of imperial hegemony shifts, it is not portfolio choices but control over productive forces and state capacity that determines who rules. So again true conflict with China could absolutely go nuclear as it would be a battle for survival for the bourgeoisie where losing entails the loss of all that they value (their capital and the power it confers upon them).

This is a very poor understanding of international relations and the balance of forces in the world today. The US hasn’t used nuclear arms in Iran for the same reason they didn’t in Vietnam or Korea, even if the country in question can’t retaliate the cascade effects would be catastrophic and “winning” these wars is not worth that risk. On the other hand in an existential struggle for survival against China that is a completely different situation where if push comes to shove the American ruling class would absolutely condemn the world in a heartbeat if it meant they had even a 1% chance of coming out on top over a 0% chance should the neoliberal world order fall.

So when can we expect your revolution to happen, 2040?

If it doesn’t happen by then can we declare the western proletariat counter revolutionary?

Or is it possible putting arbitrary timelines on things of this nature rather than examining the material conditions and trajectories of change is idiotic and only serves to demonise progressive forces for not being as perfect in reality as one imagines in their fantasies?