The claim over whether Donald Trump is officially employed by Russia misses the structural and materialist analysis of imperialism and class interests. The global capitalist class, particularly those in positions of concentrated wealth and power, does not require formal employment to align their actions or interests.

Trump’s alignment with Putin’s authoritarian model and policies beneficial to Russia could easily stem from overlapping class interests, ideological affinity, or even strategic manipulation (eg., blackmail or kompromat). These dynamics are more indicative of how imperialist powers operate than any need for formal employment. To focus on whether Trump receives a paycheck from Moscow is to obfuscate the larger systemic issues: the shared objectives of reactionary elites to consolidate power and suppress working-class movements.

Framing such alliances as conspiracies diverts attention from the deeper critique of capitalism and imperialism.

Some labor abuse can probably be arranged

The alliance between Putin and Trump is a classic example of imperialist collusion, driven by their shared goal to consolidate power and weaken global resistance to their agendas. This partnership, rooted in the contradictions of capitalism, has always been about advancing the interests of oligarchs, not the people.

Putin seeks to rewrite the international order to secure Russia’s dominance, while Trump’s rhetoric about “ending the war” serves as a smokescreen for reducing U.S. costs and influence-shifting. Both pursue imperialist objectives under the guise of diplomacy, ensuring the working class in Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. pays the price.

Marxist analysis reveals that such alliances inevitably crumble under their internal contradictions. This “summit” isn’t about peace but the division of spoils among ruling classes only perpetuating war and exploitation.

Lithuania’s approach reveals a clear contradiction in the context of imperialism. Acknowledging China as undemocratic while seeking “normal” relations highlights the struggle of smaller nations under global capitalism to navigate between principle and necessity.

This reflects the subjugation of weaker states to imperialist powers. Pretending China’s authoritarianism and expansionism are irrelevant is not diplomacy but a concession to capitalist imperialism. History shows us that alliances with empires are inherently unstable and can collapse overnight.

Can Lithuania uphold revolutionary principles and expose China’s nature or succumb to normalization that strengthens global capitalist dominance?

Manmohan Singh’s legacy as a “liberal” is emblematic of the contradictions inherent in the neoliberal project that has swept India since the 1990s. While Singh’s decency as a public figure is often extolled, his economic policies marked a historic capitulation to capital’s global imperatives, institutionalizing inequality under the guise of modernization. What is often overlooked in these tributes is that the term “neoliberalism” itself has been co-opted by capitalist forces to market a deeply conservative, hierarchical agenda as a liberating and progressive movement.

Far from embodying the values of emancipation, equality, and justice traditionally associated with liberalism, neoliberalism in India has entrenched wealth disparities and undermined democratic institutions. As the World Inequality Lab aptly notes, India’s “Billionaire Raj” is more unequal than even the exploitative British colonial regime. The reforms championed by Singh, far from ushering in a golden era of liberalism, laid the groundwork for today’s corporate-dominated, exclusionary politics and the rise of Hindu nationalism—a stark departure from the secular, egalitarian ideals of India’s independence movement.

In this context, the last true liberals in India are not the architects of neoliberalism but the communists of Kerala, who continue to uphold a vision of society rooted in social justice, public welfare, and collective emancipation. Kerala’s commitment to universal education, healthcare, and progressive labor rights starkly contrasts with the neoliberal commodification of these essential services. The state’s communist-led governance offers an alternative that aligns with the original spirit of liberal values, emphasizing equity and human dignity over market supremacy.

Thus, to mourn Singh as India’s “last liberal” is to misread the trajectory of India’s political economy. It is not neoliberal technocrats but those resisting the capital-first order—whether through the Left’s steadfast advocacy for workers’ rights or Kerala’s example of people-centric governance—who carry the torch.

Good point. The issue at hand must be understood within the broader framework of state power and ideological control. While it’s true that the immediate justification for these arrests is rooted in anti-pornography laws, the enforcement of such laws is not ideologically neutral. Under a socialist analysis, we must examine who these laws serve and who they suppress. The targeting of erotic writers—particularly LGBTQ+ creators—fits into a pattern of reinforcing bourgeois morality and suppressing dissenting or marginalized voices.

Sexuality, as part of the superstructure, is inherently tied to the base. In a society where the state aligns itself with heteronormative and patriarchal values, laws purportedly aimed at “protecting morality” often become tools of repression against communities and expressions that deviate from the status quo. The absence of legal protections for LGBTQ+ people and the lack of recognition for same-sex marriage in China is a clear indication of the state’s alignment with reactionary values, even as it claims to uphold socialism.

Marxists should oppose the imprisonment of writers for exploring erotic themes because these laws serve to restrict the free development of human creativity and reinforce the control of the state over the personal lives of individuals. Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, critiques how oppressive social norms are used to maintain class society. Similarly, the suppression of erotic fiction is not about protecting the people but about consolidating ideological control over the masses, maintaining a culture of obedience and fear.

We must also critique the broader pattern of repression. Mass arrests, whether for writing fiction or other nonviolent expressions, represent the actions of a state more concerned with controlling its people than advancing their material conditions. A truly proletarian state would encourage the flourishing of diverse cultural expressions as part of the revolutionary process, not silence them under the pretext of “morality.”

This crackdown is not an isolated incident but part of a larger reactionary turn in the governance of China. As communists, we must oppose these repressive measures and advocate for a society where the working class—not the state bureaucracy—has control over cultural and ideological production. Liberation includes the liberation of human expression from the chains of both commodification and state repression.

3

That’s true as well

Removed by mod

I dunno sounds more like Georgian proletariat seeking emancipation

It’s what Putin has instructed

Maybe they mean 喧宾夺主

Sorry, that’s the gist of the thing I remember and not the detailed similarities. Maybe I’ll ask chatgpt some day

Someone named him the Richard Nixon of China and that has stuck with me

Checks out

Yes. Be it the US or China or anywhere else, the hour requirements are an absurd joke

That’s the expectation but apparently according to scientists, and easy to verify empirically, human cognitive levels decline after some four to six hours of deep focus depending on individuals and unique situations. So the ones grinding for 60 hrs all the time basically don’t get anything more or better done. It’s just time sheet theater.

Crunch can be an emergency situation kind of thing but that’s not sustainable and all and needs its own recovery.

Well the work takes 20 hours per week in any case. It’s just a matter of if the hour sheet is getting 40/50/60/70 marked in

It’s not a good idea to play this as a zero sum game and harm other countries’ climate efforts. At least they are slowly moving towards the paying side iirc from COP29 results

Even this would make the world a whole lot different instead of how they affect it now

7. “Demonstrate great power responsibility. China and the United States should always consider the future and destiny of humanity, take responsibility for world peace, provide public goods for the world, and play a positive role in world unity, including engaging in positive interaction, avoiding mutual consumption, and not coercing other countries to take sides.”