King_Simp

Having just finished reading The Governance of China's first volume and really taking in the fact that there's three more to read in that series alone, I truly do wish I had more time. Between going to university, wanting to consume and create art (books and video games to be specific), developing relationships, cooking, cleaning, developing political thought and of course engaging in socialist construction, theres just so much I wish to do.

I'm not saying I'm 100% productive throughout the day on all days, but I cannot imagine doing more without causing damage to some part of me. Simultaneously I start to suffer from analysis paralysis at a certain point, like trying to decide if I should read America Against America or try to delve back into Capital's three volumes. Or if I want to read some poems in the backbone flute or start Italo Calvino's invisible cities.

I'm young (although simultaneously American, so I'm unsure how long I'll actually live) but at the same time I do wish I could move at a slower pace.

So, in discussions about Gaddafi era Libya, people usually say it was state capitalism, from what I've seen anyway. Thats fair and I think I agree (although if you pointed a gun at me and forced me to define it, the best I could think of would be anti-colonial bonapartism, but idk). However, it does make many wonder what splits socialism from state capitalism. For instance, the soviet union under the NEP is fairly regularly called a period of "state capitalism." Bukharin is also usually labeled a right oppurtunist who was open to the Bourgeois elements of the NEP men. Conversely, China and Vietnam today are said to be "market socialist."

In terms of Gaddafi's Libya, what does make it state capitalist versus socialist? Profit motive? Commodity production?

What about post Krushchev soviet union? Was it state capitalist and social imperialist like maoists say?

I know theres not one concrete answer to this. It's not like there's a communism button you can press to confirm communism (I wish), but I am curious

So I've been taking chinese classes recently for obvious reasons, and yesterday we had to talk about our families, parents and their jobs.

Firstly, I felt really embarrassed about just having 吗吗和我 (my mom and me) in my immediate family, while everyone else had mom's and dad's and siblings. I know why I felt sad during that, cause I hate being reminded that I know my moms subsequent boyfriends more than I know my dad. Plus I feel spoiled for being an only child (独生子) but at the same time hating the consequences of being lonely and having to be an emotional support son for my mom.

Secondly, when talking about professions, everyone else's parents were doing the expected things. Doctors (医生), lawyers (律师) and casino/bank managers (赌场/银行经理). My mother is just a simple warehouse worker (仓库工人).

It's like...I don't know. I don't know if it's just me feeling like Im spoiled or ungrateful for going to college instead of working or going to trade school, or if I feel like my family is a failure, or what.

There's not a lot of point to this post. I just feel really...ashamed of myself and I don't know why

Mine has to be cop procederals and paper money.

A)I just like solving mysteries and problems and have a natural deference to authority figures, so I've watched way too many cop shows. The only one I'm not ashamed to name is The Wire, which is really good and probably is the only one with genuine substance.

B)It's not the concept of money I enjoy, i just like having a physical thing I exchange to get another physical thing. I..."dislike" per se, using numbers on a screen to get food or something.

To preface, it is correct that the cultural revolution was a mistake and to a certain extent revisionist, along with causing great harm. However,

I watched the documentary "how Yukong moved the mountains" a while back. It's a good watch if you have the time(and trust me, you need a lot of time), and honestly I can't help but feel a little jealous.

The documentary shows worker self management, military egalitarianism, etc. (I'm unsure how much these things exist in China today. I know workers control the means of production but I dont know the spirit in which said management occurs over there, per se. And the military I just know very little about)

Its astetics, and I know this. I also know it doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. But in my, perhaps a little too idealistic, heart, I do wish we could eat our cake and have it too. Have that same society so focussed on socialist principles while also having the development of modern China.

Idk, maybe we'll see in a few years as china develops into a modern socialist country, but for now I like fantasizing, alright?

Edit:I think maybe boring is the right term for it. When I study revolution and imagine potential revolution, I don't tend to imagine a result that's similar to my own current existence, just slightly better. I want things to be radically different, avant-garde even. Even if i can logically reconsile the necessary requirements for the development of higher stages of socialism, my emotional part wants more.

So like...I'm not repulsive. People actually really like talking to me. I don't make people upset and no one ever dislikes me. But...no one ever wants to hang out with me or talk to me without me intiating or already being in the same place.

It's not like I'm boring either. I have interests and hobbies and a personality of a sort, but it feels like no matter what I do I'm always having to insert myself into groups and such, and no one ever thinks "hey, i should invite him to do x."

I know you can't give exact answes without knowing me personally, so if anyone has general experience with feeling like this any general advice is appreciated

A while back, I was trying to read "understanding the French revolution" by Albert Soboul. However, I never finished it, not because it was necessarily bad but because

A.Was swamped with work and classes

B.Pre-capitalist class relations have always kinda alluded me

I've also read origin of the family, private, property and the state, but I dont remember it talking about that in too much detail (although it was very good [and maybe I just can't remember {I have a really bad memory}]).

I know theres the soviet textbook on political economy from the 50s, but I would prefer something I can obtain physically, since I have difficulty reading on computers.

Thanks in advance

So, obviously books denying the Nanjing Massacre, promoting fascism and other things are banned, but where's the general line. For instance, the book Beijing comrades is banned (although it wasn't published by an actual publishing house, rather it was distributed online), and Peacock cries was banned before the author won in court and was allowed to publish it (after removing the references to real life things like the three gorges dam).

So basically is there a concensus on what you're able to get away with or is it inconsistent with general throughlines of don't try to create disruption or interfere with irl things?

I remember seeing people talk about the three body problem a while back, and in discussion about censorship someone brought up the book I'm talking about. If i remember right it wasn't censored, but it involved like, conspiracy plots (fictional I mean) and corruption in the cpc (not systemic though). I also think it's either an adaptation or at least has tbe same name as an American novel with a similar plot.

Sorry if that's not enough information, I'm not gonna cry or anything if I can't find it. I'm just curious.

I don't necessarily hate the French one though, I think I have some books of their's

The most (or perhaps second most, behind their anti immigration and refugee stance) defining the European far right today seems to be their general pro-russia and pro-trump stance. But now with a possible peace deal underway, I wonder where it's going to go afterwards.

There's of course the most obvious possibility, that the deal goes through and Europe can get back to "normal" per se, thereby engedering parties that opposed the war or sought a deal in the first place. The parties would also possibly be buoyed by the success of Trump in not having the country explode 3 seconds into his presidency.

However, given how negotiations are going and europe bejng cut out, the general lack of incentive for Russia to go back to their previous relationship with Europe, and the fact that the economic policies of the far right are...not great, I wonder if we'll see the opposite effect after a time. If the war ends and even if Le Pen or the AFD or Reform UK come to complete or partial power in some form or another, and conditions dont improve, I wonder if Europeans will actually swing back to the left-left of politics. Communists? Idk, the French are eurocommunists, the British can't figure out what they're doing, and the Germans have they're own suppression of the DKP. But i could imagine Die Linke, Melachon's party and/or some left party in the UK (if Corbyn ever decides to form one) getting some traction.

In any case I dont see the mainstream parties like labour and the spd surviving (good riddance)