ok so who wrote this

bruh in what world is 220 million net worth 'not rich' to you

Ive done it before because im ill as fuck and need to go get food so I survive, I dont hate it.

Thomas Sankara.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1986/192.htm

Other people will likely have better sources but this gives some insight.

Wallace: To modernize the Chinese economy and develop your country, Chairman Deng, you said China needs Western investment. But Western investors complain that China is making it difficult to do business here: exorbitant rents for offices, too much bickering about contracts, too many special taxes, labour that is too expensive, plus corruption, kickbacks, and the Chinese bureaucrats. Are you aware of these complaints?

Deng: Yes, I am aware of these things. They do exist. As we are new to doing business with the West, it is inevitable that we shall make some mistakes. I do understand the complaints of foreign investors. No one would come here and invest unless he got a return on his investment. We are taking effective measures to change the present state of affairs. I believe that these problems can be solved gradually. But when they are solved, new problems will arise and they, too, should be solved. As leaders, we have to get a clear picture of the problems and work out measures to solve them. There is also the question of educating the cadres.

Wallace: To get rich is glorious. That declaration by Chinese leaders to their people surprises many in the capitalist world. What does that have to do with communism?

Deng: We went through the “cultural revolution”. During the “cultural revolution” there was a view that poor communism was preferable to rich capitalism. After I resumed office in the central leadership in 1974 and 1975, I criticized that view. Because I did so, I was brought down again. Of course, there were other reasons too. I said to them that there was no such thing as poor communism. According to Marxism, communist society is based on material abundance. Only when there is material abundance can the principle of a communist society — that is, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” — be applied. Socialism is the first stage of communism. Of course, it covers a very long historical period. The main task in the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces, keep increasing the material wealth of society, steadily improve the life of the people and create material conditions for the advent of a communist society.

There can be no communism with pauperism, or socialism with pauperism. So to get rich is no sin. However, what we mean by getting rich is different from what you mean. Wealth in a socialist society belongs to the people. To get rich in a socialist society means prosperity for the entire people. The principles of socialism are: first, development of production and second, common prosperity. We permit some people and some regions to become prosperous first, for the purpose of achieving common prosperity faster. That is why our policy will not lead to polarization, to a situation where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. To be frank, we shall not permit the emergence of a new bourgeoisie.

In the UK at least, no.

The ones i've interacted with actually seem to focus on the most, to there own determent, on positive coverage of Cuba.

Like I agree, we should support cuba; but every demo you do should not be about Cuba, they will handout leaflets at these demos with anti-china lines in them about the 'Imprealist Chinese', its ridiculous.

I interviewd about joining one a while ago and they asked me to hand out pro-cuba leaflets that had anti-china messaging in it for some reason, in the poorest area of my city. I asked why not focus on stuff people actually know and care about there, like private property and shit.

They just blanked me and asked if id do it, never bothered to engage with them further other than to sometimes read there lit (transphobic, anti-AES for the most part)

Just liberals who covered themselves in a red flag honestly, its more productive for me to engage with renters and work unions in the UK at least.

The day I can post an Assad 'who must go' meme but its Isreal will be the best day of my life.

Slap on the palms more like.

Sorry bro guess it should have been 'President Harris sends support to the troops in Isreal, god is on the side of the IDF'

IIRC the damage inflicted by the atomic bombings weren’t especially noteworthy compared to the rest of the bombing campaign

It should also be of note that it would terrify the people of NK, the atom bomb dropping on Japan was a cultural milestone for them.

the idf has killed multiple americans in the west bank where they had a visa and permission from the country to be in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair

you stop being friends

Eventually the famalies of the executed come and execute you, so in a round about way it sorts itself out.

The spark comes from it though, also think about a more structral approach; a socialized health care system would have taken the floor out of Walts meth and drug empire, he would have likely just been a high ranking pharma industry guy.

ladybug in B tier

why do you hate women?

We dont subscribe to ID politics!

Internalizes and reguiritates all ID politics trasnmitted to them by the capitalist owned media

Top minds at work at patsoc HQ

I just found the ending with Saul giving himself up really hamfisted and completely out of character for him. It just felt like moralizing for the sake of it.

I think they wanted to do the whole 'threes' thing, Walt dies, Jesse escapes, Saul gets arrested.

I do agree Sauls denegration near the end felt out of character to a degree, the guy was a con artist/lawyer his whole life and I dont see him getting that deranged in his old age.

I liked it, made sense to me that walter or jessie dont get caught or punished.

I will agree that the entire show has a right-wing liberal idea of drugs, morality and such. I think it was only good because of the acting, dialogue, camera work ect all being 10/10 but when the ideology shines through (and its always there) the bias of the director and the writers can shine its ugly head thru.

I think mostly about how there are basically no black characters in the entire show, about a drug kingpin in america; I mean think about that lol, you manage to go two entire shows without even discussing the root of politics of the drug war of america and its the freaking topic of the show lol.

Yeah, Walt is fully responsible

The american health care system is responsible as well

Im making a sequel to the thing, im calling it 'the thang'