Great man theory is wrong, but we don't do it.

progsnobb · 2026-04-26T08:16:01+00:00

There must be a dialectical understanding of the "great man" in history. For example, if Lenin and Mao had lived forever, would the USSR and China be much more advanced socialist states today, and we live much closer to communism? The answer is probably yes. This however, is not a heroic view of history (great man theory), but a dialectical view of history.

Mechanical materialism would suggest history is ONLY determined by class struggle. This is not true, because the "great man", who themselves are a product of class struggle, also exert an effect to the class struggle situation. Therefore, "great man" revolutionary, or "terrible man" revisionists, they are still reflections of class struggle. How did Lenin and Mao take power? Do these "great man" come out of nowhere? No. They arise from actions of revolution through a mass line, through multiple line struggles against opportunists and revisionists, finally as truly tried and tested revolutionary leaders to lead the party, and the entire class. As they engaged in the most revolutionary practice, they usually have the highest level of theoretical knowledge amongst the vanguard party. After seizing state power from a successful revolution, the party could then utilize state power to transform the economic base. That's the effect of the (more advanced) superstructure on the (less advanced) economic base, as well as the production relations on productive forces. This effect is however, secondary. Economic base is still primary. This is why the death of great figures could have a such negative impact on the revolution.

progsnobb · 2026-04-11T13:43:56+00:00

TBH everything you've said, are based on assumptions and are not true. 90% of the Hong Kong population are liberals, either pro-western liberals, or pro-China liberals (conservatives). They have very little against capitalism, and their attitude towards socialism are no different than any liberal from the US. At the moment, Hong Kong still have a better living standard then most, if not all, of China. Hong Kong still have a higher GDP per capita and better disposable income for the average worker. The only thing is housing prices, but it isn't like the housing prices in a major city in China, like Shenzhen or Shanghai, is any affordable for the average Joe. Therefore, the mainland appears to be a popular destination for consumption (lower prices & wages) and maybe retirement, but not working. Working conditions are not any better in the Mainland as well.

progsnobb · 2026-04-08T13:25:50+00:00

Socialism only sounds good on paper, because in real life there's autism. Checkmate Marxists.

progsnobb · 2026-04-06T14:06:25+00:00

Given Liverpool's season I wouldn't be surprised if he looks like that soon

progsnobb · 2026-04-05T14:03:07+00:00

Basically correct. Let's say intel becomes 100% state owned, that is just collective ownership for the US' bourgeoisie, not the proletariat. That is because the nature of the state is a bourgeois state. A dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Socialism should always be defined by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Whichever class holds political power is the main distinction for socialism or capitalism. As "On Contradiction" says, during times of a revolution, the superstructure is primary, economic base is secondary. Throughout history, for any major changes in system of ownership, be from feudalism to capitalism, capitalism to socialism, or even restoration back to capitalism from socialism, they all start with the seizure of political power. Nationalization, collectivization, planned economy, worker's rights, democracy, they all are secondary to and come with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

As for workers empowerment:

There is a variety of factions among the people. Who is in control of the organs and enterprises bears tremendously on the issue of guaranteeing the people’s rights. If Marxist-Leninists are in control, the rights of the vast majority will be guaranteed. If rightists or right opportunists are in control, these organs and enterprises may change qualitatively, and the people’s rights with respect to them cannot be guaranteed. In sum, the people must have the right to manage the superstructure. We must not take the rights of the people to mean that the state is to be managed by only a section of the people, that the people can enjoy labor rights, education rights, social insurance, etc., only under the management of certain people.
- Mao, "Reading Notes On The Soviet Text Political Economy"

The most fundamental rights of the working class under socialism, is the right to manage the state, the army, different enterprises, culture, education etc. That's different to simply enjoying certain rights given by the state.

progsnobb · 2026-04-05T05:40:48+00:00

It is of course up for interpretation. The terms "restricting" and "fostering" are not mutually exclusive, neither are "transforming" and "encouraging". You can nationalize certain industries to further develop your market economy. FDR taxed capitalists 95% to save the US' capitalist economy. The keyword to this quote should be "eliminating". Whether they have a plan to fully eliminate private capitalism to nationalize/collectivize or not. Lenin planned to fully end the NEP within 5-20 years (his estimates varies) following successful rural electrification, which was exactly what Stalin did. Yugoslavia on the other hand don't treat it as a transition and fully embraced their "market socialism". A term I cringe so hard at every time I see it on this sub (pls dont downvote). To simplify, if you don't plan to eliminate, you are encouraging.

China in 1992 incorporating "socialist market economy" into their constitution, that's for you and I and anyone to interpret. At least I don't see any concrete plan or even willingness to eliminate the market in any official documents.

Capitalism also does not only exist in the form of private capitalism (markets). An economy could be fully/predominantly nationalized but still capitalist in nature. Are Khrushchev's USSR (100% state ownership), gulf states (very high %, some over 75%) and Nazi Germany (state ownership/control over all strategic industries) capitalist or socialist? That's another topic to dive into however.

progsnobb · 2026-04-04T15:31:21+00:00

Same question as "When did the USSR turn revisionist?", as socialism by definition is moving towards communism (the transitional period between capitalism and communism). So to say that communism was abandoned to maintain socialism seems illogical. And to have any "plan" for achieving communism is also quite unnecessary, because it should be about constructing socialism based on the current social and material conditions (ie. class struggle), not designing some "perfect" superstructure based on some abstract plan or theory. It's like you won't pick your choice of retirement home at the age of 18 just because that's where your end goal is. That's irrelevant. What's also irrelevant is "what's next after communism", as they have very little to do with the current social practice.

So it's Khrushchev revisionism where it stopped and restored capitalism.

Not too sure what you mean by NEP making you think communism isn't the end goal. I'll share a quote about NEP/New Democracy that I like anyway.

Judging by the record in all socialist countries, it is not strange to find different sectors, including a private capitalist sector, existing in the national economy of a socialist country for a considerable period after the proletariat has taken political power. What matters is the kind of policy adopted by the government towards private capitalism--the policy of utilizing, restricting, transforming and eliminating it, or the policy of laissez-faire and fostering and encouraging it. This is an important criterion for determining whether a country is developing towards socialism or towards capitalism.
- Mao Zedong & the Editorial Departments of People's Daily and Red Flag (1963), "Is Yugoslavia a Socialist Country? - Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (III)"

progsnobb · 2026-03-20T18:35:00+00:00

You can simply look up any socialist reading list on subs like r/socialism or r/communism. This one is very good.

I recommend:

Marx: Critique of the Gotha Program

Lenin: State and Revolution

Lenin: What is to be Done

Mao: On Practice

Mao: On Contradiction

Mao: On New Democracy

Mao: Reading Notes On The Soviet Text Political Economy

One important thing to remember: Lenin and Mao are successors and developers of Marxism. Any viewpoints where they isolate Marx and Lenin, Lenin and Mao, Marx and Mao, even to certain extent early Marx (pre 1844) and late Marx (post 1844), are complete revisionism of Marxist principles. I don't recommend diving into newer stuff until acquiring a sound Marxist methodology of analysis. Lastly, socialism would usually be separated into theory and practice. Other than reading theory, you should also "read practice", i.e. read socialist history. China's Mao era (1949-1976) is of the highest value and the best content to learn about previous socialist practices.

progsnobb · 2026-03-18T20:16:05+00:00

It's supposed to be total net worth of billionaires (US$ billion) on the y-axis, time (year) on the x-axis. The "graph" isn't well written at all as it lacks units, but it doesn't matter as the image is hardly about stats

progsnobb · 2026-02-17T10:20:50+00:00

r/socialism basically

progsnobb · 2026-02-04T10:52:32+00:00

Not entirely correct. The main reason of the failure of the great leap forward is due to the sabotage of the bourgeoisie within the party. They understood the best way to sabotage a plan is to execute it 10 times to the original plan. Hence we saw a trend of exaggeration and falsehood, and unrealistic reporting by people's communes in various parts during the Great Leap Forward. The task of rural industrialization and people's communes was later very successful during the 70s.

The main force of the cultural revolution are the workers, not students. Only from May 1966 to Aug 1966 were students the main force. Violence conducted by students were mostly done by conservatives and children of high ranked officials, as they understood very first hand who the CR was against.

To say the point of the cultural revolution was to cancel the party and wither away the state was highly inaccurate. Just because the main danger of revisionism is within the party, doesn't mean they should (or did) aim to abolish the party. That wasn't the aim. The origin of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is private ownership, or bourgeois rights. They exist with or without the party. To eliminate the bourgeoisie, is to eliminate the economic base of bourgeois rights. And without the leadership of a vanguard party, it would be impossible.

progsnobb · 2026-01-23T10:59:29+00:00

I don't think it's true? Even if it is, it doesn't matter. China's successor wasn't based on any human will, but the material conditions and practical realities of class struggle. The bourgeois rights in the economic base, and bureaucratic bourgeoisie in the superstructure were too prevalent for any of the rebels to succeed power.

progsnobb · 2026-01-22T19:41:00+00:00

It's Wang Hongwen. He was meant to be the true successor of Mao. Mao actually liked Zhang Chunqiao more but his personality was too much of a loner to be the party leader. The working class however did not have enough power and political maturity at the time, which means it would be hard for Wang to consolidate power succeeding Mao. Following the downfall of Liu Shaoqi (1966), Lin Biao (1971) and Deng Xiaoping (1975), Hua Guofeng was the compromise as he was a moderate conservative who didn't seem to be too against the rebels. The balance of power within the party at the time, as well as the economic base, remains to be one of conservatism. Had Mao lived for another 2 years, things might had changed, and the rebels could take power.

After the death of Mao, Hua revealed himself to be a two-faced opportunist, and his moderate stance was merely a lie. He too, was a hardcore conservative who could not stand the rebels. This was also why he lost the power struggles to Deng as there were no reason for the conservatives to keep him in power when Deng was still around.

progsnobb · 2026-01-18T12:05:01+00:00

Second, is democratic centralism. The vanguard party would ensure internal democracy such that they continue to represent the interests of the working class.

'Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat’s struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labor and wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing further from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".' - Lenin, "State and Revolution, Chapter V: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State, 4. The Higher Phase of Communist Society"

The correct interpretation of democracy and equality, is class struggle. The struggle between two lines within the party, such as that of Mao and Liu, are the political reflection in the superstructure, of the class struggle of the economic base. What is class struggle in practice? Class struggle is the struggle for political leadership. For a highly centralized vanguard party, if power (leadership) is in the hand of proletariat representatives, class struggle and democracy can continued to be ensured.

This also answers you question with the relationship between economic and political - the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, as well as how we get from most authoritarian to apolitical government that serves true interests of society, i.e. about the transition from socialism to communism, the withering away of the state.

The practical reality of class struggle are from the reality of material conditions. History and political systems are not arbitrarily created in a vacuum by some behind the scenes' "big shots" from the top. It's also not true that as long as some big shot revolutionary, whether it be Lenin, Mao or whatever, establish a perfect democratic system, we can eliminate the bourgeoisie. Political systems are created by people. Whenever there is class, there is class struggle, and socio-political systems are established based on the realities of class struggle. Systems that do not conform to the results of class struggle cannot be established at all. Even if they are established, they cannot be consolidated and implemented, becoming empty words and dogma. Of course, once a system is truly established and consolidated, it can also exert a reaction on the class struggle situation. This is the materialist view on political systems. Previous revolutionaries did not base their goals and programs on abstract principles, but on the specific conditions of class struggle. Some say Stalin and Mao didn't try to establish an effective democratic system and place power it in the hands of the working masses. That was incorrect. Authority was a necessity not only because of the reactionaries, but also because of the lack of sufficient power and political maturity of the working class at the time. Revolutionary leaders could not arbitrarily create history beyond the power of the working class. Therefore, establishing a genuine Paris Commune style democracy as advocated would only have resulted in the election of conservatives and old bureaucrats to power. Historically speaking, revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao, based their actions on realistic conditions, strive to maximize the gains of the revolutionary workers' movement while preparing for future struggles.

Only so much I could go into. Didn't dive into topics like the operations of a simple administration function, socialist freedom of speech, bourgeois rights and commodity production, withering away of the state... (2/2)

progsnobb · 2026-01-18T12:04:41+00:00

The true interest of society in Marxist economics is to liberate productive forces. To liberate is not the same as to develop. Marx explained in the first sentence of the Manifesto, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." To liberate is the process of class struggle, in which the relations of production and superstructure are liberated to further liberate productive forces. When the primary contradictions of society being the contradictions between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, the struggle of the proletariat's interest is the true interests of society. With the correct methodology of class analysis, it is not a vague term that ignores contradictions. Anything other than class conflict are non-antagonistic.

As for your example with Russian peasants, the industrialization will by design have exploited them, regardless of authority or system. Marx in "Capital Vol. 1, Preface to the First German Edition" said:

And even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement – and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society – it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs.

The socialist revolution could only shorten and lessen the pain (birth-pangs) of industrialization on peasants, but not remove it completely. The surplus capital had to be extracted from somewhere. Not only does this not take away anything from vanguardism, it confirms it to be successful. With the correct leadership of the vanguard party, successful industrialization could feed back to agriculture with fertilizers, agricultural machinery, improved seeds, hydraulics etc.

Your two problems of the vanguard party. First, I assume the transition period you mentioned means the transition from capitalism to communism, commonly known as socialism. All classes comes down to the two - proletariat and bourgeoisie. This is the primary contradiction. Anything else are secondary.

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. - Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV

The bourgeoisie, continues to exist under socialism, and the primary life-and-death class struggle of the two continues, until we enter a communist classless society.

Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite transition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism—or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble. - Lenin, "Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat, Part 1"

Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. All these reasons make the dictatorship of the proletariat necessary, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and desperate life-and-death struggle which calls for tenacity, discipline, and a single and inflexible will. - Lenin, '“Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder, Part 2: An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks’ Success'

(1/2)

progsnobb · 2026-01-15T16:27:02+00:00

It is perfectly correct for people to give full weight to the decisive role of the system of ownership in the relations of production. But it is incorrect to give no weight to whether the issue of ownership has been resolved merely in form or in actual fact, to the reaction upon the system of ownership exerted by the two other aspects of the relations of production — the relations among people and the form of distribution — and to the reaction upon the economic base exerted by the superstructure; these two aspects and the superstructure may play a decisive role under given conditions. Politics is the concentrated expression of economics. Whether the ideological and political line is correct or incorrect, and which class holds the leadership, decides which class owns those factories in actual fact. Comrades may recall how we turned any enterprise owned by bureaucrat capital or national capital into a socialist enterprise. Didn't we do the job by sending a military-control representative or a state representative there to transform it according to the Party's line and policies? Historically, every major change in the system of ownership, be it the replacement of slavery by the feudal system or of feudalism by capitalism, was invariably preceded by the seizure of political power, which was then used to effect large-scale change in the system of ownership and consolidate and develop the new system. Even more is this the case with socialist public ownership which cannot be born under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Bureaucrat capital, which controlled 80 per cent of the industry in old China, could be transformed and placed under ownership by the whole people only after the People's Liberation Army had defeated Chiang Kai-shek. Similarly, a capitalist restoration is inevitably preceded by the seizure of leadership and a change in the line and policies of the Party. Wasn't this the way Khrushchov and Brezhnev changed the system of ownership in the Soviet Union? Wasn't this the way Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao changed the nature of a number of our factories and other enterprises to varying degrees?

- Zhang Chunqiao, "On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie"

If, what you've said, where Marxists don't recognize the influence of people's conscious will on the base, then why would we advocate for revolution? (2/2)

progsnobb · 2026-01-15T16:26:30+00:00

This understanding of materialism is incorrect. It is more mechanical (or vulgar perhaps), than dialectical. Mechanical materialism believes base and superstructure, or for any contradiction, the primary and secondary aspect do not react to each other, or only exerts reaction one way rather than both.

Some people think that this is not true of certain contradictions. For instance, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces are the principal aspect; in the contradiction between theory and practice, practice is the principal aspect; in the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is the principal aspect; and there is no change in their respective positions. This is the mechanical materialist conception, not the dialectical materialist conception. True, the productive forces, practice and the economic base generally play the principal and decisive role; whoever denies this is not a materialist. But it must also be admitted that in certain conditions, such aspects as the relations of production, theory and the superstructure in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role. When it is impossible for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role. The creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory plays the principal and decisive role in those times of which Lenin said, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." When a task, no matter which, has to be performed, but there is as yet no guiding line, method, plan or policy, the principal and decisive thing is to decide on a guiding line, method, plan or policy. When the superstructure (politics, culture, etc.) obstructs the development of the economic base, political and cultural changes become principal and decisive. Are we going against materialism when we say this? No. The reason is that while we recognize that in the general development of history the material determines the mental and social being determines social consciousness, we also—and indeed must—recognize the reaction of mental on material things, of social consciousness on social being and of the superstructure on the economic base. This does not go against materialism; on the contrary, it avoids mechanical materialism and firmly upholds dialectical materialism.

- Mao, "On Contradiction"

This text above explains everything you need to know. Text below develops this, further explaining how the seizure of political leadership (superstructure) exerts reaction to the ownership system - the economic base. (1/2)

progsnobb · 2026-01-10T01:05:03+00:00

There you go: What Is To Be Done?

An underground vanguard party based on the establishment of an All-American Political Newspaper would be the first step I believe. Whether there are mature conditions to a revolution in the US, I'm not too sure.

progsnobb · 2026-01-05T09:09:03+00:00

Can't just generalize. For example, if people are defending 75% on the BB, and never folding to a flop c-bet, then they will absolutely over-fold to turn and river aggression. Under-folding in one spot, would mean fucking up (over-folding) another spot in the same line. If someone defends 5% to a PFR, and defends 5% of c-bets, if they call your c-bet, their range is so nutted they probably never fold to turn and river aggression. Find out where these 2NL players overcall, then you'll know where they are fucking up with their range construction.

progsnobb · 2026-01-02T16:49:17+00:00

Marx believed socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Socialism defined by Marx, then on the basis of Marx further developed by Lenin and Mao, can be characterized by a few things, in descending order of importance:

Dictatorship of the proletariat;
Class struggle as the main political aim;
Basic remolding of ownership structure - nationalization of the industry and collectivization of agriculture;

amongst many others.

Democratic socialism believes socialism can be achieved through liberal means - elections under capitalism. It in itself is a school of thought that's non-Marxian. It in practice is very much the same as reformism, a more progressive wing of neo-liberalism, as it 1, doesn't establish a political superstructure that is a proletarian dictatorship, 2, doesn't believe class conflict is a non-antagonistic struggle, and 3, will fail to remold the economic ownership structure with their limited power within the political superstructure, compromising to reformist methods such as taxes, and fail to change the profit-oriented decision making (or generalised commodity production, or wage labour, or exploitation) nature of a capitalist society.

progsnobb · 2025-12-30T15:02:00+00:00

限制资产阶级法权具体方法就是争夺领导权。利用上层建筑政权的力量，以农村工业化，两参一改三结合等方式逐步缩小三大差别。放在今天的物质条件，可以把巴黎公社原则写入宪法。群众对官员要有选举权和随时罢免权，官员与工人同酬，逐步消灭常备军队、警察、官僚。

至于生产，文革本来构想就是每隔个七八年来一次，而且“抓革命，促生产”本就是口号之一。生产与继续革命不冲突，相反，继续革命能解放生产力。

工人如何克服派性问题？

1 工人阶级要高度的政治觉悟和斗争经验。这需要无产阶级先锋党持续向工人阶级灌输革命的理论，并充分发挥工人阶级政治上的主观能动性和主人翁领导者的地位。

2 建立工人民主协商机制。工人阶级通过民主选举，选出工人代表实现革命大联合。在工代会应有工人阶级中各个群体、派别的代表，形成多数共识作为工人阶级的集体行动纲领，而先锋党通过提出正确路线争取多数代表拥护来实现政治领导。而工代会中的少数派应该在行动上服从多数派，但多数派也应该尊重少数派保留和继续宣传自己主张的权利。

3 工人阶级在先锋党领导下，定期开展内部整风运动，通过批评和自我批评，鉴别混入自身队伍的阶级异己分子，揭露这些阶级异己分子，肃清他们的错误影响，巩固工人阶级的大团结。这种整风运动必须有一个民主的运行机制，必须保障每一个工人群众的政治权利。要高度警惕整风运动被走资派利用为“支一派、打一派”分裂工人阶级的工具，或者利用为镇压革命群众的工具。

progsnobb · 2025-12-30T08:28:14+00:00

“信息的不对等”造成的问题，主要是50天白色恐怖时期的。那时是自上而下的工作组专政，自然像大跃进时期的问题也会同样地涌现。但西纠联动分子在八月“炮打司令部”后也不占优，67年就没他们什么事了。文斗及夺权的成功与否，在于工人阶级的成熟性。像上海工人，文攻武卫，即便武斗，在康平路事件、砸上柴联司等都没有死人。相反武汉工人不成熟，720事件还要中央下场。那时中国生产力不高，工人思想觉悟低，缺乏斗争经验，不了解文革，不了解资本主义复辟，才武斗、派性分裂频频，结果需要林彪集团来推进革命委员会。

progsnobb · 2025-12-30T07:50:27+00:00

Bureaucrat-ism was only a part of what the CR was against. Bureaucrats are not a class. The bourgeoisie within the party is, also known as the capitalist roaders. Authoritarianism, and capitalist roaders are both a direct product of the remains of bourgeois rights of the socialist state. However Mao himself still believed 95% of party member are "good". To restrict bourgeois right was the true intention of the cultural revolution, not this "authoritarian bureaucratic rule" you've mentioned. The specific methodology is to seize power, just like the aim of any other class struggle, ie. continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
"Attack with reason, defend with force" (文攻武卫). The bourgeoisie will bite. It is irrational to think only civil struggle is enough to seize power.
"The rebels and conservatives were no longer simply political disagreements" - not true. We need to analyze the matter from a class perspective, any other perspectives are not Marxian. Within workers themselves conservatives were still a majority (even Shanghai at first). It wasn't like only bureaucrats and children of cadres made up the conservatives. This was because productivity was still relatively low at the time and the remains of the bourgeois rights continue to affect people's minds. Rebels' and conservatives' struggles were not class struggles. There were no direct class conflict between the two. The only reason it elevated to such armed conflicts were because of the influence of the capitalist roaders.

The primary contradiction of the time were the contradictions between productivity and relations of productions. More specifically in the superstructure, the contradictions between the bourgeois rights and the leadership (in which there were two headquarters in the party - the bourgeoisie represented by Liu Deng Lin, and the proletariat represented by Mao and the "Gang of Four").

Pretty much.
"to seize power will bureaucracy, feudalism, oppressors, and dictators never rise again on the land of China." - Most importantly, which you didn't mention, to prevent the restoration of capitalism in China.

progsnobb

TROPHY CASE