Movimiento Socialista Mundial
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You’re not pointing out anything the SPGB didn’t tell you. I lived there; I didn’t get what I wrote from someone else.
“Widely regarded as the “architect of modern China,” he [Deng Xiaoping] transformed the nation from a rigid, isolated communist economy into a global economic powerhouse.” –
Did he, or didn’t he? Stop wasting your time constantly referring to what the SPGB said. I don’t read them, as I already know what they’re going to say.
————————————————————————————————————
You are not pointing out any difference from the propaganda of the capitalist class, and you are taking your information from Wikipedia, which is not detached from the capitalist ideology. You are not providing your own analysis; Wikipedia is giving it to you.You can not understand the writing of the SPGB because you must understand socialism and Marxian theory first, and it takes years to read the complete index of the socialist party. I have read some for several decades, and I am still learning
I have been there too, and all over Eastern Europe and Albania, and I was only able to see capitalism as in any other capitalist country, based on economic exploitation, wage slavery and production of profits.
Ping is the darling of the Western capitalists because he bent over to them, and he was part of the party coup that overthrew the four. I know more than you about that because I read all the works of Enver Hoxha and the Albanian Party of Labour, and all the works of Mao Tse-tung, and all the Peking Review, and the history of China when China Books and Periodicals was selling their books.
He said that he lives in China, but he is not aware of the history of China; he has not read the works of Mao Tse-Tung, and he has not read Peking Review. He said that Mao took power through a coup, which means that he had not heard about the peasant uprising in China which led the revolution.
Teng Hsiao Ping has been rejected by the hardcore Maoists and the pro-Albanian tendency, and he has been accused of commanding a party coup that removed the so-called Gang of Four to ally himself with the USA and the Western powers, and he was the one who commanded the attack on Vietnam. He was a despot when he was a military man, at the same level as when Trotsky was in charge of the Red Army
Stalin did not promote a party coup; he used the decline in the popularity of Leon Trotsky to become the head of the central committee of the Russian Communist Party, but the case of Ping was different; the popular ones were the members of the Gang of Four, which included the wife of Mao Tse-tung.
Teng Tsiao Ping was praised by the Western capitalists because he was the leader who conducted the so-called Four Modernisations based on further capitalist development, market opening, and he got closer to the USA, the West, and the establishment of factories in China after the visit of Richard Nixon; and he opened the doors to the IMF. In this case, it was Bill Clinton, the pro-capitalist president, who visited China during the time of Teng Tsiao Ping; the Chinese workers were served on a silver platter for the Western corporations, as it was done in Vietnam
Communist Voice Journal has written several articles on China; they are ex-Maoists, and they have written about the large privatisation that is taking place in China and the large deregulation that the state is carrying out to favour the Chinese capitalist class.
This article was written by a Leninist-Stalinist on Mao, China and Deng Xiaoping; he is using Leninist jargon, but he describes the real capitalist character of Maoism.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm
You do not know what Cultural Marxism is; Gramsci has nothing to do with Cultural Marxism, the message does not mention Gramsci, the message shows the real meaning of Cultural Marxism, and Cultural Marxism is a theory that has been largely promoted by right-wingers. The central point of Gramsci was hegemony.
You have not explained what Cultural Marxism really is either; you mentioned it attacking Marx, and Marx is not part of that theory.
The Frankfurt School was not integrated by socialists, and some of them tried to mix Marx and psychoanalysis, or Freud, which can not be mixed, and we have written extensively about that
You are always escaping from the real issues; you are a perfect fit to be called a sniper.
The protest on the street has nothing to do with culture vs classical; we live under the culture of the capitalist class. The protest on the street has to do with the character of the capitalist society, and the press only shows the part that is for the convenience of the capitalist mode of production. To confuse the workers.
We have written about protests, and we have indicated that the working class cannot spend their whole life protesting; that class consciousness is more important than protest, because protest promotes reforms.
Gramsci was a Leninist, and he supported the concept of the vanguard party to lead; he did not believe in the self-consciousness of the working class; he was never able to abandon the concept of leadership. And we have given conferences on Gra.m. sc. i
You do not even know the real point of Gramsci.
The message shows the main ideas of Marxism versus your concept of Marxist theory, which is wrong; the correct term is Marxian theory, and the message explained that it came from Bakunin. There are two links in the message (which you did not read), and both are related to the concept of Marxism, which is also a wrong conception because Marx did not create any concept known as Marmoreovern mor; he said that he was not a Marxist, that it was anti-dialectical. You are escaping from the real issue and ending with a question instead of answering, and you cannot do that because you do not have the theoretical background to do so. Gramsci was not a socialist; he was a Leninist.
Even more, Vladimir Lenin was not a communist either; he was an apologist for state capitalism, and without Leninism and without the soviet union and its offspring socialism/comunism would have been in a much better state, and we would not have this type of conversation right now. Without the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin would have been just a normal opportunist politician; he wrote 42 volumes of work, but all of them are socialist distortions. He created his own distorted version of socialism, and Marx and Engels gave all the merits to the world working class. Someone dared to say that Marxian theory is workers’ practice turned into a theory.
We have spent more time clarifying the mess created by Leninism and the soviet union than spreading the concept of socialism, and without them, we would not have confused workers like you in this forum because, for most people, socialism is the soviet union, China, North Korea and Cuba, Social Democrats’ reforms, and third world dictators.
The situation is so messed up that we have heard the concept of corporate socialism and nazism better than socialism, which is totally nonsense, and capitalist parties calling themselves socialists, and capitalist parties being called socialists by outsiders like the US Democratic Party. A person with a few inches on his/her forehead knows that it is just a capitalist party.
An avalanche of books has been written by ignoramuses who do not know one centimetre about socialism; one of them is titled The Black Book of Communism, and one of its writers was an ex-Maoist, and it is a book full of craps; even more, they included the death of Russia produced by a capitalist war as the death produced by communism.
The Socialist Party has been forced to deal with all these craps and nonsense for more than 75 years of lies and distortions, and has been forced to debunk all of them, one by one; our index is full of those writings, and some of us have spent years reading them.
We can even say that an ex-capitalist living in a socialist society would be living in a much better situation than under capitalism, where they have your lovely Rolls-Royce and Bentley, which you would love to have, but happiness and freedom would not be measured by money, possession and ambition. We have seen many capitalists jumping from windows, killing themselves because they are not happy in the same world created by them. Engels was a capitalist, and he betrayed his own social class, and he spent his whole life working for the cause of the world working class. In one of his books,s he said that communism is a product of the working class.
When my father died, he left a business and properties for my mother, and she said: I would prefer to have him than his business, because he was her happiness, he was her life, and she adored him until she died, and she never got married again, and we had to bury her next to him. Therefore, in a socialist society, the concept of life is going to be different; it is going to be more real, and enjoyment is going to be better for mankind, and common possession would be much better than private possession: no more wars, no more national disputes and no racism. Voluntary labour and working for society would be a pleasure; no more xenophobia, borders and nations; value for use instead of value of exchange; we are not going to be another commodity
They have the best universities and the best curriculum on classical humanities, literatures and novel including Spain golden age of literatures . World history philosophy and languages
I would like to call it the sniper tactic a term used by several groups in Argentina describing false argumenter like grandpa
You are pretending to be a modernist but you are not, you are supporting a 300 years economic system that is obsolete and it is in decline and it is holding itself thru gangsterism and it is based in archaic economics law which are not applicable to reality
During the 2008 crisis bourgeois economists were forced to grab Marx capital because they did not know the root and the cause of the crisis but for years we were saying that over production produces cyclical crisis, therefore their economic laws are archaic and banks do not add any real value and Marx volume 3 explained the cause of the crisis, as dunayeskaya wrote. Marx volume 3 was written for our epoch it shows how capitalism operates within its own logic and capital is one of the enemies of the capitalist class
The terms that you have mentioned they are widely used more now than before, capitalists do not use because them because they want to hide class division and class struggle and to alienate workers on nationalism and patriotism for their own wars they need the support of the working class
They are used in different languages and French newspapers continued using the term bourgeoise in the USA where class struggle is under the carpet they use the term oligarchy which is the same even more Joe Biden used it and he discovered the wheel because the USA has been governed by a oligarchy for 250 years since 1776
The term peasant is widely used in Latin America such as campesinos jibaro and guajiros and all newspapers used the term, the peasants call themselves peasants and there are communes and workers integrated by peasants and they are the ones placing leaders in power and there many communes of peasants who do not have any leaders they manage among themselves which debunk your concept of leadership they do not need leaders and they produce for themselves like the zapatistas and others groups in Bolivia and the government is weaker now because of their resistance
You can not see and understand that Mao was not a communist because you do not have the appropriate definition of socialism, you are using the capitalist term. I read Mao works and there is not socialism on his writing even more stalinists like enver hoxha rejected him, he called him the modern Confucius and a bourgeois idealist Stalin did know the definition of socialism much better than Mao and TrotskyYou said that Mao took power by a coup and that is wrong the Chinese revolution was more popular than the bolsheviks . ( 3% only ) Most peasants supported that revolution and they placed Mao in power like the French peasants placed the jacobin in power both were bourgeoise revolutions like the Russian of 1917 was the continuation of the 1905 bourgeois revolution, those revolutions are archaic. Plehanov described it pretty well
In the USA they use the term middle class which is an archaic term applicable to peasants and artisans in England and they became proletariats or wage slaves and they lost everything, the term is distracting because it separates the whole working class from other members of the workings class, it is just an illusion and it was proven in 2008 that they were proletariats or wage slaves An intellectual is a wage slaves too
But Grandpa is obviously stuck in a groove he’ll never get out of. So is it worth persisting?
I hope so, Howard. At least it provides an opportunity to deal with the kind of knee-jerk opposition to the concept of a socialist society that is unfortunately very widespread…
When you’ve persuaded me, you only have a few million more to convince. Come on,n you love it. Gets all that pent-up anger out and gives you a chance to get a bit of Marxist theory out.—————————————————–
It is not Marxist theory; it is Marxian theory, and the main core of Marxian theory is not the dictatorship of the proletariat. That false argument was created by Lenin; his main basis is the materialist conception of history, the labour theory, and the class struggle.
We have said that without Marx and Engels we would have created our own definition of socialism, and that statement is totally correct because we have made contributions way beyond the contributions made by Marx and Engels, and we have actualised several of their conceptions; the socialist party is a university on socialism.
Karl Marx never called himself a Marxist; that is a piece of history that you must read too. It started with Bakunin at the First International, and some close friend of Marx and Engels, and he did not create a concept known as Marxism.
You have not answered any of the messages that we have posted here with any valid substance. https ps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2021/no-1404-august-2021/what-is-marxism/
About the Gulag, you are again repeating the same argument: we have said that in a socialist party we would not have a state or a government, or a repressive apparatus, and you continue with the same false argument: a socialist society would not need a police system; a police system is part of the nature of the capitalist state; therefore, you must read and study the history of the state, how it emerged in our society, and what is the purpose of the state in this society and Marx and Engels are the best sources to understand that and the contributions made by the socialist party, most leftwings organizations are based on the wrong conception on Lenin about the state.
But in any way, during WW2 the Allies knew about the existence of the Gulag, and they made alliances with Stalin and the soviets; as well, they knew about the concentration camps, and Western corporations made alliances with the Nazis a, nd they did not care about the existence of the prisoners; they hypocritically cared when the Cold War started. Several ships with Jews running away from the Nazis were rejected by the USA government, and they were sent back, and many of them were killed; ironically, only a dictator in Latin America accepted many of them.
.
The point is not that one individual was in the Gulag; the point is that most people did not know that they were living in a capitalist system, and they called the Soviet Union socialist; therefore, they were repeating the same thing said by the soviet and the Western powers; therefore, they did not know the reality. Most people who left those nations did not know that they were living under a capitalist society because they did not have the theoretical knowledge to understand it, but we knew it since 1917, and we opposed everything because we had the foundation to understand the situation; as well, we did not support the patriotic war of the soviet union, and we opposed all war, and never supported inter-capitalist disputes.The Gulag was not the only jail system that existed in the world; the School of the Americas trained many military personnel to run similar types of jails in Latin America and Africa, and most of them did oppose capitalism because many of them were members of socialist and communist organisations. There were Gulags in the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, and Chile, and many opposition leaders were killed in Africa and placed in jail, where they were tortured. In the USA, several members of the Communist Party were executed and wrongly accused, and the Nazis had socialists, communists, and anarchists in the concentration camps.
In Guantanamo, the USA government also has a gulag where prisoners are tortured and kept in limbo without any legal proceeding, and most of them are innocent people wrongly accused; lawyers who tried to defend them in court were accused of collaborating with terrorists.
In the Cuarenta, the USA had a gulag where opponents of its atrocities were sent to those prisons, and many were killed and tortured, and most of them were members of revolutionary organisations. In Chile, the USA kept a jail system after they overthrew Allende, and thousands of opponents were killed; most of them were involved in politics, and they were socialists or members of leftist organisations. They were thrown from a helicopter down to the sea to kill them, as well in Argentina the USA government kept jails to torture opponents.
Capitalism does have a history of terror and horrors, but socialism does not have a history because it has not been established yet.
We have given you enough information to spend a couple of years digesting it
ttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2021/no-1404-august-2021/what-is-marxism/You have mentioned cultural Marxism, but you do not where it comes from and the real meaning. This is the correct explanation
Lenin on state capitalism
Before the russian revolution, we also debunked Lenin and Leninism, his major works like What Is to Be Done? State and the Revolution, Imperialism: The Higher Stage of Capitalism, and the colonial and national question were also debunked by the socialist party
That society is divided between workers and capitalists is Marxism, simplified. Take away the capitalists, and we all live happily ever after. Prove it? A man who wrote the Communist Manifesto in a bygone era nearly two hundred years ago said so, and it’s here in an SPGB link. So we took away capitalism in various countries during the 20th century, and what happened? It doesn’t work,rk and they all ended up in dictatorships.
——————————————————
Warren Buffett, who is a capitalist, has said that there is a class struggle and that his class is winning that war; therefore, he has more class consciousness than you, and he recognises that there are two social classes. The concept of class struggle was also mentioned by the capitalists during their struggles with the feudalists and the aristocracy, and Marx transformed it.
Most pro-capitalists who are also exploited tend to hide their own exploitation and the class struggle.
Can you give an example where capitalism has been eliminated? Can you mention a place where the law of value of exchange has been eliminated? It looks like you have not heard about the concept of communism in one country, which can not be established.d
Many conceptions expressed in the Communist Manifesto are still valid in our time, even though it contains certain reformist clauses applicable to its time, which were also corrected later on by Marx and Engels in several of their works. The Communist Manifesto is not the only work written by Marx; they wrote 132 volumes of political and economic works and anthropological works. You are being simplistic now because taking away the capitalist is not the case; it is removing the system of profits, and some capitalists are going to be forced to accept the new society, and they will no longer be capitalists either. You are just shooting like a sniper.
In the soviet union, they eliminated the private capitalists, but the ruling class evolved within the state apparatus; the economic exploitation continued, and wage slavery continued too, and the system of profits continued
You shouldn’t be surprised that your ideas don’t work and always result in dictatorships, as the Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists fight among themselves over theory. You’ve had your day of bloodbaths and failures, but this time you’ll get it right? They all said that.
———————————————–
It looks like you are not reading anything, just repeating old lies, repeated by reactionaries and recalcitrants who do not know anything about socialism/communism, and you have not read anything about it. You have not even read anything about Mao.
The Socialist Party never said that China and Russia were socialist, and you have not read that either.
You do not know the peasant character of the Chinese revolution and the economic backwardness of Chinese society; capitalism evolved after the creation of the republic, and it was the only choice that they had, like the Bolsheviks
The fight was not about theory; it was about management style. All of them supported Leninism, and Leninism is a state capitalist conception, as we have said here several times.
Socialism/communism, as we have said several times in this forum, would be a society without a state and without a leader, and without government. Where did you get the idea of dictatorship? You do not know what you are talking about
You should bring your notebook instead of trying to give lectures, and accept that you do not have a clue about socialism.
The Cold War was not ideological either; it was an inter-capitalist dispute for world domination
Grandpa “Thatcher was speaking on behalf of the majority who voted for the Conservatives.”
—————————————————–
Our society is not divided between conservatives and Liberals; it is divided between workers and capitalists. Those terms eliminate the concept of class struggles; moreover, in the communist manifesto, Marx and Engels indicated that with the development of capitalism, conservative values would be eliminated by capitalism itself. The term conservative is totally reactionary and backward
That is the bourgeois concept of nations, national interests, and the concept of peoples; there is no homogeneity of interests in any nation, and some capitalists have their own differences.
Some people used the concept that we bombarded Vietnam, but they were not bombarding Vietnam; it was a capitalist war, initiated by capitalists, using an army financed by them and by their agency, the capitalist state; therefore, the concept is wrong.
The workers do not own any state or any nation; therefore, the workers do not have any national interests.
Our president is another term used, but workers do not have leaders; they have governors, and they do not need leaders; leaders need the working class to place themselves in power. The leaders represent their own particular capitalist class, which will defend their interests, but they do not represent the interests of the working class.
We are paying for their salaries as state officials, but the state is not financed by the working class; it is financed by the capitalist class with their own surplus value, and the state officials are representatives of the ruling class, and they are employees of an agency of the capitalist state.
We are paying for their wars, another wrong conception, because wars are financed by the capitalist class; it is their war, it is not the war of the working class; they use nationalism to gain the support of the working class
Most leaders are not elected by a majority of supporters; they are elected by a percentage compared with their opponents, and many workers do not vote for any of them.Our economic system, capitalism, is an economic system that was created to serve the interests of minority groups of humans; therefore, it is not the system of the vast majority.
The expression WE belong to them. The only thing that we own in this society is our labour force, which must be sold as a commodity in order to be able to survive. We do not own factories, corporations, mines, seas, oceans, rivers, real estate, armies, states, police, presidents, senators, judges; even more, we do not own the cemeteries, which are real estate properties.
The bourgeoisie has distorted our minds; that is the reason why ideology is known as distortion of reality or false consciousness.
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2025/no-1451-july-2025/who-are-the-people/. Capitalists and workers are not WE, and the people is a false conception. Capitalists are not our allies; therefore, their world is their world, and our world is our world.
As Malcom X said: The slave of the house of the master said: Master, are we sick? And the slave of the plantation wanted the master to die when he was sick. Today, there are many wage slaves, or modern slaves, defending their own masters.
He uses Lenin and the democratic socialist separation of socialism and Communism, but the history of both terms proves something different.
In the 1840s, as Engels explained, they used the word “communist” because at that time the word “socialism” was used to refer to the followers of Robert Owen in England and Charles Fourier in France. Indeed, the Owenites actually invented the word (the first recorded use of it was in the London Cooperative Magazine of November 1827) and called themselves Socialists. Marx and Engels didn’t want to be associated with the advocacy by these groups of going to America or into the countryside to establish small-scale communities based on common ownership as the answer to capitalism, as what they advocated was political action by the working class to establish common ownership on a society-wide level. So they called themselves Communists and wrote the Communist Manifesto (rather than the Socialist Manifesto).
By the 1880s, however, these groups no longer existed and the word “socialism” was no longer associated with setting up small-scale communities, and the emerging working-class movement for a society of common ownership and democratic control was able to call itself “socialist”. So, when William Morris. Eleanor Marx and others broke away from the Social Democratic Federation with Engels’s approval in 1884; they called their new organisation the Socialist League. And Engels himself called one of his best (perhaps his best) writings Socialism, Utopian and Scientific (rather than Communism, Utopian and Scientific).
In short, what in the 1840s Marx and Engels had called communism Engels in the 1880s called Socialism.
In the 20th century, its usage changed again. After the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia in 19,17 Lenin called his party “communist” to distinguish it from the “socialist” parties of western and central Europe, which had been founded in Engels’s day but which by then had become openly and hopelessly reformist. But he also made “socialism” a period of transition, when there would be full state ownership with everyone becoming a state employee, between capitalism and communism (by which he meant what Marx and Engels had called indifferently “socialism” or “communism” and what we call “socialism”, i..,. a society of common ownership without money, wages, the state, etc.). But this was state capitalism, not real socialism.
In 1936 Stalin proclaimed that Russia had become a “socialist country” and when the Russian army overran Eastern Europe after the war it set up puppet regimes in the various countries there which, together with Russia. Stalin and his supporters called “the socialist countries”. You seem to have fallen for this myth when you talk about the “communist parties” which used to govern “the socialist countries”. But this — that Russia, etc were socialist — is the Big Lie of the 20th century. They were never socialist: they were always state capitalist.
There is also a new movement called renovated communists; some call them the domesticated communists.
This is a well-written description of what scientific socialism really is, and Engels used the expression of scientific socialism
The fake “Communist” victory in China in 1945-1949 was a massive tidal wave of peasant armies sweeping the country, carrying Mao and his cronies on its shoulders, certainly not a coup. (Chiang’s April 1927 takeover was a coup.)
“Leaders” do not lead; they are carried, and Mao & Co. were carried to power by millions of peasants – peasants for whom “Communist” was a mere word they had no understanding of; a mere label.——————————————–
The same thoughts can be applied to the so-called socialist/communist revolutions in Latin America conducted by guerrilla fighters and peasant struggles for land reforms and against landowners; they did not want socialism; they wanted, like the russian peasants, land reforms.
Mexico had a larger land reform than the soviet union, conducted by the Zapatista peasant movement; some movements failed because the peasants did not support them, showing that the real leaders were the peasants. Anarchists also supported land reforms like Magon in Mexico and Mariategui in Peru.
Most of their leaders were nationalists and anti-imperialists who ended up supporting state capitalism and bourgeois nationalisation, and social democratic reforms, but capitalism was never eliminated. Anti-imperialism is not anti-capitalism; for many of them, socialism is just state control and regulations.
The peasants did not have a clue of what socialism really is, and the guerrilla fighters did not know it either, including Fidel Castro, as well as Manolo and Cáamano, and the Tupamaros; only Che Guevara had certain notions about socialism, and his grandson, who was an anarchist, said that he was like a Maoist who had contradictions with Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union.
Hugo Chavez read more than they did about Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Gramsci, and he stepped back when it was discovered that Marx did not support Simón Bolívar; it was the end of the honeymoon, but the letter had already been published on their works for several years.
They never mentioned Luxemburg’s stance on national liberation and Nationalism, and that before 1914 socialists had rejected nationalism and patriotism, and that all capitalist countries are expansionist, including their own allies like China and the soviet union, and Venezuelan capitalism is expansionist too
Most people living in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe did not know anything about socialism; they thought that they were living in a socialist society because it was propaganda made by the leaders, and they did not know the real history of Russia and the Eastern European countries, or why and how those regimes came about.
You talk to any of those so-called anti-communist exiles from the Cold War period, and they do not have a clue of what socialism really is; they do not know that they were used as propaganda for inter-capitalist disputes; most of them were not members of any political movement and have never read anything about Marx and Engels, and the difference between Leninism and Marxism.
Socialism/communis has no history yet because it has not been established; you can not write history about a ghost; it is like trying to prove the existence of God, which has never existed as a reality but as a mythology.
You do not have to visit or live in Egypt to know the history of the Egyptian empire; hundreds of books have been written about Africa, the Egyptians, and Middle Eastern cultures and civilisations since the time of the Sumerians and the Chaldeans, more accurate than the bible. They were part of the educational system of many countries around the world. Some historians want to eliminate the merits of the Egyptian empire.
Albania was also a capitalist country that called itself the only socialist country. They had their own radio programs; they were political and cultural. Albania Today magazines were sent all over the world, and the Soviet Union had Moscow Radio and Progress Publishing. At that time, people were reading more books and magazines, and they had shortwave radios; now they are just repeaters and television addicts, which are just brainwashing devices.
People who did not read about the controversy between China, Russia and Albania do not know what happened among them, and how the Maoists lost a big chunk of their followers. You did not have to go to Albania, China, or Russia to be informed; probably reading Enver Hoxha works would be more than enough. It was not a struggle between communist countries; it was a struggle for markets among capitalist countries and capitalist leaders.
Some Stalinists do not know that he knew the real definition of socialism as it was written in one of his books; most Stalinist parties only studied the Fundamentals of Leninism, and he was the creator of the concept of Marxism-Leninism, two concepts that can not be combined.d
They are saying that the removal of the Gang of Four was a coup, and the hardcore Maoists opposed Ping, and he was welcomed by Bill Clinton to establish commercial relationships with China, and they did not care about the coup; they implemented the so-called four modernisations, which were just capitalist developments.
The best source of information about China was Peking Review, a weekly magazine mailed around the whole world for a few dollars under a yearly subscription, and Mao Tse-tung works only cost $7.00, and another source of information was Peking Radio, which was transmitted in several languages, including cultural programs.
People do not talk to each other anymore; they are hooked on a so-called smartphone, and they think that they are well informed. Journalists are just a bunch of cardboard readers; they do not do any research.
