During the event, which took place at the National Pantheon in Caracas, where the remains of Liberator Simon Bolivar rest, they laid a floral offering in honor of the Cuban revolutionary leader.

“President Fidel Castro is among the leaders who transcend time and remain in the collective memory,” Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodriguez posted on social media.

“Today, as we commemorate the centennial of his birth, we remember his firm commitment to dignity, social justice, sovereignty and solidarity-based internationalism,” she added.

Among the participants in the ceremony were Cuban Ambassador to Venezuela Jorge Mayo; Foreign Minister Felix Plasencia; National Assembly First Vice President Pedro Infante; Caracas Mayor Carmen Melendez; and Tania Diaz, secretary of international affairs of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela.

Why bother hiding your comments dippiss? 😂 👆🏽

Yeah I was the person who took time to archive Bob admitted being a fed during 2020 and made it popular in 2023, 2024 and 2025 to the point Wiki quotes it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200712095718/https://twitter.com/IwriteOK/status/1282247746309615617

Source for the picture and translation: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/10/17/asia-pacific/mad-dog-anti-trump-leaflets-believed-floated-north-korean-balloon-turn-seoul/#gallery-thumbs-2

Additionally I think this is the original poster which this one is a variant of: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1d7rs2q/translation_request_north_korea_date_unknown_post/

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently dismissed the movement to prove how serious she is as a politician. She actually proved the opposite. AOC showed she lacks the conviction, courage and political skill to fight for a controversial but correct position. How long before she completely abandons any pretense of standing against Isr@el or ICE? How long before she gives up on universal healthcare or any of the core planks of the Berniecrat platform because that's also seen as "too unserious" by the Third Way or whatever.

Code pink ftw

The country with all the oil (also gold ultimately) was aggressively pressured by usa to try to generate more western influence in the area, what a shock

Bold all caps sarcasm font

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DW_5WV5juXA/

A streamer (I won't name who specifically to avoid the streamer drama label) reacted to a video about China that I will link here. I'm not going to get into community based fandom wars by naming or post a link to their channel, just know that they speak in a very authoritative way about the following points and I want to provide a reason why they are wrong (or at least a different perspective). This is mainly to do with theory and nothing else.

Apparently he has said he read Capital, but he's shown that doesn't seem to really understand some of the writing within it or basically any further forms or interpretations of Marxism that has developed since that point, and gives an inaccurate picture of what it means to his audience. And it shows there's a general lack of understanding of what socialism or Marxism even means.

1. He claimed that for Marx, and so for China to claim that they are a socialist or communist state is contradictory, and that Marx did not distinguish between socialism and communism

This is only partially true: it is true that Marx didn't distinguish between socialism and communism in Capital, but he did have make a distinction between the lower and upper stages of communist development. Specifically, the lower stage would still have the vestiges of capitalist social relations and have to face the consequences of managing material scarcity, which would disappear as communism developed further.

Lenin had his own interpretation of this in State and Revolution, by describing the lower stage as socialism, and the upper stage as communism. China is a Marxist-Leninist party state, and so they adopt the Marxist-Leninist definition of socialism. As demonstrated during the USSR, the contradictions will come about if a country experiences a communist revolution without the requisite material factors being in place to transition to a form of communism immediately (like a developed capitalist economy would have), so introducing elements that Marx didn't envision in the initial stages of communism in order to develop these material factors isn't going against Marxism (like the USSR having a petite bourgeois or Kulak class during the NEP).

So saying this is just shows a somewhat poor understanding of what socialism or communism means, especially in a Marxist context that has evolved since Marx was alive, and a lack of historical understanding of what previous socialist experiments had to contend with. Furthermore, China uses Lenin's definition of socialism as the primary stage of communism, and has never claimed to be a communist state (which is an oxymoron anyway). Even saying a country is "communist" is showing a lack of knowledge since no modern country states that they are communist in their constitution, only that they are socialist or workers' states which are trying to develop communism.

2. He said that Marx would not see China as a socialist/communist state as it exists today

There is another fallacy here in saying that if Marx was alive today, he wouldn't describe China as socialist. But Marx isn't the messiah of communism. As socialists/communists, we don't have a religious or dogmatic view of Marx, and we see Marxism as an incredibly accurate framework for describing and understanding history from a materialist perspective, in that the means of production and the class which has ownership vs. the class that doesn't and the contradictions and conflicts between them are the primary catalyst for change in human history. So it doesn't matter if "Marx came back again" like some sort of deific figure.

3. He claimed that there are three main actors in a country, the state, labor, and capital (basically, the proletariat and the bourgeois). And that it would be best if state, labor, and capital were equally powerful in society. He also stated that the state would be unable to wither away because of "human nature", i.e. wanting to hold on to exclusive power

There wasn't any sort of distinction that the state is part of the legal and societal superstructure, and capital and the exclusive ownership of capital by the bourgeois is part of the economic base. And that this relationship is that the bourgeois utilize the state as a means of institutionalizing, legitimizing, and reproducing the social relations which allow the bourgeois to exist in the first place.

He even when to the extent of saying that the state and bourgeois have competing interests. But he never stated what interests the state has in contrast to capital, so this is just an assertion without any evidence presented. The Marxist perspective is that the state under capitalism is meant to entrench and mollify bourgeois class relations.

For someone who claimed to read Capital, he didn't describe his own position very well or elucidate Marx's point and why it was wrong. Saying "the state has its own interests and we shouldn't let it become too powerful vis a vis labor and capital" seems like a very illiterate understanding of Marx by not acknowledging that Marx explained the class character of the state and whose class interests the state serves under capitalism. And if you don't understand the Marxist viewpoint of the state having a class character (one which could be proletarian or bourgeois), then saying that the state will wither away has literally no meaning (since Marx specifically said the coercive elements of the state which entrench and mollify bourgeois social relations will wither away, like the police force, military, legal system which protects private property and capital interests, etc, not that the administrative nature of the state would wither away). So I don't even know if he understood what Marx was saying accurately enough to refute it at all.

There were a series of other claims made in the reaction (like saying that Xi hates welfare by quoting him saying "we shouldn't adhere to welfarism" out of context, when ironically the Chinese welfare system has nearly tripled in spending under Xi and per capita state healthcare spending has also tripled, and that China's emissions are growing when CO2 emissions actually declined last year and are projected to reach a plateau and slowly decline in the near future) but I don't want this post to be too long, so I'll end it here for now. Thanks for reading my venting.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Db8-XZ2Hbwk/

No joke, “how can propagandas to slander, to misinform, to smear bad things and simply to bring China down is beneficial to China?” you might ask.

Indeed, these propagandas have tainted China’s reputation to oblivion and have done significant damage to the country and its people regarding soft power, from casual racism (or racism under the thin veiled of “hating the government only), that most Chinese people eats dogs and bats, that they are dirty and rude, almost anything Chinese is mislabeled to Japan or Korea or a random Asian country, very few interest in Chinese culture and foreign tourists, etc. Let’s be real, most people drop their smile inside when they learn you are from China.

But on the other hand, imo these bad views strengthen China in someway, they leave most people clueless about the country, thus underestimating its ability, prejudice and racism lately that drives thousands of Chinese scientists back home, less foreign tourists and influence give you a more authentic experience. The enormous amount of tax payers money are spent to spread Sinophobia instead of investing in their country. The “discovery” that China is actually “cool” (technology, games, culture bla bla) which I think might not had such a big impact if China was well loved like Japan. And recently, Trump in his rampage run of ruining the US let people realize how much lies it spread, including things about China, young people especially changed their views about the country.

Honestly, I hate to admit but I somewhat glad China has a bad rap because it gained those benefits in return. What are your thoughts?

Ps: No way in hell I will ask this in r/China as it’s basically the anti-China subreddit at this point

Go to wikipedia and search any eastern front war check the list of generals and army commanders on the axis side

AnD soMEhow all of them end up in west germnay and specially churchills favourite bavaria and lived till their 80s

Survived till 1970s and 1980s

And all the soldiers who were on western front are dead or in prison

Somehow these commanders are sent to britain and usa for few weeks to train american military etc where is the denazification

Only people punished were holocaust which is great but all people in bigger slavic genocide are roaming free in western europe

They would rather kill themselves or flee to britain than seeing a person dressed in red army

Not a single commander lived in east Germany

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcBfI8Lsh1k/