rigor

Small aside, China hasan extensive regular speed train network. Trains are still rather fast, but obviously slower than HSR. It is very beneficial to have both, as the slower trains are quite a bit cheaper. China has a large population, and many people take the regular train, even with standing tickets. These trains move a lot of people and are an important part of the transit system. Sometimes it feels like an inter-city metro since you can take trains at any time to any city.

As others have said, France became a liberal dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, while the Bolsheviks created a workers state.

Keep in mind, if you look into french history, the more radical elements are denounced. For instance, decrying purges done by the Jacobins, while the monarchy slaughtered many more. French schools actually condem many aspects of the revolution, even though the system is content with the end result.

Another point: guillotines where actually conceived as a humaine alternative to hangings. You don't feel much when decapitated in a fraction of a second, even if the end result is macabre. On the other hand, if you are shot, hopefully a bullet finds its way somewhere that will end you quickly. Either way, good riddance to the monarchs; both dynasties oppersed their people and perpetuated systemic harm.

Even more amusing when you consider that DPRK has nukes, whereas Ukraine has only survived as a NATO proxy.

Chinese high speed train is so stable, you can balance a coin on its side, and it won’t fall over. It’s like sitting in a quiet room, while you are shooting across the surface of the earth at 350 km/h. No need to take the plane for medium trips too, since train stations can be in the city it’s much more convenient. To get on the train you only need your ID and can arrive and get on the train in a dozen minutes.

What’s an alt useful for in Lemmygrad?

They are paleo conservatives.

They dislike the traditional right and liberals, and oppose interventionism. Simultaneously, they hold reactionary social views. On economics I haven’t heard them say much. Often times, they will mostly avoid social issues in their programs, and focus on mostly factual news—diplomatic, military, and economic.

I think the appeal for leftists is that they are ostensibly anti-imperialist, however they are still reactionary. In this regard though, they are still perhaps closer to criticizing capitalism accurately than some of the American “left”, since one of the most important elements of capitalism is imperialism.

In effect, it’s a bit like how a liberal might claim progressiveness on social issues, but be blind to imperialism. At the same time their social critique will be lacking and to various degrees superficial. Their critique of what we call imperialism is what might be called a critique of interventionism.

Accordingly, the Duran presents a view indirectly and sometimes directly critical of imperialism, which stems at least in part from the international relations theory that great powers weaken themselves when too interventionist. While they may not have a critique of capitalism in their analysis, they do cover both some of the internal rot in the imperial core, and present most of the critical developments of multi-polarization.

Since these developments are crucial, the Duran can be a decent source of news for some topics, on the condition that your familiar with their position. Perhaps since they have become increasingly resigned in support for the imperial core, and more supportive of anti-imperialist states for reasons other than ours, their content is more approachable for leftists.

Nonetheless, they are reactionary.

Also: language barriers and travel. Barley any non-Chinese sleek Chinese, sure it’s a difficult language to learn, but Chinese kids all study English from very early in their education. In China you can easily find foreign media with Chinese subtitles. How much Chinese media (including social media) do westerners consume?

If a Chinese person wants, they know how to, and can see western media. Many foreign movies are popular in China. Inversely, westerners have no idea about Chinese media, let alone Chinese culture, society, history, politics, etc.

A westerner would struggle to name a Chinese politician besides Xi; yet there are many who are influential. You can’t understand any countries politics by only knowing of their leader. Chinese history is many thousands of years old, yet Chinese kids also study western history and art, among other things.

I visited one of the most famous western (historical) art museums with a Chinese person, from the mainland, and they recognized as many prices of art as a person from that country would. This was in Europe (most Americans study art much less in their education).

Chinese people learn western languages, see western media, can travel to the west, and can study in their universities. Westerners largely do none of this when it comes to China. Even so, Chinese is a wonderful language, and China has incredible media, attractions, universities, etc.

In essentially all respects, westerners think they have a more accurate view of China because of their “democracy” and “free press”. Yet they are in reality so ignorant about China, that they are blind to the reality: westerners live in a box with one way mirrors looking back at them, they see their own atrocities in the reflection and project their crimes into others, yet those others can see the west clearly.