Everyone else is an agent in this honeypot

Their systems are slightly different so a local Luigi copycat would target someone else than an insurance CEO

The claim over whether Donald Trump is officially employed by Russia misses the structural and materialist analysis of imperialism and class interests. The global capitalist class, particularly those in positions of concentrated wealth and power, does not require formal employment to align their actions or interests.

Trump’s alignment with Putin’s authoritarian model and policies beneficial to Russia could easily stem from overlapping class interests, ideological affinity, or even strategic manipulation (eg., blackmail or kompromat). These dynamics are more indicative of how imperialist powers operate than any need for formal employment. To focus on whether Trump receives a paycheck from Moscow is to obfuscate the larger systemic issues: the shared objectives of reactionary elites to consolidate power and suppress working-class movements.

Framing such alliances as conspiracies diverts attention from the deeper critique of capitalism and imperialism.

Some labor abuse can probably be arranged

The alliance between Putin and Trump is a classic example of imperialist collusion, driven by their shared goal to consolidate power and weaken global resistance to their agendas. This partnership, rooted in the contradictions of capitalism, has always been about advancing the interests of oligarchs, not the people.

Putin seeks to rewrite the international order to secure Russia’s dominance, while Trump’s rhetoric about “ending the war” serves as a smokescreen for reducing U.S. costs and influence-shifting. Both pursue imperialist objectives under the guise of diplomacy, ensuring the working class in Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. pays the price.

Marxist analysis reveals that such alliances inevitably crumble under their internal contradictions. This “summit” isn’t about peace but the division of spoils among ruling classes only perpetuating war and exploitation.

Manmohan Singh’s legacy as a “liberal” is emblematic of the contradictions inherent in the neoliberal project that has swept India since the 1990s. While Singh’s decency as a public figure is often extolled, his economic policies marked a historic capitulation to capital’s global imperatives, institutionalizing inequality under the guise of modernization. What is often overlooked in these tributes is that the term “neoliberalism” itself has been co-opted by capitalist forces to market a deeply conservative, hierarchical agenda as a liberating and progressive movement.

Far from embodying the values of emancipation, equality, and justice traditionally associated with liberalism, neoliberalism in India has entrenched wealth disparities and undermined democratic institutions. As the World Inequality Lab aptly notes, India’s “Billionaire Raj” is more unequal than even the exploitative British colonial regime. The reforms championed by Singh, far from ushering in a golden era of liberalism, laid the groundwork for today’s corporate-dominated, exclusionary politics and the rise of Hindu nationalism—a stark departure from the secular, egalitarian ideals of India’s independence movement.

In this context, the last true liberals in India are not the architects of neoliberalism but the communists of Kerala, who continue to uphold a vision of society rooted in social justice, public welfare, and collective emancipation. Kerala’s commitment to universal education, healthcare, and progressive labor rights starkly contrasts with the neoliberal commodification of these essential services. The state’s communist-led governance offers an alternative that aligns with the original spirit of liberal values, emphasizing equity and human dignity over market supremacy.

Thus, to mourn Singh as India’s “last liberal” is to misread the trajectory of India’s political economy. It is not neoliberal technocrats but those resisting the capital-first order—whether through the Left’s steadfast advocacy for workers’ rights or Kerala’s example of people-centric governance—who carry the torch.

Here are all the achievements I’ve gathered with non-racist random comments of satire, criticism of fascism, Trump, and news posts from the same sources as other posters

In general communities it’s ok here but in global events it’s easy to see in the modlog that certain topics which are not favorable for Socialist-In-Name-Only are hidden very fast.

That’s true as well

Removed by mod

I dunno sounds more like Georgian proletariat seeking emancipation

Maybe they mean 喧宾夺主

Sorry, that’s the gist of the thing I remember and not the detailed similarities. Maybe I’ll ask chatgpt some day

Someone named him the Richard Nixon of China and that has stuck with me