The point is that liberalism and facism are intrinsically linked. Liberalism does not seek to change the world and stems from philosophies instead seeking to explain it. Accordingly, liberalism is a philosophical justification for the capitalist status quo. As such, when contradictions in capitalism accentuate with time, such as those between classes, liberalism turns to fascism. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, because the liberal is a closet fascist when times are good; when class struggle poses a threat, it clamps down. You can see this throughout history.

That a poor, simplified explanation, but I hope it helps.

The point is not about impact but intention. Evidently liberalism, for all its flaws, certainly has had a significant impact. The progressive forces 250 years ago where for the most part already proto socialists. Fundamentally liberalism has been reactionary, even in the case of feudalism and monarchy, liberalism has tended to air for maintaining monarchy; such as constitutional monarchies where one can find leberals having preference for this rather than republics. This can be observed in historical cases such as France where many liberals wished to maintain the monarchy, but the contradictions and progressive forces where too great. Rather than a progressive force, I would contend that liberalism tends to be reactionary to development and progressive forces. Today this can be seen in the liberal leaders of developing countries handicapping themselves and their sovereignty by maintaining economic relations to the benefit of the imperial core. See ECOWAS and 'preserving democracy' as of late.

Words lose meaning and become fickle dog whistles for narrative political correctness with liberals. Is it against our narrative? It is a propaganda mouthpiece. Free press is only for unsalted crackers, apparently; even though it isn't free.

That asside, GT has some good journalism and takes on current events; exactly why it is being discredited. A real history and understanding of GT would be genuinely worthwhile.

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.

Individuals in struggling societies don't always atomize, many revolutions occurred due to degradation in conditions. When the cost of fighting for change is less than doing nothing you will fight, and you will fight with others, or else you will quickly fail and be forgotten.

Curious what your definition of facism is. With a few exceptions, communist inclined states have always lead to unprecedented economic development, education, improvement of quality of life, etc. If you take all cold war propaganda at face value, you can not deny the development seen in such states; when balanced by alleged atrocities, you see a stark contrast to colnialist nations that too committed atrocities but with little to show for it.

I find the surface level historical criticisms of communist states, even if applied at an equaly superficial level, is applied to capitalist states, you would find a staggering contradiction. Maybe you should read more. Add to your socioeconomic calculus the fact that no communist state benefited from the same starting point as colonizer countries, and try to be critical of this. Consider that none of these communist states had the benifits of colonization, and when compared to other developing countries did remarkably better.

Que the Parenti quote

Me too, explains a lot of the lib mentality when it comes to AES.

It betrays some deep sated hostility and vehement hatred to the global south. The mentality of colonialism never truly went away, it just evolved.

Economic growth itself is just a number, development is what matters. In addition and as a part of development I also specifically mentioned education and improvement of quality of life. You could add literacy, housing, levels of nourishment, and much, much more.

I won't argue about history or its interpretations with you now. Just consider the path to development wealthy capitalist countries took, which involved slavery, colonialism, genocide, brutal worker suppression, and perhaps the worse working conditions in history during industrialisation.

You may attribute many horible things to communist countries. I might argue much of this is exaggerated by the media of the anti-comunist country you live in. Even if it is all true, developed capitalist countries did the same to themselves, and other peoples around the globe.

Then consider the development communist countries have had compared to undeveloped capitalist countries. People can have better lives, that is what matters.

There is a video too, should be at the top of the page when you open it. In fact, I think it is more of a video report than an article.

Sorry, I forgot to add the link to the article hahaha

https://www.salon.com/...

It is probably true that Egyptian government does not care very much for the Palestinian's interests. That being said, if there is a shift on their part to promote a united front in Palestine, this should be favorable to the Palestinian people; even if not done so for their sake but as a part of geopolitical shifts. Such can be seen in the regional shift away from the USA, as can be seen in the case of Saudi Arabia.

Looking for more info on the matter, do you have sources? Also, do you have a specific contention with the article? It would be more constructive if you could do more than claim it is a lie and that Sisi supports Israel.

I can appreciate analog and/or specialized tools. I think typewriters, film cameras, watches, etc. are all fascinating. I might enjoy engaging with them. However, a low end Android is cheaper more accessible to most, assuming limited finances and/or no inheritance of such items. 'Everything machines' can be a boon for those individuals by means of concentrating utility and reducing cost. Evidently, capitalism nonetheless creates issues with this, as others have correctly discussed.

I would say that in China, one uses smartphones for neerly everything, even more so than in the global north. This is for various reasons, but it does have practically since all you ever need will be in your phone, including wallet and keys. This does make the development of HarmonyOS by Huawei very interesting. It may abate some of the current issues, especially given that I believe the OS is open source.

Well, to be fair I didn't add the link to the article by accident, so it is a bit confusing...

https://www.salon.com/...

What is the general area/field your diploma is in? I dont think thr Chinese government will let arbitrary people into China to set up a commune... However, you could consider continuing your education in China (presumably a master if you have a bachelor?). China has scholarship schemes that you can look into. Many have full tuition plus living stipend. Then, you will improve your skills and enable yourself to stay more easily subsequent to your studies, if you so chose.

Curious if you could elaborate. Authority is complicated. Perhaps you should read this relatively short text by Engels.