It’s important to understand that 20th century communist states weren’t just “communist” (there’s no such ideology as communism); they were Marxist-Leninist, which despite the name is a rebranding of Bolshevism by Stalin. “Socialist” and “communist” are incredibly broad terms, and the idea that communist = implementing Marx’s ideas. Now Marx’s opinion would likely vary depending on time and place, but at least he’d probably condemn Stalin’s USSR as an authoritarian hellhole. Beyond that I have no idea, but many Marxists who were contemporary to the things you describe condemned them and many others supported them, so we can’t make a realistic guess without projecting our own values on him. Basically what you’re asking is analogous to “what would Adam Smith think about the current state of the US;” it’s something we can speculate about but generally isn’t as salient a point as seem to you think it is.

PS: I suspect you don’t know much about Marx’s ideas, so you should start from there. First, the dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t necessarily an actual dictatorship (that’s not how the term is used by Marx).

Well I guess I’ll be eating my words I have no idea what the hell is going on here.

I think if he were honest with himself he would see that what he got wasn’t what he had envisioned in any of the countries that claimed to be communist/socialist.

I mean… obviously? Bolshevik theory (which is what all future socialist/“socialist” states would adopt) was their own take on Marxism with a lot of original thought. That’s where the authoritarianism comes from, and it’s not like the Bolsheviks were trying to hide it. Odds are Marx would denounce the Bolsheviks as heretics.

I’m pretty sure there’s no domestic terrorism charge in the US. There are state-level charges of doing insert crime as a terror act, but that’s it.

No no you see it’s only Science TM if they can use it to shit on Christians.

Trump is a (self-proclaimed) billionaire; of course he’s not going to object to more exploitation of the working class. It’s a whole different conversation when it’s something that will hurt the owner class.

I imagine Trump will possibly be more receptive to Mamdani’s comments in that private than in public.

In what way? Because I hate to remind you but Trump is a literal fascist.

Mfers looking for people driving with accents.

Yeah that’s the thing: They (usually) do. It’s weird and irrational, but people are weird and irrational.

Outside romantic relationships, the vast majority of people don’t have to deal with false declarations of love, so there’s no general method here. If you want to ask about your specific case you’ll need to provide more information.

Yeah, absolutely, just wanted to point out that this shit won’t stop if, say, his diet kills him.

Apparently both versions are old as hell.

Most eurocentric thing I’ve seen today. The swastika is still used in Indian religions. I guess very theoretically an exception could be made for practicing Hindus, but I doubt the military has too many of those.

The Mexican flag, probably.

US presidents haven’t been punished for wrongdoing for at least half a century.

The only thing that will stop him, singular, is death. The only thing that will stop them, plural, is a popular uprising.

Depends on what you consider modern. “War is a racket” is a thing for a reason.

I mean, credit to the guy, he did invest early and hard in MAGA.

While I do agree it’s more complicated than “money = food,” a lot of this complexity is fueled by imperialism of one kind or another, so this isn’t an “oh well that’s just life” situation. People would be less hungry if, for example, the people keeping them hungry weren’t financed and armed by America and (occasionally) China. The message of “we could fix this if we wanted” is still accurate.

Imperial boomerang moment in 3, 2…