I do not believe so.

Well they killed Khamenei who was the one opposed to Iran getting nukes, so I don’t imagine there’s anybody else particularly opposed at this point.

when you definitely understand what words mean

indeed

I’d argue Krushchev set the stage because he abolished artels which led to all the problems USSR had with light industry. Had USSR retained a mix of state industry and cooperative driven market economy, it would’ve developed in a similar way to China today except without a capitalist class.

It’s an ongoing process that’s currently happening.

Somehow I doubt they’re eager to experience a repeat of Manchuria in 1945.

You’re completely ignoring the contradictions present within China itself here. China still has a capitalist class, and it is still in the primary stages of socialism with the workers having established a class dictatorship over capital, but China is far from abolishing existing relations right now. The collapse of the west is certainly a prerequisite for the transition to any higher stage of socialism, but it will be a long time before relations start meaningfully changing with China itself, let alone the rest of the world.

Let’s not forget that USSR also saw astonishing levels of development under Stalin. The stagnation started after Khrushchev reforms. However, as I noted earlier, China can’t just flip a switch and create some sort of a moneyless society. Dismantling capitalism start with worker ownership of the means of production, and there will be a a prolonged socialist stage where existing relations have not yet been abolished, and the only thing that’s different is which class holds power.

As Stalin correctly explains here, there will be surplus product in a socialist economy and, similarly, the commodity form doesn’t die overnight. Thinking that communism involves slamming a button titled “END CAPITALISM NOW” is just romantic idealist-slop.

when you definitely understand how bilateral trade works

Always important to remind people that none of these problems existed until the US attacked Iran completely unprovoked.

Are there cases of fascists treating others well that you’re aware of?

Sure, but I’d argue good journalism doesn’t have much to do with having a bias. It’s perfectly possible for somebody to write good investigative journalism while having a particular bias. So, it’s not so much about the bias itself, but rather their ability to present the facts, to explain the relationships between the events, and to paint a broader context for the story.

What I think your actual concern might be is regarding deceptive reporting where people try to paint things as something other than what they really are.

Sure, but I don’t find it matters that much when you’re aware of the fact that people have biases as a reader. You can read news from any source and understand the slant of the publication. In fact, it can often be informative to read sources with known biases because the framing itself is informative. For example, you need to read the Wall Street Journal because it is the mouthpiece of the ruling class. It tells you exactly what capital is thinking, what they are afraid of, and how they are strategizing to protect their interests.

The reality is that truly neutral sources simply do not exist. Everybody has a point of view, that’s what makes us human, we will always interpret facts and events through the lens of our personal experience and our understanding of the world.

it’s certainly notable with the US threatening to invade Cuba and blockading it now.

And by everything they’re doing today you mean raising the standard of living for their people at an unprecedented rate?

It’s not even between Russia and USA, the only people who see Russia as a bigger threat are Europeans. Even Americans now realize they’re the baddies.

indeed, the workers hold a lot of power here