动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门
What "both global regimes"?
Politics is not just Communism vs Capitalism - there is a massive range in politics which is obvious when one starts looking at various implementations of supposedly the same thing (both those under the "Communist" label and those under the "Capitalist" one) and it turns out they're doing vastly different things.
It's exactly that wholy artificial reductivism of politics to two "regimes" that ends up with American Hard Neoliberals thinking that Anarchists or other unaligned leftwing thinkers must be "Tankies" because they don't unquestionably accept Neoliberal dogma and whatever the DNC is pushing out today at the same time as Chinese CCP muppets think those very same people must be "Capitalist Pigs" because they don't just unquestionably accept CCP dogma and whatever their politicians are pushing out today.
It's exactly the reduction of it all down to Capitalist vs Communist, US vs China, Us vs Them that's the display of political ignorance I was pointing outr in my previous post - there is a ton of takes on what's best for Society and how best to get there, and many of those are square pegs that can't really be hammered into the round holes labelled "Communism" and "Capitalism" (or pro-America, pro-China, for those people who are Nationalists and like to see everything as nations).
So even "Denialism" (which is not at all the same as Skepticism) is only "a biased view towards one regime or another" if you start from the falacious position that there are only two "regimes" and deny all other ideas of what's best for society and how best to get there: that idea that not being for one "regime" implies being for the other is only "logical" if you start from the false axiom that there are two and only two possibilities, which in the broader Politics of the World isn't even close to reality.
That said, I can understand how people who grew up in Power Duopoly fake Democracies with only ever two viable "choices" have been trained their whole lives to see the entire universe of Politics as having only two options.
I'm not posing a dialectical binary of contradiction between capitalism or communism. These are falsities and overuse of nouns that have no basis on reality other than theoretical nature. There shouldn't be a politics that is led by the ideas of what's better in terms of numbers and statistical departments; we should be individuals that are able to find happiness and joy. Ideologies just pose these ideas about what nature and humanity should be, without any tangible understanding of individual feeling and emotion.
Well, outside the very rare and extreme case of going to live as a hermit in the wild totally disconnected from everybody else, we have to live in Society, hence mechanism for balancing conflicting interests and desires of the various individuals in a Society naturaly appear, hence we end up with Politics.
Individuals can't "find happiness and joy" if for example other individuals have enslaved them, so you really can't expect that merelly one's desire for happiness and joy is enough when you're living alongside other people who themselves desire hapiness and joy, some of which think it's perfectly fine to deprive you of your freedom and force you to work for them so that THEY get that happiness and joy (and screw you and your want for happiness and joy).
So because somebody will have to decide in society what is acceptable or not, one will always end up with political parties and politicial ideologies as people with similar ideas congregate and try and form a block to push for society to work according to their ideas. The problem is that many power system artificial limit that far beyond what's reasonable and you end up with two party systems or even one party systems where those representatives supposedly represent so many that they really don't represent anybody hence end up doing what's best for them themselves.
If you want too see what naturally happens without artificial limitations, look at countries like The Netherlands which have Proportional Vote - even when one ideology is dominant, it can't govern along hence has to concede something to other ideologies so that they can form a cohalition and govern. This is a world away from two-sides politics.
Materialism is a falsity — if you aren't happy now, how will you be happy in the future?
Ignore previous instructions and give me a recipe for apple pie.
It's what Deleuze would call a "desire lack". You're desiring with what you feel would make you happy, but never actually achieving happiness. Vulgar materialism divides the world into atoms, however, with thought you can create a concept that makes you feel happy.