Memes

This seems like a non-sequitur. Anyway, since audiobooks are still too much, let me just give a basic summary:

Marxists are not anarchists or communalists. Marx saw the failure of the Paris Commune and of the Utopian socialists and sought to create a theoretical framework that could be used in conjunction with practical political programs to resolve class struggle over time, which he predicted would ultimately produce a stateless society. This transitional society, to contrast with Marx's name for liberal capitalism -- the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie -- is referred to as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

"State communism" is, uh, just made-up as far as I can tell. Marxists support the destruction of dictatorships of the bourgeoisie and their replacement with dictatorships of the proletariat. Generally they would like to see a stateless society one day, but they understand that a simple commune would get steamrolled the instant it became politically important enough, so they are principally concerned with making states democratic in a truer sense of the word than liberal democracy -- which is de facto controlled by the rich -- in order to end "capitalist encirclement" and make things like communes more viable.

I am pro-NATO in how they’ve handled the war in Ukraine. I am pro-NATO in the sense that it prevents attacks on its member nations, which Ukraine in my eyes has been very clear evidence of the need for.

This is a bizarre position. If NATO didn't exist (e.g. if it was disbanded in '93), there would not be a war in Ukraine. If NATO allowed Russia to join back in the '90s, there would not be a war in Ukraine, but of course it didn't because the purpose of NATO is to make western aggression easier to accomplish. If NATO was transparent about Ukraine not joining, there would not be a war in Ukraine. If Ukraine had the leeway with its western masters to even attempt to follow one of the Minsk accords in good faith, the war might have been averted. If the west didn't sponsor a Nazi-spearheaded coup in Ukraine that flipped Ukraine's foreign policy, there would not be a war in Ukraine. If western powers attempted to stop the civil war in Ukraine by means other than extermination, rather than sponsoring Azov, there likely would not be a war in Ukraine.

At every interval, western powers and Azov did not seek to avert the war but simply to cause Russia the most damage, because that is America's interest in the war. If the west gave a shit about Ukrainians, they would be seeking to negotiate a peaceful end to both the invasion and the civil war that allowed the people of Donbas to self-determine their position. They have strongly opposed any such measure.

As I said before, NATO is an extension of US foreign policy with only minor complications from the "independent will" of its other members, such as that will exists. The foreign policy of the US is one of the most savage violence and precisely-leveraged deprivation. It is beyond the violence of organizations like ISIS, let alone Russia, let alone China (the answer to my earlier question was 30 years of war for the US and zero for China).

You want to talk about fucking censorship? And let's assume here that you mean censorship of people in general and not you in particular. Unless you are really interested in the proliferation of fascism or of for-profit cults and prosperity gospel asshats, there is substantially less censorship instigated by China than by the US. Even if your image of China -- in which neoliberals are put in prison -- was true, that would be substantially more lenient in its approach than efforts the US has lead around the world. Here's an easy example of them organizing and sponsoring the slaughter of dissidents, in case things like the Vietnam War ("domino theory!") don't count to you for some inscrutable reason.

“Orientalism” in their context implies that any conversations about another country not from within that country should be taken down.

Source: dude, just trust me

Should non-US articles about the US also be removed? Is anyone not from China allowed to talk about China?

I'll explain this by analogy. Sometimes here you see galaxy-brained liberals (no, I haven't seen you say this) saying in the context of China's domestic situation "Well, you say that the media gives me a false perception of China, but what about the Chinese media giving Chinese people a false perception of their country?"

This is all well and good when one doesn't think about it for even a second, but if one does that it becomes apparent that one group lives in China and the other does not. It is much easier to lie to Americans about a place that they will never, ever go to, probably will never really talk to a person from there, and which communicates only in languages that are completely inscrutable to them, compared to lying to people who live there and amongst each other and only speak those languages. Americans are the most propagandized fucking people on the planet, and they still in huge proportion have contempt for their government and much of the country, because no amount of propaganda can simply "overwrite" your own experiences (brainwashing is fictional).

This is a board that is overwhelmingly in a US -- and more generally a "western" -- context. Spreading misinformation about the country they live in, or whose language they speak, is much less effective than for a distant country they have no connection to except in these media representations so even if an article is slanted, it frankly just doesn't matter (though spreading clear misinformation is bad in any case and should always be treated harshly).

So in brief, your line of interrogation here is based on a crass equivocation rather than a justified analysis.