One above is Symphony of the 6th Blast Furnace (1979). Others:

People of Fire I (1979):

People of Fire II (1979):

People of Fire III (1979):

Lights of Laboring Tagil (1984):

Happens about February-March of every election year (the, ahem, independent media goes out of its way to induce it). Get ready for the next lib wave, and a bunch of iterations of the following script, which they've been practicing since like 1999:

• 1. "Eh, I disagree with [Democrat candidate] on a lot of things, but to pretend he's not better than [Republican candidate] is just delusional."
• 2. "Yeah, I know [Democratic candidate] is a war criminal and complicit in a genocide, but have you considered that [Republican candidate] is a war criminal as well, plus he said rude things about [minority group]? In the interest of harm reduction for Americans only, I have a duty to vote Democrat."
• 3. "Your vote actually does matter."
• 4. "The only reason the Democrats aren't Wholesome Progressive Scandinavian Model Chungus is because they have to play politics with the Republicans. You have to recognize the reality of a two-party system."
• 5. "We can push the Democrats left."
• 6. "Such-and-such Democratic policy (usually the Affordable Care Act) was actually really progressive."
• 7. "My [minority group] partner, whom I've never mentioned up to this point and very possibly just made up, is voting Democrat." (This tactic also gets used by libs defending porn and/or prostitution, e.g. "my totally-real girlfriend loves it when I post videos of us having sex online").
• 8. "If even one less person dies because [Democratic candidate] is in office, it's my moral duty to vote for [Democratic candidate]. I am a mature, compassionate person who absolutely understands socialism."

This is a real article, lol

This is the city which the fascists have been using since 2014 as a base to shell civilian areas in the Donbass

And did ESWildcard get you into the DPRK

So my uncle ran into Enver Hoxha at a grocery store in Tirana when he was an exchange student back in the 70s. He told Hoxha how cool it was to meet him in person, and that he had some questions about Stalin's Marxism and the National Question, but he didn't want to to sound like a revisionist or anything. Hoxha said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?” My uncle was taken aback, and all he could say was “Huh?” but Hoxha kept cutting him off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my uncle's face. Finally my uncle walked away and continued with his shopping, and he heard Hoxha chuckle as he walked off. He thought he'd seen the last of the great leader, but when he went up front to pay for his stuff he saw Hoxha trying to walk out the door with like 15 candy bars.

The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Comrade, you need to pay for those first.” At first Hoxha kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.

My uncle says that when she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, Hoxha stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent Soviet social imperialism,” and then turned around and winked at my uncle. I don’t even think that’s a thing. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

is this and this only: supporting the status quo, but disagreeing on minor points, so that while receiving the plaudits than go along with holding the majority opinion, they can feel (somewhere in their pathetic TV-poisoned minds) that they are "brave" and "intelligent." It is the ancient gambit used by every would-be intellectual who desires to to be popular as well: "Yes, I agree with you all, but not for precisely the same reasons. Would you perhaps like to hear what I think?" These words, when spoken aloud, are always in that back-of-the-throat drawl which, in American English, signifies considered thought and long acquaintance with books, and of course a string of letters at the end of one's name.

Thus we get the typical liberal position on anything. "I sympathize with the Palestinians, and the policies of the Israeli government are certainly to be criticized, but all civilized people should denounce Hamas because nothing justifies terrorism!" Or: "Yes, Ukraine has a problem with corruption, and there is a troubling right-wing element in their military, but we still need to side with them because Russia is much worse!" Always there is the ghost of an acknowledgement that the situation is complex -- a cheap rhetorical trick -- and then doubling down on the socially acceptable position. The ultimate in this stupid game is the invocation of an equally stupid phrase, "two things can be bad at once, mkay?" -- which always means in practice that the side America supports is actually the less bad of the two ostensible evils.

Hence we "tankies" are always accused, by liberals, of having for great revolutionaries of the past a wholly uncritical admiration. This is manifestly false, for nearly every discussion among Marxist-Leninists at some point devolves into a picking apart of historical minutiae, with the goal of finding what Mao or Stalin or Honnecker did right or wrong. We are one of the few political groups that does not spare our heroes. But when liberals ask us to approach Mao with "nuance," what they mean is: admit Mao was a bloodthirsty tyrant who ate babies for breakfast and never brushed his teeth, but he also ended footbinding. Hence the historical record is "complicated." We Marxists, of course, will not engage in such asinities, and we state openly that Mao's successes far outnumber and outweigh his mistakes. For liberals, who are at root historical nihilists, this is unacceptable, and why? Because we refuse to play the game, but also because them out in their silly attempts at pandering and social climbing.