[free_rms]

The "communist bandits" thing is a Taiwan vs PRC thing -- Mao was basically a bandit for like 10 years while fighting the ROC government. Or the revolutionary vanguard expropriating wealth for the people's liberation, if you'd prefer.

Seems roughly equivalent to calling someone "you syrian terrorist" to me? Not sure where to calibrate it.

[catalogia]

'Communist' is an ideological alignment. 'Syrian' is not.

[free_rms]

In this context it's very clearly about the PRC, referencing specific history, not some generic hypothetical communist.

Nobody calls berkeley student marxists 'bandits'.

[catalogia]

That context doesn't change my comment. Affiliation with the CCP, past or present, is an ideological affiliation. 'Syrian' is not. Comparable to 'Syrian bandit' would be 'Chinese bandit'. If you want a Syrian analogue to 'communist bandit', you might try 'ba'athist bandit'.

'Communist' and 'ba'athist' are ideological affiliations, as are affiliations with the Chinese Communist Party or the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party specifically.

'Syrian' and 'Chinese' are not ideological affiliations.

[free_rms]

You're aware it's a 1-party state, right? That's an awfully fine hair to split.

The people making that comment are talking about the government and the nation, not an ideology (which is barely even followed in practice, anyways).

[catalogia]

Despite what the CCP would like you to believe, being ethnically Chinese is not synonymous with supporting the CCP, anymore than being ethnically Syrian makes you a supporter of Syria's Ba'athist Party. This is not a "fine hair to split."

Whether these political organizations adhere to their own professed principles is completely irrelevant; neither do. Whether these political organizations tolerate opposition is completely irrelevant; neither do.