I think socialist countries particularly China will do well. As for material conditions in the US, I think they will get a lot worse and I have no real optimism for improvement here, because of how well leftism was dismantled domestically in the cold war, and now almost all modern US leftists are not actually anti imperial with their opposition to the emerging multipolar world. Also every declining empire has folded in spectacular and devastating ways while the outside world kept on chugging.
Indeed, losing the revolution was awful. But Sachs himself has stated that part of the reason Shock therapy was as bad as it was in Russia, and not so in Poland, was the foreign aid sent into Poland, and the absence of that in Russia.
This is fairly consistent with what we now can see are the US/western goals with Russia- it was never about Russia being equal as a capitalist country (as Gorbachev naively thought) but to wholely return Russia to its place pre-revolution for the ransacking of the countrys wealth, while having Poland as an ally in the region.
At its core shock therapy really is just getting a capitalist economy in place at the expense of, well, everything (and everyone). It’s still going to be shit, but at least according to Sachs (and this the specific point where I don’t know if we can really agree/trust him on) it might not have been as much of a humanitarian disaster for Russia.
Maybe he is just trying to save face, or he feels bitter at what he makes sounds like the IMF pulled a fast one on him…Or maybe he is genuinely remorseful for what happened. It does seem a bit far fetched that someone like him would have been ignorant of what the US really was aiming for. Who knows.
Frustrated a bit with how much basedness Sachs has been thowing around. I did more reading about his shock therapy, and whilst I understand the IMF (aka the US) did not provide the same relief to Russia that it did to Poland, he still was an influential figure in the humanitarian disaster that was the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Maybe he’s just seen the results of that, and the writing on the wall of US decline and the dangers that US decline presents, and has finally been forced to reckon with reality. I really hope that’s the case because he’s the only person on mainstream US news who is telling the truth about what is happening in the world.
I tend to align somewhere close to this. It seems like the Chinese people are just far far better educated, and there are 1.6 billion of them, compared to 350 million USians. This gives them a much much larger pool of talent going into every sector of society. AND their society is much more organized for ready collaboration amongst people.
These two things are an absolutely colossal advantage that China has that simply cannot be replicated under American material conditions. In other words, if things continue as they are - like had the US continued to ignore China, or isn’t able to gain some additional huge advantage - Chinese victory is basically inevitable.
This is why the US plays to this strength so often (tech advantage), because strategically it is right to do so. The US is also trying to dismantle Russia to surround China as well, which reflects its other strength, NATOs geographical positioning. Then of course there is Taiwan, dominated by a fascist government, right on Chinas doorstep.
Once the general level of technology in China surpasses the US things will REALLY start to look different, as that will be one major prong of the US offensive that will be strategically inert.
I’m not sure.
His comments about westerners not understanding that different cultures/conditions create different looking democracies makes me think he is genuine. It’s hard to see someone with that sort of take on what qualifies as democracy looking at how successful China has been and not at least thinking “hey, maybe theres at least something to this marxism stuff”, if not just outright accepting that it’s created more economic growth and human wellbeing on less suffering than the US ever did.
I really want to believe he’s genuine because he’s more or less the only person being featured on US mainstream media saying this stuff.
I think it could also be an interesting look into the minds of the people who really direct US foreign policy. I think many in that circle are probably somewhat cognizant of what they are actually doing (destroying lives), because you have to have some objective form of measurement to achieve your goals. That is to say you can’t be a total idiot to do these things (interference, war, propaganda) effectively. And after that it’s just a matter of justifying what they think is a means to a greater good, or accepting that they’re in it for themselves. I think sachs somewhat touched upon that himself when he talked about a belief in American hegemony, but I don’t remember specifically the video.
His comments about the way people (he speaks generally, but is more or less talking about westerners) think about democracy, and what really constitutes democracy are also pretty based. He has a materialist perspective of the origin of governments of other countries too Some things I disagree on (i don’t think at this point in time the US can just “talk” with China because they have diametrically opposed destinations and foundations…maybe in the future they can) but for somebody like this to come out on a liberal stage such as this really deserves a handshake.
Warning: long, brutal takedown of twitch streamers stance on Xinjiang. I hate breadtube stuff and never pay attention to it but this particular instance caught my eye so I decided to make a post about it.
I was frustrated at HasanAbis takes on China and he sounds like he’s barely read anything about China. Basically equating China to the US therefore everyone bad. Very convenient position to take as a democratic socialist. He was ranting about the state of surveillance and how they have lost their culture.
If you are really a socialist, isn’t raising the material conditions of everyone the most important thing? Because that’s what China does. I have a soft spot for groups of people who do not have self determination (as a Pacific islander myself), but really what is the alternative to Chinese control of Xinjiang? It’s American control/influence and the unspeakable horrors that come with that like what happened to every other Middle Eastern nation.
So you bring the people into the fold in your country (China) by raising the material conditions of those people. Nothing’s going to be perfect, and IT TAKES TIME but you can’t leave them out to die - socialism can only succeed by increasing people’s quality of life. How do you weigh better living conditions for everybody against increased security/surveillance? You don’t! Food and housing, education and employment are more important! And remember, raising the material conditions of a minority does count as progress towards positive treatment of a minority! In fact it is one of the most important things!
To be so overly concerned with surveillance is to apply western thought where surveillance is used to oppress minorities AS THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOTHING TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES. In this view, you’d be claiming that a government was somehow oppressing a minority AND actively improving their material conditions at the same time! Completely stupid. Not only that, even if it was true that they were being oppressed culturally to the same degree Native Americans were in the US, then Chinas treatment of minorities is still superior BECAUSE their living standards are improving!
Here in the west as a twitch streamer your food and housing is taken care of, while you have no idea of the poverty that existed in that region. That is the only way you could ever make that take - to ignore the historical materialist situation of that region of the world. Nobody is saying the situation is a perfect place, that there are no conflicts/violence/tensions between China, Han Chinese, and Uyghurs. There are plenty. But you are affording your own country America the chance to improve its people’s lives a timespan of election years whilst when you look at China you snap to pass judgment instantly within the present. Why can’t China improve when it has done so consistently, almost like clockwork, at basically every facet of its society? To suggest it can’t ignores history and applies your own experience (and the ignorances that come with it) to a country with its own special conditions and history.
Star wars was based and Disney ruined the sequel trilogy.
The sequel trilogy is a perfect representation of neoliberal thought. Because neolibs at Disney cannot imagine a world beyond capitalism, the sequel trilogy just shit on OT characters and made them incapable of building a government that was an improvement over the PT galactic republic, and they were forced to retread the same villains from the OT.
Any sources I can read on Tibet pre and post Chinese occupation? And what the reasons were for on the side of China? Or sources on the incorporation of Chinas western provinces?
I think exploring Chinas non-Han regions is particularly important in understanding the country as it is today and of course regions that were historically on the periphery of such a large empire are fascinating.
Some good answers here. We should remember that both republicans and democrats are just different types of liberals though.
I would say that the democrat voters are more likely to be the “true believers” in the “system” though, and Trump is an affront to that and they do see him as a threat in that regard. They really believe they can vote out the “bad guys” and their guys are “good” or the “lesser evil”. They are basically indoctrinated in this belief.
Dealing with more materialism, a lot of the petty bourgeoisie in the US are republicans. The petty bourgeoisie in the US right now are feeling the crunch of workers asking for more rights from below, and the big businesses above them outcompeting them, so they harken back to the old days. This obviously comes with things like regression in social and workers rights which are at odds with what democrat workers have been told to expect from society.
I think there might also be a split in democrat and republican bourgeoisie sources of capital (beyond the republican petty bourgeoisie, i.e. tech vs fossil or whatever), but I’m not familiar with that and have only read and heard of it briefly mentioned here once or twice. Imo that is actually the most interesting thing to investigate or read about and if anyone can provide some sources I’d be grateful.
Either way though, for big bourgeoisie on both sides red and blue, the dislike is largely theatrical as both sides know they benefit from the current arrangement (they’re the same class after all) and so democrats telling their voters to hate fascists in the republican party isn’t really endangering the status quo (since democrats themselves don’t threaten it).