Holy shit talk about proving me right. China’s “sino-centric ideology”… Is that the same ideology that has led the world’s most advanced multi-cultural state organizing systems with autonomous regions for large ethnic groups and over 57 different ethinicities formally recognized and developed? Is it the same one where Tibetans learn their native language from grade school through university? That sino-centric ideology? If that ideology came to the West would it do us good? Abso-fucking-lutely. Because in the West, there’s an ACTUAL (as opposed to imagined) desire for an ethnostate that is enforced through genocide in all of its worst forms. There are native American tribes that have fewer than 10 fluent speakers of their language and they are all over 70. Your claim of a sino-centric ideology is projection.

China does not desire global hegemony. That would be stupid. Why would it be stupid? We are watching what happens to global hegemons in real-time. They are unsustainable, completely unstable, and involve contradictions that will tear them apart. China’s entire founding principles are based on socio-political theory that details this at length. China is not trying to become the next US because it knows that way lies ruin.

The idea that the only solution is to do literally exactly what you’ve been doing for 600 years, consolidating the West to dominate the globe, which it already does, destroy and carve up all opposition, like it already did, and ultimately subjugate, again, the majority of the world’s population to protect the minority, is just full on mask-off fascism…again.

hexbear has existed and been building their userbase for 3 years, but during that time their codebase diverged greatly from mainline lemmy to include in-house tweaks and features which made it not possible to federate, and it’s only within the past month that they got everything compatible

Democracy lives off of discourse between opposing views.

The inference here is that both views are of equivalent merit which is very much not true. This idea is called The Paradox of Tolerance. If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant.

I would not call them far left tbh. There’s something else about them that irks me. It honestly feels more North Korean to me and that ain’t left by any stretch of the imagination. It seems to be more authoritarian minded.

Territorial waters are defined as 12 nautical miles typically from the shore

BY WHOM IS IT DEFINED? You don’t need to answer the question here. We all know the answer. It’s the “rules-based international order”, you know, the one invented by white genociders that dominated and subjugated 80% of the world population. But do go on about how the definition of territorial waters is perfectly compatible with the US encircling China with nuclear capabilities, occupying much of the region, colonizing and subjugating various indigenous peoples on various islands so they can test weapons and prepare for war. It’s CHINA that’s being a problem.

There is a reason why China is literally building fake islands to increase it’s territorial water claim there.

Awww, what’s the matter? Are you upset when the fake rules that whitey made to dominate the globe are sometimes used by non-whites to game the system in small ways that show everyone just how vacuous and bankrupt the West really is?

How about you focus on things like why China is even the UN at all, how the US refused to let the PRC into the UN and instead decided that the KMT should be at the UN despite the KMT prosecuting the White Terror and mass murdering people by the thousands for so much as suggesting that maybe they should end the civil war officially and integrate with China now that the PLA had demonstrated they had the overwhelming majority of popular support.

Just showing off your ignorance like your proud of it

The nazis were all about privatization, read a damn book

this is historically illiterate. the term privatization was coined specifically to describe what the Nazis were doing in Germany.

“In return for business assistance, the Nazis hastened to give evidence of their good will by restoring to private capitalism a number of monopolies held or controlled by the state."

In other words, the Nazis specifically took certain businesses that were formerly nationalized and then privatized them.

For further reading:

• Retrospectives The Coining of “Privatization” and Germany’s National Socialist Party - Article from Journal of Economic Perspectives
• Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany - Research paper from the University of Barcelona

Sweety, Albert Speer literally said that NAZI Germany was “an daughter company of IG Farben”.

You “study history” off of youtube don’t you?

Ha ha no problem.

😔

It’s a coincidence

I’m hardly ever this condescending. I’ve made a special exception to hexbear users who’ve been brigading almost all posts about China and Russia since you federated again.

You’ve been telling everyone how you feel about libs since you federated, so I’m sure you will continue with or without me.

I know it’s tough to face the light and meet the wider world, but outside the basement you’ve been keeping yourself for three years, you should expect that people giggle at your idiocy, at best.

Hey I’m not drunk!

Sure. As a matter of historicaly development, we know, as Marxists, that liberal capitalist societies, whether they have the formal institutions of representative democracy or not, tend to develop due to the tendencies of economic development the social consequences of the later and the political conjunctures, into fascistic or fascist political regimes and societies. But these are tendencies, they aren’t metaphysical or mathematical necessities. Even if we always saw every liberal democracy transform into outright into fascism, this doesn’t make them the same thing. If you were actually under a fascist government you would quickly realise the difference.

Fascism is partly characterized by it’s ideological and other superstructural features, but this is only a partial understanding. A fuller understanding notes that such states have only emerged in contexts of capitalist decay and crisis and act as a safety valve through which the capitalist class reestablishes political supremacy over the workings classes. However, I would point out that while capitalists are generally key parts of an any fascist state, the relationship between a powerful fascist state and individual enterprises (such as in Nazi Germany) does tip more and more towards the arbitrary power of the central executive government, to the point where they are more eager than capitalists to jeopardize profits for political objectives.

I’m obviously not saying that liberals have not engaged in extreme racism, colonialism, and genocide. Actually, from a historical point of view, they have been the best at it. It also isn’t wrong to say that in many respects fascism is also charaterized by the turning inward, the domestic usage, of the coercive, violent means of political repression which are innovated and developed in colonies. As Aimé Cesaire pointed out, fascism is like imperialism turned inwards. Modern America often treats many people internally in a fascistic way, embodied by the prison-industrial complex, especially if you are a very active, radical activist, or were or are in the past or present a member of a revolutionary group like the Black Panthers, or more generally a poor immigrant, a racial minority interacting with cops, or many other scenarios. The American state, like the British and French states, their political and economic elites, have already partly fascicized, are undergoing the process. But I really don’t think we’re passed the point of the nature of the political regime changing sufficiently to call them all fully fascist states. After Ukraine, the USA is the closest.

This is also why it is so weird and unnecessary to me when people just say that liberal democracy is the same thing as fascism. The fact that two things are linked or that one has tendencies that lead it to transform into, produce, be replaced by the other does not mean that they’re the same. Actually it implies the opposite, otherwise there would be no transformation to begin with. Take the Italian government. It is filled with realy, ideologically convinced fascists. But it does not find itself in a situation where, even as a unified coalition of Mussolini fans, they cannot actually find any means to exert fully fascist politics in defiance of the EU’s neoliberal economic agenda, nor NATO’s political agenda. Meloni does actually use the classic fascist technique of appealing to leftist sounding points. She recently went on Italian television and shit all over Macron and the French for enganging in neocolonialism against Françafrique, explaining the monetary system on tv and how most gold a child will mine in the period will end up in the French central bank. The difference with the Ukrainian government is that the material conditions of Ukraine allow, actually force, the government to fascicize beyond the confines of it’s own ideology and extend this to society more broadly and more radically. There is not even the pretence of liberal democracy in Ukraine amongst actual Ukrainians, let alone the Russophone Ukrainians or Russians of the east.

We have different words for a reason: to refer to different things. In this case, different types of political regimes. A liberal political regime is different to fascist political regime. The transition might be gradual or appear relatively continuous, but so was the emergence of feudalism and capitalism.

If you payed closer attention

Real challenge right there.

deleted by creator

I can understand that because you feel duped, you find it hard to trust anything the US says today.

I didn’t feel duped, though. It was clearly an insane lie meant to justify a neocon, hawkish invasion of Iraq and Bush Jr was desperate to “finish the job” and get a pat on his back by Bush.

The world is super complex. Not everything the West does is good - there’s plenty of examples in history, less from present day but definitely cases (Iraq is an awful example). Similarly, not everything China does is bad, far from it. I’ve travelled there extensively and work with Chinese citizens every single day. I have no hate for Chinese people - count many as my friend and they’re both hard working and fun to be around after work (once you get to know them). There’s plenty of things to like in China. And once you get to know Chinese people well, they will tell you story after story about the insanity inside their own country - that they are well aware of. They laugh at their own government.

So I’m not confused about the balance of things. On balance, the West is a far better influence on the world and care-taker of its citizens than China is. And let’s not get started on the Russian state, which is an oligarchic kleptocracy driven to violence by its isolated dictator.

I’m not sure I understand your question. Do you mean “what made me realise that Iraq had no WMDs”? Well, for starters that the UN had been all over the bloody country inspecting it for years. Secondly that Colin Powell’s session at the UN presented drawings as evidence. Drawings.