This is undeniably what the US is trying to do. They want to drive competition.
Also, figured I’d go back to this sentence- no offense, but- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… no.
Does banning TikTok, Huawei, accusing China of “overcapacity,” etc. sound like “driving competition?” You’re falling for the capitalist drivel, whether you realize it or not- the US is trying to maintain its rentier dominance, over industries, over defence (or rather, terror against the entire world), over finance, over trade, etc…
Capitalists have always claimed they’re about “competition.” The truth is very much “do as I say, not as I do,” however. Was it “competition” that built up the British empire, or shameless plundering, mercantilism, and the outright destruction of native industries across the globe, for instance? And can we call the US’ own development- first heavily protectionist, then after indebting and destroying all its competitors, going full Marshall Plan on them, “competition?” Can we call the US foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine, the abuses of the dollar (and the US’ jealous guarding of its exorbitant privilege) “competition?” Were the Plaza Accords “competition?” Are the various oligopolies that dominate the US seeking “competition?”
Just… no. Please, educate yourself. As another commenter in this chain has noted- Vijay Prashad is a good starting point (https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/4301042). Or Michael Hudson. Or Prof. Wolff. Or Geopolitical Economy Report. If you don’t understand these things you’re always just going to be misled.
That’s exactly what it is - competition. They don’t want to cooperate with China, they want to compete. I’m not talking about the domestic “free market,” I’m talking about the world economy and power politics. If the US keeps pursuing this path of foreign policy and no longer wants to play friendly, then, yes, either China or Russia (or some other country) will have to step up and be the competing imperialist power. Either that, or they have to choose the submissive role, a puppet government. There’s no way around this. We live in the era of imperialism and globalization - all countries have to be interconnected by some way and we can’t backtrack. Something like BRICS is an alternative, not a revolutionary new thing, but just a plain alternative to what already exists. That’s not inherently a good or bad thing. But when we have the US pushing countries into competiting spheres of influence, what happens in a system like this? The same that already happened before.
This isn’t a moral concept, this isn’t a voluntary thing. This is just what happens when you have a bunch of sufficiently developed capitalist countries. They will all demand imperialism at some point, that’s their aspiration, and those competing interests will interfere in the peace of all other (both capitalist and socialist) countries. People will be forced to pick sides at some point, that’s the competition.
They don’t want to cooperate with China, they want to compete.
My answer to that, is the same as before- laughter. It’s certainly not competition they want, otherwise they would have just left things be- they are rentiers, hegemonists, imperialists- and it is submission they desire. Or do you think that within capitalism and imperialism as the system we live in today, big corporates want to compete with- say, labor, or even with other corporations, rather than buy off the competition and grow fat and complacent while cutting margins? This is what it always is and was, this is the nature of capital, this is undeniably the approach the west has built for itself over centuries and maintains (albeit a crumbling system) to this day- there may be some competition within it, but it is only a means to the end, a means that capitalists, and imperialists as their highest form, ultimately have a consistent track record of (and it only makes sense from their perspective- it’s the nature of the system) seeking to eradicate in turn once they reach their desired end.
I’m talking about the world economy and power politics. If the US keeps pursuing this path of foreign policy and no longer wants to play friendly, then, yes, either China or Russia (or some other country) will have to step up and be the competing imperialist power.
Once again, you’re mixing the notion of “competition” - anti-imperialist competition ie. resistance at that- as imperialism. This is nonsense. Is the competition, the struggle of the Palestinians, “imperialist?” Bullshit.
either China or Russia (or some other country) will have to step up and be the competing imperialist power. Either that, or they have to choose the submissive role, a puppet government. There’s no way around this. We live in the era of imperialism and globalization - all countries have to be interconnected by some way and we can’t backtrack
I agree, we can’t backtrack. We are moving forward- what is being built now, is a stage of society beyond imperialism, and from there, gradually ideally beyond capital. Did you think that stage would be characterized by non-competitive, disunited, unfocused (anarchic) groups or states, fumbling in the dark and refusing to play power politics? Do you think that would be “progress,” or uplift the human condition? Did you think that with the ushering in of socialism, humanity would suddenly cease to be globalized? This sounds more like a dark age to me than anything else, and it certainly is not what any communist movement, but also any sensible leftist movement, would advocate- it is not what the former movements (SDS, Black Panthers, civil rights movement, etc) you positively described advocated also, for that matter.
The individual could not compete against tribalism (not that we evolved that way to begin with); tribalism could not compete against early complex societies, and those in turn could not compete over the long run against monarchism and/or more stratified societies, and then finally in turn against the imperialists. Feudalism and the rights of nobles gave way to capitalism and the rights of the capitalists- each class, larger than the next. And the next class in turn, the ideally universal class, which comprises all the masses of humanity- that is what was theorized by Marx to come next, what was determined to be the next logical conclusion, with the means to outcompete and truly liberate our species once and for all from the contradictions- the class struggle, the alienation, etc. that has plagued humanity for millennia.
Something like BRICS is an alternative, not a revolutionary new thing, but just a plain alternative to what already exists. That’s not inherently a good or bad thing. But when we have the US pushing countries into competiting spheres of influence, what happens in a system like this? The same that already happened before.
This hasn’t happened before, certainly not in the same way. But you won’t listen regardless, will you? What we are seeing is the development and cooperation of the non-western “bloc”- if it can be called that- the west vs. the rest, really- wherein the colonized have finally reached a parity within the greater global system (rather than individual states doing so, such as with Japan, or with- while they were not imperialist, which in itself literally disproves your point- the Soviets), and where they all, diverse and flawed as they may be, some (most) even capitalist in their own right, are coming together in the face of their common enemy now that they truly have the means to do so, against the global system of capitalist superprofits/extraction that is imperialism, the highest stage of capital.
And they are not “rebuilding imperialism, but with the south in charge” or whatever nonsense. That’s your western victim/purist mentality at play; a seat is at the table for the west when they want to start acting like human beings again, for the first time in 500 years if not more (ie. revolutionary change, getting rid of the colonial mentality, etc). A system of actual rules (rather than western diktat and double standards), increasingly more equitable trade, win-win cooperation, a diverse and open dialogue for peoples- all peoples, unlike how it has only ever been with the west- having their voices heard and determining their path forwards themselves, and- if you want to be a healthy cynic about it, with state entities keeping each other in check (the most prominent, developed, competitive, and powerful of which today is an AES) to prevent the prior order from returning with a different head at the helm.
I’m done with this discussion. Because I’ve said all there is to say, about it, and you’ve said yours (nebulously gesturing at “competition, power politics bad, there is no alternative to recreating the wheel,” etc). I’ve already linked other sources, but I don’t think you’ve even so much as properly absorbed what I’ve said already (in any of my comments so far), it just hasn’t been able to sink in yet. Anything else I could say would just be repetitions of what I’ve already said before, and more to convince anyone else looking in on this conversation than anything else- but I simply won’t. I recommend actually checking the sources linked by me- or by the other commenter in this thread in regards to Vijay Prashad and the Tri-Continental- if you actually have interest in seeing it all spelled out for you by people more practiced and articulate in doing so than I am, with a far greater understanding of the subject, and with sourcing and (in regards to their published works) peer review and renown.
As far as I’m concerned, your own take on the matter is little different from the neoliberal “end of history” mentality- that certainly seems to be what you’re trapped in- just with a colorful “leftist revolution” aesthetic and idealism behind it all. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the only groups you seemed to mention positively (presumably without looking at their actual approach and analysis to things) were now-defunct leftist organizations, the Palestinian resistance who haven’t even their rightful sovereignty and autonomy as a state within their own internationally recognized territories, and the “hermit kingdom” of North Korea (for all that that name is deeply unfair and a smear in and of itself- so let’s say, “pseudo-hermit socialism” or “socialism, but under siege and isolated from much of the world”).
Also, figured I’d go back to this sentence- no offense, but- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… no.
Does banning TikTok, Huawei, accusing China of “overcapacity,” etc. sound like “driving competition?” You’re falling for the capitalist drivel, whether you realize it or not- the US is trying to maintain its rentier dominance, over industries, over defence (or rather, terror against the entire world), over finance, over trade, etc…
Capitalists have always claimed they’re about “competition.” The truth is very much “do as I say, not as I do,” however. Was it “competition” that built up the British empire, or shameless plundering, mercantilism, and the outright destruction of native industries across the globe, for instance? And can we call the US’ own development- first heavily protectionist, then after indebting and destroying all its competitors, going full Marshall Plan on them, “competition?” Can we call the US foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine, the abuses of the dollar (and the US’ jealous guarding of its exorbitant privilege) “competition?” Were the Plaza Accords “competition?” Are the various oligopolies that dominate the US seeking “competition?”
Just… no. Please, educate yourself. As another commenter in this chain has noted- Vijay Prashad is a good starting point (https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/4301042). Or Michael Hudson. Or Prof. Wolff. Or Geopolitical Economy Report. If you don’t understand these things you’re always just going to be misled.
That’s exactly what it is - competition. They don’t want to cooperate with China, they want to compete. I’m not talking about the domestic “free market,” I’m talking about the world economy and power politics. If the US keeps pursuing this path of foreign policy and no longer wants to play friendly, then, yes, either China or Russia (or some other country) will have to step up and be the competing imperialist power. Either that, or they have to choose the submissive role, a puppet government. There’s no way around this. We live in the era of imperialism and globalization - all countries have to be interconnected by some way and we can’t backtrack. Something like BRICS is an alternative, not a revolutionary new thing, but just a plain alternative to what already exists. That’s not inherently a good or bad thing. But when we have the US pushing countries into competiting spheres of influence, what happens in a system like this? The same that already happened before.
This isn’t a moral concept, this isn’t a voluntary thing. This is just what happens when you have a bunch of sufficiently developed capitalist countries. They will all demand imperialism at some point, that’s their aspiration, and those competing interests will interfere in the peace of all other (both capitalist and socialist) countries. People will be forced to pick sides at some point, that’s the competition.
My answer to that, is the same as before- laughter. It’s certainly not competition they want, otherwise they would have just left things be- they are rentiers, hegemonists, imperialists- and it is submission they desire. Or do you think that within capitalism and imperialism as the system we live in today, big corporates want to compete with- say, labor, or even with other corporations, rather than buy off the competition and grow fat and complacent while cutting margins? This is what it always is and was, this is the nature of capital, this is undeniably the approach the west has built for itself over centuries and maintains (albeit a crumbling system) to this day- there may be some competition within it, but it is only a means to the end, a means that capitalists, and imperialists as their highest form, ultimately have a consistent track record of (and it only makes sense from their perspective- it’s the nature of the system) seeking to eradicate in turn once they reach their desired end.
Once again, you’re mixing the notion of “competition” - anti-imperialist competition ie. resistance at that- as imperialism. This is nonsense. Is the competition, the struggle of the Palestinians, “imperialist?” Bullshit.
I agree, we can’t backtrack. We are moving forward- what is being built now, is a stage of society beyond imperialism, and from there, gradually ideally beyond capital. Did you think that stage would be characterized by non-competitive, disunited, unfocused (anarchic) groups or states, fumbling in the dark and refusing to play power politics? Do you think that would be “progress,” or uplift the human condition? Did you think that with the ushering in of socialism, humanity would suddenly cease to be globalized? This sounds more like a dark age to me than anything else, and it certainly is not what any communist movement, but also any sensible leftist movement, would advocate- it is not what the former movements (SDS, Black Panthers, civil rights movement, etc) you positively described advocated also, for that matter.
The individual could not compete against tribalism (not that we evolved that way to begin with); tribalism could not compete against early complex societies, and those in turn could not compete over the long run against monarchism and/or more stratified societies, and then finally in turn against the imperialists. Feudalism and the rights of nobles gave way to capitalism and the rights of the capitalists- each class, larger than the next. And the next class in turn, the ideally universal class, which comprises all the masses of humanity- that is what was theorized by Marx to come next, what was determined to be the next logical conclusion, with the means to outcompete and truly liberate our species once and for all from the contradictions- the class struggle, the alienation, etc. that has plagued humanity for millennia.
This hasn’t happened before, certainly not in the same way. But you won’t listen regardless, will you? What we are seeing is the development and cooperation of the non-western “bloc”- if it can be called that- the west vs. the rest, really- wherein the colonized have finally reached a parity within the greater global system (rather than individual states doing so, such as with Japan, or with- while they were not imperialist, which in itself literally disproves your point- the Soviets), and where they all, diverse and flawed as they may be, some (most) even capitalist in their own right, are coming together in the face of their common enemy now that they truly have the means to do so, against the global system of capitalist superprofits/extraction that is imperialism, the highest stage of capital.
And they are not “rebuilding imperialism, but with the south in charge” or whatever nonsense. That’s your western victim/purist mentality at play; a seat is at the table for the west when they want to start acting like human beings again, for the first time in 500 years if not more (ie. revolutionary change, getting rid of the colonial mentality, etc). A system of actual rules (rather than western diktat and double standards), increasingly more equitable trade, win-win cooperation, a diverse and open dialogue for peoples- all peoples, unlike how it has only ever been with the west- having their voices heard and determining their path forwards themselves, and- if you want to be a healthy cynic about it, with state entities keeping each other in check (the most prominent, developed, competitive, and powerful of which today is an AES) to prevent the prior order from returning with a different head at the helm.
I’m done with this discussion. Because I’ve said all there is to say, about it, and you’ve said yours (nebulously gesturing at “competition, power politics bad, there is no alternative to recreating the wheel,” etc). I’ve already linked other sources, but I don’t think you’ve even so much as properly absorbed what I’ve said already (in any of my comments so far), it just hasn’t been able to sink in yet. Anything else I could say would just be repetitions of what I’ve already said before, and more to convince anyone else looking in on this conversation than anything else- but I simply won’t. I recommend actually checking the sources linked by me- or by the other commenter in this thread in regards to Vijay Prashad and the Tri-Continental- if you actually have interest in seeing it all spelled out for you by people more practiced and articulate in doing so than I am, with a far greater understanding of the subject, and with sourcing and (in regards to their published works) peer review and renown.
As far as I’m concerned, your own take on the matter is little different from the neoliberal “end of history” mentality- that certainly seems to be what you’re trapped in- just with a colorful “leftist revolution” aesthetic and idealism behind it all. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the only groups you seemed to mention positively (presumably without looking at their actual approach and analysis to things) were now-defunct leftist organizations, the Palestinian resistance who haven’t even their rightful sovereignty and autonomy as a state within their own internationally recognized territories, and the “hermit kingdom” of North Korea (for all that that name is deeply unfair and a smear in and of itself- so let’s say, “pseudo-hermit socialism” or “socialism, but under siege and isolated from much of the world”).
Once again, for convenience:
The video linked by another commenter, with Vijay Prashad on hyper-imperialism
The articles- on hyper-imperialism and the “churning of the global order” (or rather, the anti-imperialist developments of the global south and world) by the Tri-Continental
Geopolitical Economy Report
Richard D. Wolff
Michael Hudson (article on predictions for 2024 and onwards, and describing in detail exactly what I’ve been talking about whether in regards to how imperialism is being outcompeted as a world system- and only has terrorism, disruption, destruction left- and just how the entire world is positioned, with the prospects for the future, etc)
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
That’s fair, I can give finishing remarks as well - I’ll make it even shorter.
I see where Marxism influenced you, but that doesn’t make you a Marxist.
You don’t know class struggle, you know struggle of civilizations and races.
FWIW I don’t consider you a Marxist in any sense of the word, either. You use the lingo, but in practice you’re no different from an anarchist.