[Potemkin]

Okay, interesting.

I had *this* kind of thing more in mind:

That’s a different thing, @ckaihatsu - in the Socratic dialogues (which were not a literary genre when Plato wrote them, but became one when later writers started imitating them), it is the text itself which is the exegesis, of some philosophical point. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one.

[ckaihatsu]

literary criticism’ began as commentaries on and exegesis of religious texts.

It was religion which first taught us to pay close attention to written texts, and has influenced how all sorts of texts actually get written.

---

professional-political-marketing

class-rule 'civilization' and *culture*

---
---

That’s a different thing, @ckaihatsu - in the Socratic dialogues (which were not a literary genre when Plato wrote them, but became one when later writers started imitating them), it is the text itself which is the exegesis, of some philosophical point. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one.

---

professional-political-marketing

[ckaihatsu]

Do I have to call *Qatzel* in here, Potemkin -- ?


= D

[Rancid]

No issues with the idea that the US is dangerous, especially to those nations that pose a threat to its interest. However this weird "Chinese innocence" thing from @Fasces and @Pants-of-dog is laughable. Actually, the whole "loss of innocence" and "the past glory will be restored" are of the most potent tools used by empires to justify their actions. China has these in spades..... but... it's not a danger of course. It's just a little lamb that is misunderstood.

China is literally doing to some of is indigenous population what America did to native Americans (or Canada to its, or Australia to its). and @Pants-of-dog seems to think China isn't a danger to people?

[Pants-of-dog]

….and I also never claimed that China was innocent.

I find people tend to think I am defending China, or arguing that China is innocent, when all I am doing is not accepting the myth that it is more dangerous than countries that have proven themselves to be dangerous.

[Fasces]

"chinese innocence"

What Chinese innocence?

[Rancid]

….and I also never claimed that China was innocent.

I find people tend to think I am defending China, or arguing that China is innocent, when all I am doing is not accepting the myth that it is more dangerous than countries that have proven themselves to be dangerous.

The point is, all of these nations should be taken as potentially dangerous regardless on if they have "proven" it or not through whatever metric you want to pick.

We shouldn't be focusing on one danger, but all dangers. Otherwise you just engage in imperial wack-a-mole. It will never end.

[Pants-of-dog]

The point is, all of these nations should be taken as potentially dangerous regardless on if they have "proven" it or not through whatever metric you want to pick.

Sure. That makes sense. We should treat China as the threat that it actually is, just as we should treat the US as the threat that it actually is.

And this is true regardless of how dangerous any other country is. The fact that China is dangerous has no effect on the fact that the US is dangerous, and vice versa.

Looking at the OP, we see it is a discussion on how attempts to attain global invincibility create their own dangers. This seems like a danger that is particular to the USA. i.e. China, while dangerous in other ways, does nit seem to be endangering its own people in an attempt to be militarily invincible for the foreseeable future.

[late]

inevitable...

Bloody likely..

[Rancid]

Sure. That makes sense. We should treat China as the threat that it actually is, just as we should treat the US as the threat that it actually is.

And this is true regardless of how dangerous any other country is. The fact that China is dangerous has no effect on the fact that the US is dangerous, and vice versa.

Looking at the OP, we see it is a discussion on how attempts to attain global invincibility create their own dangers. This seems like a danger that is particular to the USA. i.e. China, while dangerous in other ways, does nit seem to be endangering its own people in an attempt to be militarily invincible for the foreseeable future.

It is a danger.

Reminds me of Ghost in the Shell. The US designs an AI that is designed to solve all of the world's problems, but always give the US a slight edge. Anyway, the AI goes rogue and hilarity ensues.

I think this is what the US would prefer in the real world, but is not attainable, it's unsustainable, and probably hi-jackable for nefarious purposes. Very easy to run astray and afoul. This is the danger from the US. American propaganda is certainly framed in this context; that it brings stability to many parts of the world at a macro level (conveniently ignoring the lower levels where instability is introduced). It's probably why it's so effective.


Here's an interesting thought to think about though:
In game theory (IIRC), when you have multiple players in any type of game/competition, the most volatility (conflicts, disagreements, fights, wars, etc.) occurs when all of the players are roughly equally matched. This is because there is a higher chance that any one of the players will decide to do something drastic in order tip the scales in their favor. There is more chaos, more friction, more conflict. This affect is present in company dynamics, family dynamics, local politics, national politics, and geopolitics. In effect, the "multi-polar" world that many people think will be good, will actually bring about more conflict in more areas around the globe. We should expect to see more regional conflicts in the future. Especially as the US becomes less interested in protecting global trade (i.e. opens the game in different regions to more players).

On the other end, if there is a single dominate player. There tends to be less conflict. That's not to say we should advocate for a world police though. The world is more complex because there are layers of interconnected games. One layer's stability can create instability in other layers. For example. the geopolitical game is not independent of the national politics game in any nation, or the local politics game, or even familial politics. Thus, there can/are scenarios where you stabilize one layer (say the geopolitical game) with a single dominate player (say the US). However, the actions of this single dominate player forces instability in the lower levels (national, local, etc.). I think this is evident when you look at the history of US imperialism/interventions around the globe.

What is the magical balance point of all of these "games"? Does it even exist? I bet there is some super nerd @Potemkin type trying to answer these questions in some university basement somewhere. The kind of researcher that no one takes seriously. It will be 100 years after this person's death when we will look back on their work and realize "OMG, they were a genius! Ahead of their time!"

[Rich]

….and I also never claimed that China was innocent.

I find people tend to think I am defending China, or arguing that China is innocent, when all I am doing is not accepting the myth that it is more dangerous than countries that have proven themselves to be dangerous.

China has proven itself not just dangerous but fatal and on an enormous scale. The Communist regime that took power under Mao, Communist with Han nationalist characteristics and the openly National Socialist regime that it started to morph into under Deng. But also the aggressive murderous, expansionist Han regimes that have preceded it for the last two millennia.

People have talked about containment, well that's what we had in November 1942. The German Nazi and Showa Japanese regimes had been contained. The threat of the Soviet Union collapsing had been averted. It was time to think smartly about what peace Americans and we in the West desired and what was realistic and possible. I would suggest that while we did not want Manchuria to remain under Japanese domination, there was no good reason to want to see it under either Communist or Han Chinese domination either.

[ckaihatsu]

November 1942

It was time to think smartly about what peace Americans and we in the West desired and what was realistic and possible.

---

The United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945, respectively. The two bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians, and remain the only use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bo ... d_Nagasaki

[Political Interest]

The Americans used to be a smart people. Now they are led by idiots!

Roosevelt was a good politician, he fought Nazism and Japanese imperialism, he knew the dangers.

Then in the 1950s the Americans worked for anti-imperialism in the Global South.

But now they've gone completely mad, I don't know what happened to American leadership.

[ckaihatsu]

Then in the 1950s the Americans worked for anti-imperialism in the Global South.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ange#1950s

[Political Interest]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1950s

I know, but it was better than it is now.

Eisenhower was quite a good president.

[ckaihatsu]

I know, but it was better than it is now.

Bullshit. Nostalgia.

Eisenhower was quite a good president.

Buzzword / talking-point.


---

The Marshall Plan also had a political motive. The Communist parties of Italy and France were strong, and the United States decided to use pressure and money to keep Communists out of the cabinets of those countries. When the Plan was beginning, Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson said: "These measures of relief and reconstruction have been only in part suggested by humanitarianism. Your Congress has authorized and your Government is carrying out, a policy of relief and reconstruction today chiefly as a matter of national self-interest."

From 1952 on, foreign aid was more and more obviously designed to build up military power in non-Communist countries. In the next ten years, of the $50 billion in aid granted by the United States to ninety countries, only $5 billion was for nonmilitary economic development.

When John F. Kennedy took office, he launched the Alliance for Progress, a program of help for Latin America, emphasizing social reform to better the lives of people. But it turned out to be mostly military aid to keep in power right-wing dictatorships and enable them to stave off revolutions.

From military aid, it was a short step to military intervention. What Truman had said at the start of the Korean war about "the rule of force" and the "rule of law" was again and again, under Truman and his successors, contradicted by American action. In Iran, in 1953, the Central Intelligence Agency succeeded in overthrowing a government which nationalized the oil industry. In Guatemala, in 1954, a legally elected government was overthrown by an invasion force of mercenaries trained by the CIA at military bases in Honduras and Nicaragua and supported by four American fighter planes flown by American pilots. The invasion put into power Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, who had at one time received military training at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The government that the United States overthrew was the most democratic Guatemala had ever had. The President, Jacobo Arbenz, was a left-of-center Socialist; four of the fifty-six seats in the Congress were held by Communists. What was most unsettling to American business interests was that Arbenz had expropriated 234,000 acres of land owned by United Fruit, offering compensation that United Fruit called "unacceptable." Armas, in power, gave the land back to United Fruit, abolished the tax on interest and dividends to foreign investors, eliminated the secret ballot, and jailed thousands of political critics.

In 1958, the Eisenhower government sent thousands of marines to Lebanon to make sure the pro-American government there was not toppled by a revolution, and to keep an armed presence in that oil-rich area.

https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon ... eswar.html

[Political Interest]

Bullshit. Nostalgia.

Well, you're a communist and I am not.

I don't want some red flag everywhere, global atheism and Soviet socialism as an end of history.

I don't like Western liberalism either.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, you're a communist and I am not.

Well, to be fair, I'm not a *Stalinist*. (I'm not a statist, or state-oriented.)

I don't want some red flag everywhere, global atheism and Soviet socialism as an end of history.

The workers of the world have no intrinsic interests in the world's patchwork of bourgeois nation-states.

I don't like Western liberalism either.

What's your critique of it?


---


Also, similarly to the Cold War, but more recently:

In addition to the charges under the “Coup d’État” case, Áñez and her ministers have had five other charges brought against them by the government over the week. On Monday, charges were filed for the “irregular and onerous loan” taken by Áñez’s government from the International Monetary Fund (IMF); the “illegal extension of concession to Fundempresa [a commercial activities regulator];” the “violation of human rights of Bolivians living in Chile [who were prevented for weeks from entering their country];” and for a decree of “restrictions during the pandemic” that allegedly undermined “freedom of expression.”

On Tuesday, the government issued its fifth indictment of Áñez for the Sacaba and Senkata massacres, in which 36 people were killed and more than 500 wounded by regime forces in protests following the coup. Minister Lima told La Razón that this latter case is “the most important for us” because of demands for justice by victims and survivors.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... i-m18.html

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, everyone bone-up on Cold War history -- we're being *stress tested* -- !


= )

[Political Interest]

Well, to be fair, I'm not a *Stalinist*. (I'm not a statist, or state-oriented.)

How do you propose to build socialism without a state?

The workers of the world have no intrinsic interests in the world's patchwork of bourgeois nation-states.

Everyone has a homeland and a country, it's no use trying to tell the working class they have no country.

Maybe you would like to tell the nations oppressed by neo-colonialism that they have no country.

What's your critique of it?

Well, my dear communist, I don't think we will have much in common but on the economic question I dislike how Western liberalism makes everyone into mere utilitarian workers, and a person is only the worth of their economic value. I think everyone in a country must be taken care of, they need good housing, good employment and stability for their families. Neo-liberalism reduces all relations to mere economic relations, who can make the most money and who is best at maximising value for a business. That is a cold and rabidly individualistic way to structure social relations. It leads to destitution, misery and all sorts of social dysfunction. Such an economic system is completely alien to me. At the same time I don't like communism, people should have the right to make money to ensure a proper availability of consumer goods. Soviets and Warsaw Pact failed in this and that's what partly led to their downfall in the end.

Culturally I dislike the crassness of it, the way it's making people into crass, rude and materialistic idiots devoid of morality. The bonds of social cohesion are eroding and we're losing any sort of uplifting influence in our culture.

I suspect you're one of these American communists who are socially liberal, well that doesn't appeal to me either.