[Red_Army]

I feel like threads like this are just a way to trap people into a "whataboutism" gotcha. That word is so fucking stupid. Someone starts with a ridiculous claim about the evil behavior of (insert state enemy of the US) and then someone brings up the commensurate evils of (insert state ally of the US) and all the dumb liberals get to shout, "WHATABOUTISM" with as much glee as they can muster. You can't talk about massive geopolitical issues and conflicts without discussing the complicated systems of alliances and interests that necessarily involve all of the world's major players, but thankfully a fun word has been coined to avoid all that!

[AFAIK]

Clearly this had absolutely nothing to do with US superpower status, right?

Feel free to make that argument. Don't forget to provide apologetics for all the death squads, coups and dictatorships the US actively supports.

They have shown a lot more restraint than most others would show in a similar position of power.

So if a country lacks the ambition to dominate the globe and maintain hegemony over all others you interpret that as them being less magnanimous then the US? How can we judge how difficult it is to breathe with Singapore's boot on our necks when it has made no effort to place it there.

[B0ycey]

I feel like threads like this are just a way to trap people into a "whataboutism" gotcha. That word is so fucking stupid. Someone starts with a ridiculous claim about the evil behavior of (insert state enemy of the US) and then someone brings up the commensurate evils of (insert state ally of the US) and all the dumb liberals get to shout, "WHATABOUTISM" with as much glee as they can muster. You can't talk about massive geopolitical issues and conflicts without discussing the complicated systems of alliances and interests that necessarily involve all of the world's major players, but thankfully a fun word has been coined to avoid all that!

I agree. I hate these types of threads because if you highlight that Russia and China haven't actually invaded or in conflict with a foreign state right now you are always regarded as an apologist. As things stand, I don't think China nor Russia are a threat to the world. They are however a provider of fake news and perhaps a threat for cybersecurity. And it is up to the West to educate and legislate to prevent that. Because ultimately everything we accuse them of we do back anyway. The idea America are being restraint in geopolitics is completely ignoring they sponsor rebels against regimes they don't support, they invade in illegal wars and put sanctions on those they don't like. Russia and China don't do that and to me any threat we perceive or accuse them of today are always INTERNAL AND NOT INTERNATIONAL affairs anyway.

[Patrickov]

@B0ycey

I do NOT buy the "internal affairs" bullshit. It is just an excuse of totalitarian regimes to EXTERMINATE whoever just happen to come across their paths (not always intentional).

You are a China apologist in this sense.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey

I do NOT buy the "internal affairs" bullshit. It is just an excuse of totalitarian regimes to EXTERMINATE whoever just happen to come across their paths (not always intentional).

You are a China apologist in this sense.

I don't support extermination full stop @Patrickov. And I have always thought that China should retain the Sino-British Deal until 2034. But what is happening in Hong Kong is not an extermination but an incorporation of Chinese law into Hong Kong and a restriction of democratic opportunity of candidate. And the Ugyhurs are being re-educated due to terrorism rather than exterminated also. People can have all the views they like on these points of view and I have had my brush with cards when discussing these issues. But even if we disagree, these are still only Internal affairs and pointing that out shouldn't be seen as apologetic. I have always supported asylum for those in Hong Kong who are persecuted FYI. However Hong Kong isn't anti China. So the idea that China are going against the wishes of Hong Kong is debatable anyway.

[Fasces]

Over in the democracies side, capitalism's "prosperity" too, is running a course of unsustainability. Hence why there are growing movements to evolve/augment/change it with more socialistic means to try and make it sustainable; and to optimize it for human well being instead of profits (a flaw in the west the authoritarians have been able to exploit). We also have a significant segment of people in these democracies that want to allow it to continue to run its course off the cliff.

[...]

When we are all reduced to a state where it's my strong man versus yours. It's probably going to be bad for most people on the planet.

Absolutely. I'd add that I feel that without massive external forces, Western states have too much inertia and their ruling oligarchies are too entrenched for meaningful change. I hope that the Chinese model isn't the end stage of human development - but it is a useful mechanism to highlight and exploit systemic failures in the Western system, just as the arrival of Western capitalism and imperialism in the 18th century forced China to end an ancient cycle of stagnant imperial politicking.

Unfortunately, I suspect the current "end state" for the US or England looks far more similar to Russia than China, ie: a kleptocracy. In this sense, Xi and Putin are opposites - Xi represents an indifferent state apparatus taking power back from the kleptocrats, while Putin represents the state completely captured by kleptocrats.

[Rugoz]

Feel free to make that argument. Don't forget to provide apologetics for all the death squads, coups and dictatorships the US actively supports.

I have no intention to make that argument because it's perfectly obvious to anyone who isn't completely braindead. Like wtf?

Absolutely. I'd add that I feel that without massive external forces, Western states have too much inertia and their ruling oligarchies are too entrenched for meaningful change. I hope that the Chinese model isn't the end stage of human development - but it is a useful mechanism to highlight and exploit systemic failures in the Western system, just as the arrival of Western capitalism and imperialism in the 18th century forced China to end an ancient cycle of stagnant imperial politicking.

The "Chinese model" doesn't highlight any of those things, because China is worse. Why should I take China as a model when Western democracies have less inequality in income and wealth, some of them much less? The "Chinese model" represents a regression for any developed country.

Unfortunately, I suspect the current "end state" for the US or England looks far more similar to Russia than China, ie: a kleptocracy. In this sense, Xi and Putin are opposites - Xi represents an indifferent state apparatus taking power back from the kleptocrats, while Putin represents the state completely captured by kleptocrats.

Based on what? It seems both follow a similar strategy, namely fight the oligarchy if they pose a threat to their rule and otherwise treat them favourably.

[Fasces]

The "Chinese model" doesn't highlight any of those things, because China is worse. Why should I take China as a model when Western democracies have less inequality in income and wealth, some of them much less? The "Chinese model" represents a regression for any developed country.

China is still developing, so such gaps are to be expected. Nonetheless, it's not the measure I use when describing what I like about the Chinese model.

Most importantly, in the context of the question, the Chinese state apparatus hasn't been captured by individual oligarchs, and has retained its power. It isn't a regression, but a model that inherently has more potential for democracy.

In the most simple terms: I, an individual, can vote for the President of a state - I cannot vote for the President of a corporation (without purchasing shares and getting votes relative to my shares, or, in the case of private ownership, at all). States which choose to cede collective power to non-democratic entities are the systemic failure in the Western model because the interests of these non-democratic entities are not usually aligned with the interests of the people, just their owners.

There are alternative models, of course - you could have weak states with democratic workplaces. But those don't exist on a large-scale in any meaningful sense, (yet?).

Based on what? It seems both follow a similar strategy, namely fight the oligarchy if they pose a threat to their rule and otherwise treat them favourably.

The Chinese oligarchy is the Chinese Communist Party, an internally theoretically democratic political organization that is made up by the people and, ostensibly, in service of the people. It is a singular entity with a collective purpose that anybody can join and participate in. It is in their interest to keep state/party power strong, and to reduce the influence of actors that exist outside the state/party system. This is good because the state/party system is inherently more open to participation by the people; has a greater potential for democracy (even if this isn't necessarily manifested in practice at the moment).

The Russian oligarchy is a bunch of individual thieves, business-owners, and other plutocrats that are not a collective entity, do not have a singular purpose or interest, and which is neither open to mass participation or joinable by the public. If they're even answerable to public pressure to begin with, it is through an external political apparatus, and it is in their interest to make that political apparatus weaker (and they act to do precisely that). The West is much closer to this model than the Chinese model.

[Rugoz]

China is still developing, so such gaps are to be expected. Nonetheless, it's not the measure I use when describing what I like about the Chinese model.

Income and wealth inequality are objective measures, as long as countries report them correctly. Propose another measurable benchmark then.

Most importantly, in the context of the question, the Chinese state apparatus hasn't been captured by individual oligarchs, and has retained its power. It isn't a regression, but a model that inherently has more potential for democracy.

Western states have not been captured by individual oligarchs either. No idea what that is supposed to prove.

In the most simple terms: I, an individual, can vote for the President of a state - I cannot vote for the President of a corporation (without purchasing shares and getting votes relative to my shares, or, in the case of private ownership, at all). States which choose to cede collective power to non-democratic entities are the systemic failure in the Western model because the interests of these non-democratic entities are not usually aligned with the interests of the people, just their owners.

It's Western states where power resides in democratic entities. At least more so than in any other existing regime.

The Chinese oligarchy is the Chinese Communist Party, an internally theoretically democratic political organization that is made up by the people and, ostensibly, in service of the people. It is a singular entity with a collective purpose that anybody can join and participate in. It is in their interest to keep state/party power strong, and to reduce the influence of actors that exist outside the state/party system. This is good because the state/party system is inherently more open to participation by the people; has a greater potential for democracy (even if this isn't necessarily manifested in practice at the moment).

Only 6% of the Chinese people are party members and the CCP is not internally democratic at all. What hogwash.

The Russian oligarchy is a bunch of individual thieves, business-owners, and other plutocrats that are not a collective entity, do not have a singular purpose or interest, and which is neither open to mass participation or joinable by the public.

Sounds similar to the CCP to me.

[Rancid]

I agree. I hate these types of threads because if you highlight that Russia and China haven't actually invaded or in conflict with a foreign state right now you are always regarded as an apologist. As things stand, I don't think China nor Russia are a threat to the world. They are however a provider of fake news and perhaps a threat for cybersecurity. And it is up to the West to educate and legislate to prevent that. Because ultimately everything we accuse them of we do back anyway. The idea America are being restraint in geopolitics is completely ignoring they sponsor rebels against regimes they don't support, they invade in illegal wars and put sanctions on those they don't like. Russia and China don't do that and to me any threat we perceive or accuse them of today are always INTERNAL AND NOT INTERNATIONAL affairs anyway.

Your definition of invasion is antiquated and myopic. I would argue cyber attacks and social engineering are certainly forms of invasion. These nations aren't just minding their own business, as many people like to claim. You don't need guns and bullets to destabilize nations so that they can be exploit for your own benefit.

I think this idea that "well they aren't threatening/starting wars" is a lame excuse and a lie. Let's also not forget, that these nations do threaten war as well. Let's not forget Russia invaded the Ukraine, let's not forget that China threatens its neighbors and Taiwan with war too.

So yes, excusing them is apologism. If/when the US does similar, all of you jump on this anti-US-imperialism stuff like rabid dogs. It is most certainly an inconsistent stance that is on display here constantly when it comes to anti-imperialist sentiments. Most pofo anti-imperialists are really anti-USA, and simply dress it in a veneer of anti-imperialism. It's dishonest and that is actually the part of this that I take issue with. The two-faced bullshit. If you just hate the US and the west, just say it, and stop faking some moral/ethical high ground bullshit.

This is why I like Igor, he doesn't fake/hide his anti-US sentiment behind that kind of bullshit. I have waaaaay more respect for that. He owns it.

The "Chinese model" doesn't highlight any of those things, because China is worse. Why should I take China as a model when Western democracies have less inequality in income and wealth, some of them much less? The "Chinese model" represents a regression for any developed country.

No, I think @Fasces is right here. Even if we hypothetically just assume that the Chinese model is worse, that doesn't mean it cannot expose flaws/issues in other models/systems.

One of the issues with the western system that China has certainly exposed is what i said earlier. Western capitalism is more concerned with profits than people. China has exploited this masterfully. Perhaps this is the "fire" that causes the west to finally realign/define its model for the better. However, looks like it's changing for the worse.

We are seeing that the reaction to this in the west is basically Trumpism. There is a push in the US to become more like Russia/China (more like Russia really though). I think in a few decades the US will be just like Russia in the way it operates. Which, funny enough, is probably going to be bad for Russia (and the rest of the world too of course).

[B0ycey]

Your definition of invading is antiquated though. I would argue cyber attacks and social engineering are certainly forms of invasion. These nations aren't just minding their own business, as many people like to claim.

Both nations act like a superpower and don't act much different to America @Rancid on both cyper attacks and social media propaganda. We know the West is behind Nalvany and work with his team and they are working with Hong Kong separatists as well and will over promote the Urghur conflict. That isn't a claim to say that China and Russia are innocent given we know Russia has interfered with US elections and China has been linked to Western Cyber attacks, but even so there are things America will do that is even beyond what China and Russia will do in terms of violation of international sovereignty. So I guess my point was that America doesn't hold restraint actually and if anything China and Russia do. Russia certainly held restraint when a UK warship entered Crimean waters for example and America bombed Soleimani on a tip off that could have easily caused WW3.

[Politics_Observer]

@B0ycey

If the U.S. becomes more like Russia like what the republicans want, that will be worse for the world. That is a guarantee. It will also make global thermonuclear war more likely too. The tyrants of the world don't understand that making the U.S. a dictatorship like what the republicans want (because that's what the republican party really wants to do is tear up the U.S. constitution and make it a dictatorship), could make such a global thermonuclear war more possible and ultimately could destroy everybody. The world is an interconnected place and what happens in one part of the globe affects us all. So, keeping democracy alive in America is important.

[Rancid]

Both nations act like a superpower and don't act much different to America @Rancid on both cyper attacks and social media propaganda. We know the West is behind Nalvany and work with his team and they are working with Hong Kong separatists as well and will over promote the Urghur conflict. That isn't a claim to say that China and Russia are innocent given we know Russia has interfered with US elections and China has been linked to Western Cyber attacks, but even so there are things America will do that is even beyond what China and Russia will do in terms of violation of international sovereignty. So I guess my point was that America doesn't hold restraint actually and if anything China and Russia do. Russia certainly held restraint when a UK warship entered Crimean waters for example and America bombed Soleimani on a tip off that could have easily caused WW3.

Agree, but it does back to my point earlier. In that, the "restraint" Russia and China show today isn't due to some moral high ground or principles that they hold. In the case of Russia, they are simply constrained by economics and geopolitical structures. As for China, they are simply biding their time (but seem to be showing less patience since Xi took over). In the mean time, both of them continue to poke/jab around the globe to soften their targets with destabilization. Think of it has preparation for bigger violations, or target softening. This should not make what they are doing more acceptable/excusable. These aren't isolated onesy twosy things. It's part of a larger and longer term plan to dictate the affairs of the global. I mean hell, Xi's speeches clearly state the ambitions of China to call the shots around the globe (be the leader in the world with their vision or whatever). There's always two faced shit in there thrown in to make it seem like "we're just minding our business, let us develop" to throw everyone off, but the ambitions are there.

Two points to the above:
1: None of this is any better/worse than what the US does. There is no reason to excuse any of it from the US or Russia or China.
2: As soon as Russia/China can, they will become more blatant (less "restraint"). As I said, my theory is, given the same amount of power/influence, both China/Russia will do far far worse to the globe. Now, as I said, the only way to prove that is to allow them to gain that power/influence so the experiment can play out. I think that will be the case. The US will too get down in the dirt when that happens and it's not going to be good.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey

If the U.S. becomes more like Russia like what the republicans want, that will be worse for the world. That is a guarantee. It will also make global thermonuclear war more likely too.

The US SHOULDN'T BE LIKE RUSSIA. That is why I HATE making these points. America is a democracy and holds values I SUPPORT. But I am fed up with this Russia and China are worse shit. China and Russia have support from their populous and as such they get to decide their countries fate and my opinion on whether democracy is better than autocracy is irrelevant to those nations. What I do however do is say I hate Western geopolitics, especially given at this moment in time we have let Afghanistan down. We interfere in other nations politics and fuck off leaving a shitpit behind because we don't hold restraint and act first without thinking. I don't thinking that is someone who is a apologist. It is someone who is willing to say, if anything, we are worse then these so called dictators on specific things. But we are ONLY worse in terms of geopolitics and not national values IMO.

[Rugoz]

No, I think @Fasces is right here. Even if we hypothetically just assume that the Chinese model is worse, that doesn't mean it cannot expose flaws/issues in other models/systems.

China can only expose flaws where it's doing better. The only field where I think it does in some aspects is foreign policy. China is relatively powerful yet hasn't started any stupid wars.

Apart from that, other Western countries are better at exposing America's flaws, if that is what you are thinking of.

One of the issues with the western system that China has certainly exposed is what i said earlier. Western capitalism is more concerned with profits than people. China has exploited this masterfully.

By doing what, being only concerned with profits as well?

(as if either of them do only care about profits )

[Rancid]

The US SHOULDN'T BE LIKE RUSSIA.

They shouldn't, but they will be.

China can only expose flaws where it's doing better. The only field where I think it does in some aspects is foreign policy. China is relatively powerful yet hasn't started any stupid wars.

Apart from that, other Western countries are better at exposing America's flaws, if that is what you are thinking of.





By doing what, being only concerned with profits as well?

(as if either of them do only care about profits )

China isn't only concerned with profits. Their motivation for profits is to fund their visions of regaining the glory of China on the international stage or whatever. In the west, profit is the end not the means to the end. Couple that with a hyper-individualist culture, and there's a lot to expose. So yes, they can certainly expose all sorts of flaws. They don't have to do better (or worse) in those areas to expose it.

China itself is riddled with paradoxes and flaws as well, but given their massive economic prosperity, those issues will not come to a head for a long long time. The economics gives them the luxury of being able to put off those issues far into the future. In the mean time, the west can devolve into chaos as it does not have the same luxuries.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rancid

They shouldn't, but they will be.

The U.S. will be like Russia or China if the republicans have their way. That's what they want. They want a Putin like dictatorship with Trump as dictator.

[Rancid]

The U.S. will be like Russia or China if the republicans have their way. That's what they want. They want a Putin like dictatorship with Trump as dictator.

Of course, but I do believe the Republicans will get their way in the longer term.

What I don't understand, is why Russia in particular would want this. It will be bad for them in the long term to have a US that is even more willing to go to war/interfere/etc with them.

It is easier to go around the back of democracies than pseudo-democracies or dictatorships.

Edit:
Perhaps the play for Russia is, they hope the US will mostly focus on bulling its neighbors, while Russia can bully its neighbors, and China does the same to their own? dunno

[Politics_Observer]

@Rancid

If the republicans have their way and turn the U.S. into a Putin like dictatorship with Trump or somebody like Trump as dictator, the world will be a much more dangerous place.

[Fasces]

Income and wealth inequality are objective measures, as long as countries report them correctly. Propose another measurable benchmark then.

I literally did.

Western states have not been captured by individual oligarchs either.

Only 6% of the Chinese people are party members and the CCP is not internally democratic at all. What hogwash.

One of Xi's hallmark policy goals is to expand party membership, which he has, and increase democratic mechanisms at the local level - including opening up zoning and development issues to even non-party discussion through town halls and referendums. This is stuff I have personally witnessed in Qingdao and Hangzhou, even as a foreigner.

Furthermore, there is an internal democracy in the CCP - this is simply fact. Party members vote for local representatives, they elect city/province representatives, and so on. No doubt there is backroom political dealing going on, but the mechanism is democratic and there are democratic mechanisms inherent within CCP party work. Even national executive power is held by a group of nine individuals, many of which have a lot of power independent of Xi.

Xi's concentration of power is worrisome, and one of the fundamental rules any democratic system has should be "one person, one title" and China fails in this aspect, but even that is controversial within the CCP and Xi's extension of a term in 2022 is by no means guaranteed.

I mean hell, Xi's speeches clearly state the ambitions of China to call the shots around the globe (be the leader in the world with their vision or whatever).

One key difference is how that power is expressed. Xi wants China to be an economic and political leader, but believes in a Westphalian model that tolerates state sovereignty and bilateral relationships. Even ongoing border disputes with Malaysia or Vietnam haven't precluded massive trade deals and other projects. This may change in the future, with the next generation of leaders, but the current crop don't have the interest in ideological crusading or moral diplomacy that is found in Western leaders - for good and bad. They'll tolerate and work with terrible regimes, such as the Taliban.