Africa Dumps China - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of Africa.

Moderator: PoFo Africa Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15234846
Another sort of misconception about the China is that economically, they are actually very inefficient. The sheet size/volume of their economy can make it seem like their management of capital is top tier, however it isn't. This economic adventurism/colonialism is an example of this. WHen their economy starts to slow, they are going to have to pull back from a lot of these ventures. It's basically going to be unsustainable in the long term.
#15234853
The whole world is basically undergoing a collapse of all financial bubbles at once due to the extreme COVID lockdowns combined with money printing. The only place doing all right seems to be Russia, which made more money than ever since they invaded Ukraine, due to their pivot towards commodities. Possibly the worst off is Japan whom have nothing going for them besides their IP values, which are worthless without globalism.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15234859
Potemkin wrote:
(classical) liberalism, which (in the case of honest classical liberals) has transmogrified into libertarianism



If I haven't already mentioned it, I think there's a larger, congruent dynamic at-play, always, across the breadth of the political spectrum. Using physics as an analogy, the dynamics can be thought of as 'centripetal', inward, towards centrist nationalism, and also 'centrifugal', outward, towards the 'outer extents' of the political spectrum.

The dynamic, or 'narrative' here is 'The nation-state *spins* the entire world as much as it can, to keep the far-left and far-right (at either ends of the political spectrum) *apart*, so as to make physical confrontations impossible.'


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show
Image



(For the record, I consider libertarianism to be 'left-nationalism', as in anti-war positions and activity.)
User avatar
By Beren
#15234868
Rancid wrote:Another sort of misconception about the China is that economically, they are actually very inefficient.

Why would their economy be efficient while being under strict and direct political control? In exchange their political system could be efficient, though.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15234871
Potemkin wrote:



Which funny enough, people on here will denounce when China has done that, but defend it when a western nation does it.



Potemkin wrote:
Fixed it for you @Rancid. :)



Patrickov wrote:
Not really.

What I defend the West is that they have moved on from that, at least in the sense that they pioneered in instilling the idea that what they used to do was wrong.

China, on the other hand, portrayed itself as "I have never been wrong", but this very statement is wrong.



It doesn't matter what the West *thinks* of the West, what you're trying to whitewash is the *actual histories* involved, which, side-by-side, *aren't* comparable:



Industrialization of the People's Republic of China

Main article: Technological and industrial history of the People's Republic of China

Further information: Economic history of the People's Republic of China

Industrialization of China did occur on a significant scale only from the 1950s.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_i ... c_of_China



And:


1945–1949: China

Main article: Operation Beleaguer

The U.S. government provided military, logistical and other aid to the National Revolutionary Army led by Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist government in its civil war against the indigenous communist People's Liberation Army (PLA) led by Mao Zedong. Both the KMT and the PLA were fighting against Japanese occupation forces, until the Japanese surrender to the United States in August 1945. This surrender brought to an end the Japanese Puppet state of Manchukuo and the Japanese-dominated Wang Jingwei regime.[74]

After the Japanese surrender, the US continued to support the KMT against the PLA. The US airlifted many KMT troops from central China to Manchuria. Approximately 50,000 U.S. troops were sent to guard strategic sites in Hubei and Shandong. The U.S. trained and equipped KMT troops, and also transported Korean troops and even Imperial Japanese Army troops back to help KMT forces fight, and ultimately lose, against the People's Liberation Army.[75] President Harry Truman justified deploying the very Japanese occupying army under whose boot the Chinese people had suffered so terribly to fight against the Chinese communists in this way: "It was perfectly clear to us that if we told the Japanese to lay down their arms immediately and march to the seaboard, the entire country would be taken over by the Communists. We therefore had to take the unusual step of using the enemy as a garrison until we could airlift Chinese National troops to South China and send Marines to guard the seaports."[76] Within less than two years after the Second Sino-Japanese War, the KMT had received $4.43 billion from the United States—most of which was military aid.[75][77]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... 949:_China



---


Patrickov wrote:
Not to mention that Chinese treat their own people as bad as how the West used to treat aboriginals.
Hong Kong is the best proof that given the same circumstances the West would immensely outperform the Chinese.



More cheerleading.
User avatar
By noemon
#15234876
Wulfschilde wrote: The only place doing all right seems to be Russia, which made more money than ever since they invaded Ukraine, due to their pivot towards commodities.


'Pivot' implies that Russia pivoted its economy from the secondary and tertiary to the primary sector.

Reality: Russia historically fails in the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy. As energy prices rise, energy producers are making more money than usual. The US is also making more money than before as the largest oil & gas producer however the effect this has on the American economy is smaller than in Russia due to the failure of the other 2 sectors. Still, Russia is not doing well by any stretch.

The ideas espoused by communists, socialists and fascists always place high value on the primary sector which in effect means that the major avenue of wealth production that they propose is land/resource conquest. Communists & Fascists also propose to solve this via global domination rendering further conflict moot, but that will still not resolve the lost wealth from the other sectors.

Nor does it make it any less crazy.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15234881
noemon wrote:
'Pivot' implies that Russia pivoted its economy from the secondary and tertiary to the primary sector.

Reality: Russia historically fails in the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy. As energy prices rise, energy producers are making more money than usual. The US is also making more money than before as the largest oil & gas producer however the effect this has on the American economy is smaller than in Russia due to the failure of the other 2 sectors. Still, Russia is not doing well by any stretch.

The ideas espoused by communists, socialists and fascists always place high value on the primary sector which in effect means that the major avenue of wealth production that they propose is land/resource conquest.



'Land/resource conquest' is a bit *facile*, since the histories of Western imperialism, and pre-industrial, colonized China, simply aren't comparable.

Maybe what you're objecting to is the *nationalization* / tight-nationalist-integration of industries that's pronounced in non-Western, historically underdeveloped regions like China and Russia, etc.


noemon wrote:
Communists & Fascists also propose to solve this via global domination rendering further conflict moot, but that will still not resolve the lost wealth from the other sectors.

Nor does it make it any less crazy.



It's inaccurate to conflate only-recently-industrialized economies / countries, with the vast blood-drenched history of predatory Western militaristic imperialism.

'Small-c' communists don't even *support* the social construction / practice of 'wealth' (private property), so that portion is moot.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15234882
Beren wrote:Why would their economy be efficient while being under strict and direct political control? In exchange their political system could be efficient, though.


Right, but many people believe their economic success comes from well managed capital and resources (i.e. efficiency). You see it on these forums. Many people will claim that the Chinese system is this well oiled machine that is the example for how an economy should be run and that the rest of us simply don't get it (because Chinese exceptionalism and/or western ignorance). Those practices in just about any other economy, would lead to complete disaster. The Chinese can get away with it for now, simply due to the sheer size and growth rates of their economy and authoritarian tendencies. Also, the massive consumer demand coming from the west and the west's willingness to sacrifice it's own working class in favor of Chinese labor.

Side point, China, more than anyone is the most dependent on the current globalized system. Hence their push for this one belt - one road, their neocolonialism, and debt trap diplomacy in Africa and elsewhere. If, as some people believe, the global economies become more regionalized (for example, US demand shifting away from China to say Mexico and South America due to Geopolitical bullshit from China/Russia); China stands to lose the most in this new world. It's kind of funny, Russia/China push for a so called "multi-polar" but this actually weakens China because they assuming the west would continue to do business with them at current levels. A poor assumption. Unless China can secure and maintain enough client states to rape resources from ( via one belt -one road, and neocolonialism), they are fucked long term. I guess it's a race against time for China. One of their biggest issues is that they import like 80% of their energy, and Russia can't supply that alone. Another big issue for China is the eventual demographic collapse.
User avatar
By noemon
#15235078
ckaihatsu wrote:'Land/resource conquest' is a bit *facile*, since the histories of Western imperialism, and pre-industrial, colonized China, simply aren't comparable.

Maybe what you're objecting to is the *nationalization* / tight-nationalist-integration of industries that's pronounced in non-Western, historically underdeveloped regions like China and Russia, etc.


Your reply is 'facile' and nonsensical.

Economic systems like communism, fascism and socialism that rely and fetishise the primary sector(agriculture, minerals, fossil fuels) also rely 100% on land conquest to increase the wealth of their society. Economic systems like liberalism that rely on extending the secondary(manufacturing) and tertiary(services) do not rely on land conquest to increase their wealth and hence why Switzerland is richer than Russia.


It's inaccurate to conflate only-recently-industrialized economies / countries, with the vast blood-drenched history of predatory Western militaristic imperialism.


It is ridiculous to expect to advertise your ideology by making abstract negative comments about nothing in particular.

'Small-c' communists don't even *support* the social construction / practice of 'wealth' (private property), so that portion is moot.


:lol:

If anything is moot is your denial of reality. A [communist] state will always want to increase its wealth and the only way a primary-sector driven economy can increase its wealth is by acquiring land.

For a supposed communist you have given very little thought to your pretend ideology. My impression is that you are not really a communist/socialist but more of an anti-liberal. You are not posting anything positive about communism/socialism, nor are you personally aware of anything positive just negative anti-liberal rants with no cohesion or logic.
User avatar
By Beren
#15235102
Rancid wrote:Side point, China, more than anyone is the most dependent on the current globalized system.

In my opinion that's what most people don't get. They think China's serious about limitless cooperation with Russia, although the US is a lot more important partner to them despite the two being rivals. Buying oil from someone at a discounted price is not cooperation or partnership, it's taking advantage, which is true of India as well.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15235172
noemon wrote:
Your reply is 'facile' and nonsensical.

Economic systems like communism, fascism and socialism that rely and fetishise the primary sector(agriculture, minerals, fossil fuels) also rely 100% on land conquest to increase the wealth of their society. Economic systems like liberalism that rely on extending the secondary(manufacturing) and tertiary(services) do not rely on land conquest to increase their wealth and hence why Switzerland is richer than Russia.



You may be thinking of historical *Stalinism*, particularly the kind that was oriented towards the *peasantry*, Maoism, instead of towards the urban working class.

noemon wrote:
:lol:

If anything is moot is your denial of reality. A [communist] state will always want to increase its wealth and the only way a primary-sector driven economy can increase its wealth is by acquiring land.



A 'communist state' is, by-definition, *Stalinist*, since it doesn't challenge the global capitalism geopolitical paradigm.

Small-c communism, as from the Communist Manifesto, is about the world's working class collectively self-determining its own role in the workplace. 'Wealth' wouldn't be necessary then because all production would be collectivized, making all capitalism-type economic exchanges irrelevant (free-access, direct-distribution).


noemon wrote:
For a supposed communist you have given very little thought to your pretend ideology. My impression is that you are not really a communist/socialist but more of an anti-liberal. You are not posting anything positive about communism/socialism, nor are you personally aware of anything positive just negative anti-liberal rants with no cohesion or logic.



I have a *model* of what I politically advocate, which itself may-be / is *incompatible* with liberalism and its aims:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15235177
noemon wrote:



---



Much of the left around the world had enthused at the Cultural Revolution. In many countries opponents of the US war in Vietnam carried portraits of Mao Zedong as well as the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh. The trite sayings in the Little Red Book of ‘Mao’s thoughts’ were presented as a guide to socialist activity. Yet in 1972, as more US bombers hit targets in Vietnam than ever before, Mao greeted US president Nixon in Beijing, and by 1977, under Deng, China was beginning to embrace the market more furiously than Russia under Stalin’s successors.

The Western media saw such twists and turns as a result of wild irrationality. By the late 1970s many of those on the left who had identified with Maoism in the 1960s agreed, and turned their backs on socialism. A whole school of ex-Maoist ‘New Philosophers’ emerged in France, who taught that revolution automatically leads to tyranny and that the revolutionary left are as bad as the fascist right. Yet there is a simple, rational explanation for the apparently irrational course of Chinese history over a quarter of a century. China simply did not have the internal resources to pursue the Stalinist path of forced industrialisation successfully, however much its rulers starved the peasants and squeezed the workers. But there were no other easy options after a century of imperialist plundering. Unable to find rational solutions, the country’s rulers were tempted by irrational ones.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 576
User avatar
By noemon
#15235356
A 'communist state' is, by-definition, *Stalinist*, since it doesn't challenge the global capitalism geopolitical paradigm.

Small-c communism, as from the Communist Manifesto, is about the world's working class collectively self-determining its own role in the workplace. 'Wealth' wouldn't be necessary then because all production would be collectivized, making all capitalism-type economic exchanges irrelevant (free-access, direct-distribution).


As I said in my previous post, communists propose total global domination as a solution to resource conflict. But that applies to any ideology and not just communism with either small or big 'c'. One single global government renders conflict moot.

It should be obvious to you that a system that can only work under these circumstances is not actually a system at all because it offers no solution to any socio-economic group. Noone can be successfully communist unless the entire planet is communist is not a valid proposition for a political ideology. It renders the ideology itself moot.

I have a *model* of what I politically advocate, which itself may-be / is *incompatible* with liberalism and its aims


I'm sorry but I found your pamphlet as nonsensical, moreover it is quite evident that your "communism" is merely a rebellious reaction to your American "anti-communist" upbringing rather than a sincere belief grounded in rational thinking.

I also find the US's "anti-communism" as tiring and annoying, the refusal of Americans to admit their failure in health care and other things they deem "socialist" in an attempt to maintain the status quo. It is quite annoying indeed, but wanting health-care reform to a more European liberal style is one thing, jumping head first in a rather ridiculous communist ideology just to stick it to your conservative parents or friends is another.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15235401
noemon wrote:
As I said in my previous post, communists propose total global domination as a solution to resource conflict. But that applies to any ideology and not just communism with either small or big 'c'. One single global government renders conflict moot.

It should be obvious to you that a system that can only work under these circumstances is not actually a system at all because it offers no solution to any socio-economic group. Noone can be successfully communist unless the entire planet is communist is not a valid proposition for a political ideology. It renders the ideology itself moot.



And yet here we are *today*, with *capitalism* being global, along with its superstructure, the world's bourgeois governments / nation-states, that *uphold* this global economic system. It's a *class* system, and it privileges those who have the most *equity* values, everyone else be damned.

I'll also remind that 'global domination' is currently what *corporations* and *nation-states* do, for the very reason that you're specifying -- a 'solution' to resource conflict, by nationalist-corporatist hegemony, as over mining in Africa.

Nations, corporations, and households all currently displace market exchanges *internally*, through 'politicization' / hierarchies, but then the dynamics are *that*, the social-ladder, and in-group / out-group thing, which is *also* kinda shitty.


noemon wrote:
I'm sorry but I found your pamphlet as nonsensical, moreover it is quite evident that your "communism" is merely a rebellious reaction to your American "anti-communist" upbringing rather than a sincere belief grounded in rational thinking.

I also find the US's "anti-communism" as tiring and annoying, the refusal of Americans to admit their failure in health care and other things they deem "socialist" in an attempt to maintain the status quo. It is quite annoying indeed, but wanting health-care reform to a more European liberal style is one thing, jumping head first in a rather ridiculous communist ideology just to stick it to your conservative parents or friends is another.



I've been *around* (only-revolutionary) politics since I was in school, in 1990, due to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and related protests against it:



Labor credits Frequently Asked Questions

by Chris Kaihatsu, [email protected], 10-17


Introduction

When I was initially 'radicalized', the constant, dependable political culture of the revolutionary side of the spectrum was a real and definite *benefit* to my political consciousness. It was far more comprehensive than what I was used to for that subject matter, and it *superseded* the trite anti-communist perspective that had been drummed into my head during my time of growing up and maturation within the nuclear family, with the disinformation called 'news' that was provided through the three major television channels that was the norm back then in the early '80s.

I realized, marching with newfound comrades down the major street of the campus where I was studying, that all it took was the combined, collective willpower of thousands of people to effect public actions, to directly influence the politics of the day to stop the U.S. invasion of Iraq at the time, in 1991.



https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
User avatar
By noemon
#15235405
ckaihatsu wrote:And yet here we are *today* with *capitalism* being global, along with its superstructure, the world's bourgeois governments / nation-states, that *uphold* this global economic system. It's a *class* system, and it privileges those who have the most *equity* values, everyone else be damned.

I'll also remind that 'global domination' is currently what *corporations* and *nation-states* do, for the very reason that you're specifying -- a 'solution' to resource conflict, by nationalist-corporatist hegemony, as over mining in Africa.

Nations, corporations, and households all currently displace market exchanges *internally*, through 'politicization' / hierarchies, but then the dynamics are *that*, the social-ladder, and in-group / out-group thing, which is *also* kinda shitty.

I've been *around* (only-revolutionary) politics since I was in school, in 1990, due to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and related protests against it:


Capitalism does not require 1 single global government to function. Communism does.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15235410
noemon wrote:
Capitalism does not require 1 single global government to function. Communism does.



I would argue that capitalism *does* require the overhead of statist politics / government, because *conflicts* (wars) are inevitable -- as soon as 'demand' outstrips 'supply', there's 'scarcity', and then the dynamic of musical-chairs sets in.

Any time someone (rightly) bemoans the human history of continual conflicts, warfare, and death tolls, for millenia, they're implicitly indicting *property relations* of whatever particular kind, but *property relations* nonetheless. Do you have any take on what the two world wars in the twentieth century were about? Were they justified?

Big-'C' Communism, or *Stalinism*, *is* a government bureaucratic-elitist command economy, for better or for worse. I don't *favor* this formulation, because it's inevitably constrained to a *nation-state*, bringing us back to *that* worldwide realm of tectonic-like *pressures* and international friction.


Political Spectrum, Simplified UPDATE

Spoiler: show
Image



Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

No new military pledges to Ukraine in July begs t[…]

As a white male, I do not think there is any discr[…]

A woman has been sentenced to 34 years in prison b[…]

FBI, R.I.P.?

It's easy to keep things legal when you play by y[…]