I think a better question is how did Israel think that 75 years of attacking and imprisoning Palestinians would lead to anything but a retaliation of violence?
Everyone knows that there has been a violent back and forth for decades. The question is who is to blame for the continuation of violence? Well, that would be those who have the ability to actually enact a solution and choose not to.
The reality is that Israel holds all the bargaining power in this scenario, they have the military, the resources, and the support of the global community. Palestinians don’t have a seat at the table, they have been given no options but apartheid or violent revolt.
Nah, Florida is too important to the gop. Ron may seem like a complete imbecile, but he did a lot of hard work to win a lot of favour before his governor run. They basically gave him the governorship as a reward for backing out of a Senate run when Rubio failed out of his presidential bid.
If Gaetz is actually messing with the cohesiveness of the gop like it’s being projected and they turn on him… he’s done. Like, thrown to the wolves, release the dirt done.
Lemmy has a serious orientalism problem. Anglos just cannot accept even the possibility that another country is not as evil as theirs is.
I think the west has a hard time separating their overarching theory of race and the actual history of ethnic conflict Asia.
Even when leftist on Lemmy speaks in terms of ethnicity you tend to conflate racial and ethnic terminology. Orientalism is a term that originates to near east cultures, particularly Islamic ones.
Not so great if large aspects of your economic growth is tied to the real estate market. Theoretically the value of property is tied in some way to scarcity. If there is an abundance of housing, then there’s not a real reason for property value to mature.
If the rate of maturity is less than the rate of this inflation, then you are no longer creating an investment, you are creating debt. If a property investment group, a private bank, or state bank has over invested too heavily in developing the real estate market… there’s a pretty good chance that it’s going to have a hard time remaining in solvency.
This is an example of why a lot of people accuse the CCP of giving up on communism after the Deng reforms. Satiating the needs of the market too often conflicts with the needs of the people.
Theoretically in a planned economy you would be correct. There’s no motivation too build too many homes, nor is there is there a scarcity of homes. Both scenario are conditions of a capitalist market reacting to the perceived needs of the consumer or the market.
For private healthcare maybe? A lot of the reasons private insurance groups are even somewhat functional is because the vast majority of healthcare cost are shifted over to medicare once people start falling apart.
Most things like cardiovascular disease and lung cancer happen in the late 50s or older. People who aren’t yet old enough for medicare will file for disability to access it earlier in the event of severe illnesses.
I think a larger more unnoticed social harm is the damage it does to single payer/socialized medicine. When you only have one insurance pool every person receiving healthcare related to smoking is funding that could have gone to treating diseases that aren’t as easily preventable.
The same goes for things like diabetes, which is absolutely destroying medicare. Right now one out of every three medicare dollars are being used to treat a completely preventable disease for the vast majority of those inflicted with it.
I think that if you want to smoke or drink tons of soda, that’s fine. But we shouldn’t be lessening the scope of healthcare coverage for other people just because of your bad habits. Either the industry making the money needs to subsidize the healthcare cost of their consumers, or the consumers themselves need to do it.
Fossil fuels have a lot of qualities that make them hard to out compete for some tasks.
Yeap, unfortunately from a engineering standpoint it’s hard not to take advantage of such an energy dense fuel. Even if we had completely invested in nuclear power, there would still be scenarios where it would logistically make more sense to bring fuel to creat energy rather than transporting that energy.
And in the long term it’s absolutely possible to eliminate their use.
I think it’ll be possible to potentially eliminate their use as a fuel source, but I’m not sure if we’ll ever eliminate our need for hydrocarbons for things like plastics, solvents, and fertilizers.
We need to move away from fossil fuels for obvious reasons, but one of the things I’m kinda afraid of as we transition away from them is that fossil fuels corporations will use the global poor as hostages.
The most populated regions on the globe are dependent on cheap hydrocarbon base fertilizers to maintain the nitrogen content of their soil. The reason these fertilizers are so affordable is their production is a byproduct of massive amounts of fuel refining.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the corporations started to cut the production or access of fertilizer to large populations of the global poor, as a “look at what the leftist are making me do to the poor” tactic.
You cherry picked data from the 2020 census and repeated a narrative around those isolated facts that fits the Western narrative. It’s not my fault you can’t see through the bullshit.
Did you want me to just cite the entire census? Of course I picked data that supported my argument, that’s how debate works… now it is your job to rebuttal my argument, which isnt just throwing ad hominems btw.
you don’t know the answer to this question, then you don’t really have any business talking about this. Ignorance is not a position that must be respected.
Lol, you only specified actions in South East Asia. It’s of my opinion that there are plenty of actions commuted by china in South East Asia that could be interpreted as negative.
In essence, you can’t tell the difference between Vietnam and Tibet because your analysis is based purely on vibes and moralizing.
Lol, Tibet is not in South East Asia my dude.
Suffice to say, Han chauvinism regarding Vietnam was based
Ahh, okay I was right. You were just being sassy.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that one of his goals was to bring the American system of apartheid and dominance to the Slavs. It would not be more accurate to say the 3rd Reich was emulating Italy. The 3rd Reich openly studied Jim Crow, American eugenics, frontier and border town strategies, the Indian reservation system, etc. The 3rd Reich literally grew from the Western European project that the USA perfected and helmed. When the 3rd Reich fell, the movement was absorbed back into the USA where it continued to develop.
Again, I’m not defending America? I agree that he studied and utilized American system of oppression, but the way he organized his economy and structural hierarchy was more influenced by the actions of mousselines Italian fascism.
Which again is more vibes than anything else. If you actually read Chinese party publications, 5-year plans, and everything else they publish, you would see that nothing could be further from the truth. China is not emulating the US, they are arranging their economic policies to ensnare Western bourgeoisie
And a lot of people seem to think that utilizing capitalism to destroy capitalism is like trying to put out a house fire by drowning it in gasoline. I think there are some pretty valid criticism laid out in from victory to defeat by Pao-yu Ching.
There’s a lot to understand from that. First, when China pushes the USA, UK, and Japan out of their space, it’s not imperialism, it’s anti-imperialism.
Lol, that implies that they have some sort of manifest destiny over territories they’ve never historically controlled… Tibet is their space? You just reiterated yourself without actually explaining how they justified their expansion. That’s unless you are claiming they preemptively expanded their territory to deny possible future western intent.
China doesn’t want to be destroyed like the West is being destroyed
Again, you are utilizing an unsubstantiated definition of imperialism that requires the unnecessary prerequisite of a specified type of capitalist intent.
Stop trying to figure out how to be morally superior by engaging in criticism of the fantasy China that you have not investigated at all and start trying to develop criticism of China by studying it thoroughly and with intellectual honesty.
My dude, just because we came to different conclusions doesn’t mean I haven’t investigated it at all. I could make the same dramatic claims about the willfull ignorance of obvious human rights violations committed against indigenous populations, but of course it would be justified as Western propaganda.
There are plenty of things to criticize China for from a Marxist perspective. You haven’t found a single one of those things.
And they would be? You keep making large sweeping claims and then just using a series of logical fallacies to justify them. You haven’t really expanded on your claims, You’ve just regurgitated party platitudes. It’s like I’m criticizing US foreign policy and you keep utilizing memos from the state department to justify them. The whole point is I don’t believe the state department to be a dependable narrator.
Have a great one, but I don’t really feel like breaking down anymore logical fallacies. Nor do I really feel like explaining the historic racial schisms of the east to white people who have never been to the continent. But as a fun experiment, next time you meet a Han from mainland China, ask their opinions about Manchu people. It should be a fun learning experience!
Definitely not purely a semantic dispute. Have you read Lenin? Lenin’s analysis of imperialism still stands as the dominant critical analysis of imperialism
I mean you’re entire argument is based upon a different understanding of the word imperialism, I’d say that’s pretty semantic.
And yes, I have read Lenin. And while I agree with a lot of the overarching theory of imperialism seen through a capitalist lens, I think it fails to explain the nuance of a lot of historic and modern conflicts. For one I believe that it fails to recognize historic form of imperialism that happened before the industrial age. It’s overarching themes can be forced into perspective, but it requires the use of a very plastic definition of capitalism. Secondly, I think that Lenin’s theory of imperialism being a stage of capitalism is a product of its time, and is thus is a extremely eurocentric view of history and geopolitics.
The context of that sentence in the report shows that in culturally Tibetan regions outside the Tibet Autonomous Region are showing opposite trends, meaning that “ethnic minorities” are becoming majorities. Clearly this is not a program of Han supremacy but of social integration.
I do t quite see how you’ve made that you interpretation? It just sounds like the native people of Tibet are being pushed out of their own homeland. How does directing more funding to immigration than the entire autonomous regions gdp equate to social integration?
where colonists use rape, child separation, enslavement, cultural repression, starvation, land fractionalization, and other techniques to dilute and dismantle ethnic minorities
And there isn’t a history of reeducation camps that have been accused of rape, family separation, and cultural repression in any autonomous zones?
In the TAR, the Tibetan language is used to conduct nearly all business and all education, from grade school through university. That is not colonialism.
Lol, that’s like saying the US didn’t colonize Puerto Rico because they still use Spanish as the official language. China has jailed and killed hundreds of priest and nuns in the country, going as far as disappearing their religious leader.
only insidious if you presuppose the intent.
It’s only not insidious if you ignore the possibility of ill intent. If the US started funding immigration to Puerto Rico for white people, to the point that it exceeded Puerto Rico s entire gdp… would you hold your judgment until you understood their intent?
Well, considering that the top position of party secretary is the only referenced in your quotation, and considering the autonomous regions experience a significant amount of indigenous cultural practices on all dimensions
You can’t substantiate that claim? There’s been plenty of evidence to suggest that indigenous cultures have plenty of limitations imposed by the state.
we must imagine that a Han Chinese party secretary can’t possibly be anyone that has the requisite social history to be responsible for that flourishing.
Again, this statement is predicated on an unsubstantiated claim.
Given that, we come to the conclusion that, in fact, the indigenous members of the autonomous regions wield significant influence over their regions and that the party secretary does exactly what a party secretary that is correctly managing an autonomous region would do - ensuring alignment with the state’s core strategic direction.
You are basing your entire argument on a post hoc fallacy, you have not substantiated the claim that indigenous people are flourishing.
If this was not what was happening, then you would be seeing separatists and sympathizers all over the place. Instead what we see is separatists are almost exclusively associated with Western programs for destabilization and most of the population in the autonomous regions are aware of the need for protecting their region against these interests.
Lol, okay so your logic is that if there were oppression going on that it would cause separatist movements, but according to you all separatist movements were started by western powers … very convenient.
Japan adopting it doesn’t stop it from being a Western social project, that would be race essentialism.
Yes, my point is that china is not immune to adopting certain aspects of western colonialism.
China is actively working to undo the damage of colonialism qua the Western social phenomenon.
That’s another unsubstantiated claim.
you assume that China would get the same benefit of colonialism that the West did
Ahh yes, now you get to make claims for me. I sense a strawman argument coming around the corner…
China is aware of this and is actively working to bring about the conditions that ensure the contradictions of Western society move inexorably towards the resolution of those contradictions by the undoing of the colonial project. If China were to then begin its own colonial project, it would be doing so with the full knowledge that it would ultimately destroy China.
That would be if the Chinese were practicing the same extraction based colonialism, which is not a claim I’ve made. I believe the type of colonialism we have seen is more of a slow boil version of Americas expansion west, which involves more assimilation and subjection, and placation until the he local popular can be replaced.
You don’t know what imperialism is. Your definition of imperialism is so anemic that it cannot distinguish between imperialism and anti-imperialism.
You don’t get to define imperialism as you see fit, Lenin was a brilliant man, but his ideologies aren’t all encompassing. Theories like historic materialism may be the best overarching theory of the motives of human conflict, but it leaves a lot to be desired when you try to utilize it to explain every conflict. Yes material needs might be the inherent reason for the racism that started the first war, but the fighters of the following reactionary wars aren’t going recognize that, or even remember the material needs being the base for their own racism.
China is doing is imperialism is completely at odds with the critical analysis of what imperialism is.
Lol, okay semantic dispute time I guess. What exactly is your definition of a “critical analysis of imperialism”.
Autonomous zones do not see any massive influx of Han attempting to replace indigenous peoples. The tibetan autonomous regions does not see this, Xinjiang does not see this. Instead the autonomous zones see a flourishing of indigenous culture
“Han and Uyghurs made up respectively 6.2 and 82.7 percent of Xinjiang’s population. Since 1982, the percentages have changed, to ca. 39–41 percent and 46–51 percent, respectively.”
“The Han Chinese population share has increased sharply in the TAR, encouraged by massive subsidies from the central government that exceeded 100 percent of the TAR GDP from 2010 onwards”
Yeah, spending more than 100% of the TARs entire gdp on subsidizing migration… not insidious at all.
The fact that there are party leaders participating in the management of the autonoumous zone is literally the exact way you would make an autonomous zone and not in anyway imperialist or colonialist.
Lol, and how many of these ethnic minority leaders have ever been in charge of their region?
“In PRC history, ethnic minority leaders have never made it onto the Politburo Standing Committee, the de facto nexus of power in China. For the five ethnic minority autonomous provinces (the Tibetan Autonomous Region, the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, and the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region), the region’s top post of Party secretary has been given to a Han Chinese over the past 35 years, reflecting Beijing’s firm grip on power in minority-populated political units.”
Colonization as we know it is distinctly European. Even the Japanese colonization efforts are quite explicitly an effort on the part of the Japanese to emulate the European system. China does not have colonies, it does not engage in colonialism, and it is actively working to dismantle the history of colonialism in its sphere - history that is exclusively European.
Again, this is just a semantic dispute surrounding the meaning of colonialism. Even if colonialism was invented by the west, you yourself admit it was imported and practiced by the Japanese. China is obviously not in a vacuum of influence and is perfectly able to modify western colonialism to suit their needs.
As for Marxists, we engage in self criticism all the time.
Lol, okay… sure. You just spent a page defending imperialism, but sure.
The idea that parroting USA state department propaganda is self criticism is delusion. The idea that fighting against these narratives is somehow blind automaticity is a combo strawman and ad hominem.
Ahh yes, highlighting data made public by the 2020 Chinese census , automatically means I’m working for the state department.
China itself engaged in self criticism when it acknowledged it’s action in Southeast Asia as chauvinistic and they changed their policies to incorporate this criticism.
I’m guessing your talking about their invasion of Vietnam? The one that had running conflicts until the 90s, the one that is still hampering Sino-Vietnamese relations till today?
How is that any different than Tibet, other than Vietnam could actually defend itself?
As for the USA juxtaposing itself against the Nazis, it’s not quite the same, because the Nazis were emulating the USA
I would have to partially agree with this to a degree, America has always had fascist leanings. But, it’s be a lot more accurate to say that they were emulating Italy.
My rebuttal to this would be that the CCP also emulated the United States when they switched to a socialized market economy.
it’s to say they are engaged in fundamentally different projects of state craft and that China’s project necessarily involves the opposition to and dismantling of the American project.
Ahh, were bad because you made us be bad… makes more sense when applied to the soviets… not so much when applied to Asia. What American scheme required dismantling in Tibet or any of the autonomous regions?
The false equivalency of Chinese actions with USA actions is not self criticism, it’s lazy.
Again, my point was that we should develop criticism that are not automatically juxtaposed to western imperialism… and you just can’t allow it.
Real big self criticism moment there bud.
Honestly a pretty good write up, my only mild rebuttal would be involving the following quotes.
The island of Taiwan has been part of the nation of China for centuries.
The island was first colonized by Europeans, then the han, the Japanese, the qing, and finally back to the han via ROC. It kinda predates the notion of modern nation states, and thus is difficult to to claim that it’s been part of the Nation of China for centuries.
The Chinese people have been on Taiwan for centuries. White settlers have been on Hawaii for much less time.
Europeans were colonizing Taiwan before the Han, I don’t think that really justifies the colonialism any more.
These autonoumous regions have settler colonial legal structures coexisting with Chinese legal structures because China has no interest in brutal domination.
I think co-existing is granting the government a little more grace than what really exist. The settler colonial structures are just the window dressing for the same colonialism practiced throughout human history.
The Chinese government violently overthrows the ruling government and sets up an “autonomous” government filled with party loyalist. They then subsidize immigration until the native population is a minority to Han immigrants.
I think one of the problem we have in the left is that there is an a knee jerk reaction to excuse the imperialism we see in leftist states by comparing it to the imperialism of the west. Which is understandable, the west has done some horrific stuff.
However a lot of these actions are only somewhat justified in juxtaposition to the same types of actions from people like the US. It’s the same tactic that the US does when they juxtapose themselves against the actions of literal nazi. It’s kind of a low bar we keep running into.
I just don’t think criticisms of any leftist nation should automatically be followed by people calling them shills or libs. Self criticism is an essential tenant of Marxism, and it just doesn’t seem to be allowed anymore.
Unless that truth is that both North and South Korea are currently being utilized as a buffer state between two imperialist governments…
My family fled the dictatorship in South Korea in the 80’s, back when being a member of a student Union was a poor choice for your health. So I’m never going to try and rehab or revise the modern history of South Korea.
That being said, why would anyone ever give uncritical support to a totalitarian dictatorship? Il-sung wasn’t chosen by the Korean people, he was a puppet replacement offered by China because Godang sided with the will of the Koreans, and opposed the trusteeship proposed by soviets and America.
That cluster fuck of a family has killed more of my people through both incompetence and malice than both the Chinese and Americans combined. I hate that people are willing to excuse crimes against humanity because the color of a nations flag.