Even if you dislike, China, Russia or Iran, if they go so does your hope of socialism, burgerland and their corporate masters will reign forever and we will have a "democratic"-technocracy-capitalist world order.
Increasingly people buy into the JBP crap of a "post-modern-neo-marxist", which heavily implies whatever capitalist machinations are out there, they have already created a boogeyman to be mocked and dispised in order to push an even worser state of capitalism, additionally aside from riots and protests there is still no actual threat from left-wing groups in 1st world nations to their host counties.
leftcoms tell me that the day will come and they'll just wait while serving me a flat white
Christopher Price
explain Your assessment doesn't even make sense.
China is a willing partner in global capitalism. They provide cheap labor as well as financing for America's military when they buy up America's debt. Russia is, likewise, a willing partner in global capitalism but its internal politics and operating methods are often at odds with "the West." Iran, also, is not an anti-capitalist force but simply a country whose politics have run afoul of the United States and the Israel Lobby. It is their misfortune to have become the scapegoat of warmongers.
Juan Evans
He means that China, Russia, and Iran (regardless of what you think of them) are the most capable countries of fighting american hegemony, and socialism can't and won't exist until that hegemony is destroyed.
Sebastian Russell
The three even together do not have the reach or influence america has, my assessment is that left-wing politics will go nowhere while america retains it's hegemonic position, as explained.
In a similar sense, the USSR only really reached superpower status post WW2 where old hegemonic powers of europe finally kicked the bucket due to Germany ruining many of them, with even the british giving way to america in the end.
Ayden Cook
Capitalism is inherently self destructive. Imagining that it will run forever ignores the fact that by its very functioning it creates conditions where it becomes impossible for itself to function.
But then you're the same fucking porky-posting retard that comes here to talk your stupid half-baked "prove me wrong" shit, so you should really just kill yourself, faggot.
Isaiah Hernandez
...
Luis Morgan
Petty bourg virgins on the internet are not a reliable representation of the general world population.
Jonathan Lewis
You are beyond retarded not the least because you do this exact thing whenever you're shown to be a brain damaged fuckup.
Levi Stewart
The current evolution of technocratic capitalism is most advanced in the US, and it’s the reason why that country is on the brink of tearing itself apart. Without social democracy at the very least the US economy will either collapse completely or become so nightmarish for the bulk of the population that the government will collapse. The US is living proof of capitalism’s self-destructive tendencies, and proof of why we don’t need to fellate bourgeois or reactionary regimes just because they oppose the US.
Xavier Carter
Tearing itself apart does not imply the end of the american government, what it does imply is that the american government will soon take the kiddy gloves off and begin an unironic regression towards autocracy run on automation, already the kraft president is displaying some of these tendencies.
not recognising the significant threat and instead childishly clinging to sectarianism is essentially inviting wiemar republic 2.0 to happen again with the government-backed mass murder of leftists all over america, by then it's probably too late just hope "b-b-burgerland will fall anyway!"
What's the difference if China (or any other country) will reign forever and we will have a "democratic"-technocracy-capitalist world order instead of the USA?
Carson Young
the answer is that China's position ensures it cannot adopt a militaristic stance like the US, the most it can do is reign in asia, but with the surrounding countries this "reigning in" is even less likely to be in the form of a war, but rather through economic strength which is still far less destructive than performing iraqs, chiles and libyas as america has done.
This also applies to russia and iran to a lesser extent, but in all none of these countries even at their peak will likely match the current military strength of the USA.
Luke Jones
But what's the point? Why would it help the workers of the world?
Ian Phillips
now there isn't big daddy usa that will send troops, tanks and even threaten nukes
China at best could send troops to evacuate, but if facing a worker uprising the private corporations would be ridiculed for the obvious contradictions, egro their government would be much more likely to negotiate as opposed to sending in the aircraft carrier fleets, which even then China has no plans to make more than enough to fight off america.
John Wright
So it's a better imperialism because it uses soft power instead of hard power?
Justin Rivera
China would be objectively better for the world's people than the US. The US only benefits the petty-bouj in its core, it brings rape and plunder for everyone else.
People only contend with this fact because THEY are the petty-bouj who benefit of said plunder.
Joshua Martin
Right, because sweatshops, repressing trade unions/strikes, and neocolonialism is fine but sending troops abroad is going too far. Just ignore that they have already started building overseas bases.
Jaxson Martinez
are you saying you would prefer the status quo of bombings and sanctions?
m8 all of China's wars have been fought on her borders, afew Chinese troops in the UN died and that already sent shockwaves across their country, if afew thousand were to die for corporate interests that would be serious enough to put the CCP's legitimacy in question.
Austin Carter
I'm saying there would be no real difference with the status quo.
Jacob Brown
More leewayn and a better position to argue for worker's rights isn't a change to status quo? you people are really quite hard to please.
Hunter Jenkins
The workers won't have a better position to argue, just look at China working conditions, it will be as imperialist as the USA but in the more subtle way.
They are still shit and it's not the workers who decide them, it's a central policy, what's your point?
Luis Murphy
Again, the government there is obligied to improve the conditions as a eventuallity, presses cover the strikes, but the concessions and improvements are hardly of interest to be reported by american presses, even when reported they are used as some sort of indicator that china will fall because they pay their workers too well.
No government should decide the working conditions, I could say the same garbage for any other imperialist state who decide to improve the working conditions. It still imperialism and capitalism at end if it's not the workers who decide them.
Charles Jones
If you plan to decide on everything by a voting basis you will decide on nothing, if power is not consolidated other groups will decide your fate, as was the case with the anarchists in spain.
Additionally workers deciding working conditions does not automatically mean progress, without the delicate planning, research and other important areas it will quickly disentigrate into corruption and incompetency, one only need to ask the peoples that lived in ex-ussr times about the antics of corruption, food hording and other antics to reveal the problems emerging from this naiveness.
Jeremiah Sanders
It's funny you talk about corruption because China is highly corrupted, also corruption is more likely to happen when power is centralized.
Do you have an example?
I though you were supporting post-USSR Russia in your first post.
As a Russian I have no problem with Russia,Iran or China. What I have problem with is traitorous,kleptocratic and pro western government of Russia and capitalistic and evil government of China. No problems with Iran, thought.
Kevin Wood
...
Henry Baker
My point still stands, these corruptive forces existed before the USSR collapsed, the corruption seen post USSR was the ringleaders gobbling up the industries left in it's wake. Their existing during the USSR heavily implies even if workers decide their working conditions they are still open to manipulation by their betters and the phrase itself does not constitute to a catch-all solution.
David Brooks
I don't want to sound overly negative,that's it.
Xavier Ramirez
Pick one, the USSR was what you're advocating, an oligarchical and centralized government, that's why it was already so corrupted back then.
Chase Wilson
sure, but the anarchist position is still too easily crushed.
Caleb Williams
tbh soviet had mixed system. Workers couldn't fully dictate the rules, but they could demand replacement of bad managers, and did have some limited, input. More than in capitalism. And it was not centralized, it was federation with countries and autonomous regions having local governments.
It was far *far* from perfect, but million times better than now and far more safer.
Nolan Sanchez
Yes but their powers was not big, the most important decisions were taken by the Politburo who was centralized
Sebastian Green
again if you decide on everything very little will be done, are you honestly telling being given the technical documentations, research papers and other important data you will be able to make a informed decision on which type of nuclear plant is to be constructed in a certain area? What is exactly preventing you from falling for propaganda and making an ill-informed decision due to your lack of background knowledge in this field?
Camden Thompson
telling me*
Adrian Roberts
People can be educated. Experts can advise people. It should be the people living in the area that should decide if they want a power plant or not, not some technocrat.
Christian Brooks
The politburo wouldn't exist without the central committee and without the party
Parker Stewart
And they are both centralized and bureaucratic.
Kayden Fisher
That sounds selfish, what if the plant is needed to run hospitals, schools etc in the surrounding area?
John Brown
Please explain to me how would you avoid bureaucracies for a planned economy in a country with 300 million people.
Nicholas Russell
read cockshott
Matthew Powell
If the plant is really needed, the people will vote to have the plant.
Decentralization, libertarian municipalism and federations.
Jaxon Martinez
China is a socialist state. Iran is a revolutionary anti-imperialist but also anti-communist state. Russia is opposed to NATO but little else is positive.
Leo Taylor
That would work until more successful areas mount separation movements, less successful areas start mounting strikes or even gather to start internal wars.
Christ, you really are naive about this whole thing are you?
Jacob Parker
...
Lucas Jenkins
Well you come back when such a place exists and say, outlasts the united states.
Brayden Carter
There would be no more or less "successful" areas, of course some areas will have different amount and kind of ressources, but it will be cooperation, not competition.
Also reminder that state "socialism" like Yougoslavia and USSR partly failed because of those kind of separatism movements happen because they were too centralized.
t. german peasants
Jacob Perez
Well yeah, nations part of the Warsaw pact felt they could do much better without the USSR, and it would be even easier under your system to just flip your territories the bird and collaborate with capitalists for preferable treatment etc.
The USA has the strongest military,economy and global media in modern history, you go overcome it first before whining about how it's ruining all your socialist experiments.
Henry Williams
big brain time
Wyatt Parker
Maybe then consider beating them down first before attempting any experiments?
yeah, burgerland humiliated the left, are you seriously going to argue they arn't the one thing that must be put down in order for the left to recover? even in the case of vietnam: vietnamese now have an incredibly positive view of americans, regardless of agent orange, rape squads and napalm bombs.
