IttihadChe @ IttihadChe @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

294

Joined

5 mo. ago

This presumes the liberal view that liberalism is truly "freedom from the government" whatever that means(it's not) and that such a thing is a requirement for a leftist position (it's not)

The claim was

It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.

The trend is observable on the imperialized nations as well as the imperialist ones.

Imperialism is not a one way street, the effects of imperalialism are observable (lower capitalistic development, higher profit extraction, etc).

The fact that the countries with more developed capital are the ones doing imperialism and the countries with less developed capital are the ones imperialized (and oberving how this stays true historicllly) is proof of the trend.

Many studies have been conducted on China-Africa relations, including those written by Fairchild (2020), King (2020) and Nyadera, Agwanda and Kisaka (2020). This article builds on the latter studies to confront the real myths and realities of China‘s Africa policy. Firstly, It is worth noting to highlight the significant contributions of Fairchild (2020)‘s research study that revisits how sub-Saharan African countries especially those of the continental coastal democracies with abundant mineral resources engage with China for equal mutual benefit particularly in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Okay, so of the 3 major contributions to this study, at least one, seemingly the most significant, states that Chinese diplomacy (particularly BRI) is mutually beneficial.

After a careful critical analysis of China‘s Africa engagement in the context of the three highlighted countries, FairChild (2020) argues that even though BRI has been presented historically as a debt trap diplomacy, a mere interpretation of BRI as neo-imperialist risks analysing China through the lens of European history that discounts the active role of African countries. Forthright, he says that it is unfair to choose a one-size-fits-all understanding of China‘s practices in Africa.

So Fairchilds (2020) study, argues that interpretation of BRI as neo-imperialist is a reactionary Eurocentric view which both applies European imperialist intentions to China and removes the agency of African countries. Also that you can't take a "one size fits all" understanding of Chinas involvement.

It is not far-fetched that this argument is rendering FairChild (2020)‘s research to sound more like a study conducted from a Chinese perspective that did not compare China‘s involvement in the coastal democracies with the likes of In-land African countries of Zambia, Angola and Kenya. Therefore, leaving us with a gab as to how come this stance is not broadened and compared. Hence, this study aims to build on top of Fairchild‘s study whilst disagreeing on not choosing a one-size-fits-all definition.

So they accuse Fairchild (2020) of basically being a China simp for not researching and comparing inland African countries. They aim to disagree with the premise that you cannot apply a "one-size-fits-all" analysis to Chinas involvement.

There is also the Study conducted by King (2020), that discusses the human resource traditions of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and those endorsed by the BRI with particular attention to the Education Action Plan for the BRI published by the Chinese Ministry of Education in the year 2016. The research article‘s value contribution stems from explicitly comparing the FOCAC HRD pledges with the recent ones related to Education Plan under BRI. A review of the same context is done under FOCAC VI and FOCAC VII that compares the discourse of action plans of the different plans, goals, and pledges in the implementation in various African countries including in Ethiopia and Kenya. A clear generated scholarly view from the study highlights that King‘s study supports the two plans undertaken between both China and the African States by indicating that social welfare is important to the development and also quotes Xi in 2017 who highlighted that ―Improving people‘s livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development‖ (2020: 233). And additionally, supports his argument by quoting (Frankopan, 2018: 242) who has described China-Africa relations as ―win-win‖ through the mutual benefits and using cooperations combined with incentives to weave countries, peoples, and cultures in a so-presumed win-win scenario.

So now we establish that King(2020) also takes the view that Chinese diplomacy efforts are mutually beneficial after analyzing human resource traditions and those proposed by the BRI, particularly the education aspect of the plan.

It also references another study Frankopan (2018:243) who also describes Chinas relation as Win-Win and mutually beneficial.

We should then understand that the current article seeks to differ completely with the above highlighted of presenting China and Africa relations as win-win and add several relevant empirical findings that render his article relevant but short-sighted and best limited and myopic particularly looking at how China is not engaging in a win-win in the countries under study.

So this study is specifically trying to argue against these previous significant contributions as being short sighted, particularly because China is not engaging in "Win-Win" under the countries they will research. Harkening back to their prior insistance that you can apply a "one-size-fits-all" analysis.

The study of Nyadera, Agwanda, and Kisaka (2020) engage the attractiveness of China's Africa engagement has raised some of the controversial perspectives and views recently. Also, this is a tale that continues to be welcomed with mixed feelings, from disquiet to confusion. They all show that China‘s Africa engagement is driven by its demand for minerals and oil whilst it delivers Africa‘s infrastructural needs. In Non-Economic drivers of China‘s Africa engagement, they all pinpoint at personality traits of Xi. They quote Cabestan in 2012 who understand XI‘s personality traits as driven by his ―realistic, efficient, and relaxed Party Secretary, conscious of the need for China to move towards a market economy‖ (2020: 09) that is useful in analysing his approach to Africa. Prominent former and current African leaders are understood to be in good books with Xi including Robert Mugabe (Late and Former Zimbabwean President) who described XI as a ―true and dear friend‖ of Zimbabwe. His personality and leadership credentials and work have earned him his first honorary degree by the University of Johannesburg (UJ) in 2019. He is also understood to be having the choice of words, outspoken in nature that increased his interactions with African leaders. The second reason relates to the decline of Western countries‘ major investments in Africa in the post-second world war.

So basically, we establish that yet another study, Nyadera, Agwanda, and Kisaka (2020), frames this relationship as Win-Win "we get infrastructure they get resources". Which is partially informed by Xi Jinpings own established personality as a "realistic, efficient, and relaxed Party Secretary, conscious of the need for China to move towards a market economy". It also establishes that Xi is highly regarded among African leaders and institutions, and vice versa.

.........

If you read the article you can know I'm not nitpicking positive aspects, I'm not jumping around, this is the start of the study.

To avoid making this comment as long as an actual breakdown of an entire academic article, having demonstrated my willingness to engage with the work, can you go ahead and state some of what you believe to be the more valid points against Chinese involvement/framing Chinese involvement as imperialist from the study.

You are also jumping to conclusions. The only fact is that there was opioids in the flour.

Neither of us know why.

I can't help but believe that the absolutely oppressive and evil genocide regime has resorted to poisoning the populace through the tiny amount of aid they let through.

You choose to optimistically believe that this is the result of smugglers accessing those same few aid sites and using them to smuggle needed medicines.

Idk why you're so dismissive as if this would be beyond the scope of Israeli evil.

You're assuming that the uncrushed ones were the intention and not that there is far more crushed up in the flour and the ones we see didn't get processed.

Opioids are also one of the more common tools of spreading addiction in order to manipulate the people for a reason, it's effective.

baker theory and practice beats chemistry every day if you want to make nice bread.

Funny how you nitpick the Baking example, and ironically prove the value of theory in doing so.

Chemistry is the science (Material Dialectical analysis) this is the basis for which all understanding builds. Theory is Theory, It's the observations of this science and it's relation to the real world conditions. Baking is the practice, if you ignore the science and the theory and just go off of vibes you will end up with a terrible result.

Thousands and thousands before him ran for mayor under a socialist identity. He won because he built a strong infrastructure, he has good communication, he doesn’t care about intellectuals and theory but actual, concrete problem as lived by people and not as investigated by sociologists.

Thousands and thousands before him also ran not as socialists and lost. The point is that the label of socialism is not as harmful as you insist it is.

Building an infrastructure of ground work and communication among the masses is also not a lack of "care about intellectuals and theory" but specifically placing theory in action. This seems to stem from yet even more bourgiouse propaganda you have internalized, the idea that communism isn't a practical workers movement but one of feckless intellectualism. I know you'll hate this "quoting dead people", but as Mao said

"Such reconstructed knowledge is not more empty or more unreliable; on the contrary, whatever has been scientifically reconstructed in the process of cognition, on the basis of practice, reflects objective reality, as Lenin said, more deeply, more truly, more fully. As against this, vulgar "practical men" respect experience but despise theory, and therefore cannot have a comprehensive view of an entire objective process, lack clear direction and long-range perspective, and are complacent over occasional successes and glimpses of the truth. If such persons direct a revolution, they will lead it up a blind alley. "

Mao ~ on practice.

If people do not identify as socialists and think socialists are losers that keep talking about irrelevant stuff, that commonality is not there and it’s harder to build.

So the solution to that is to tell them they are right? When the socialist is directly providing you food, directly fighting alongside you for your right to be in the country at all or not be murdered by police, helping you understand and organize tenet rights, helping you unionize, etc then they no longer think that socialists are losers, they see the truth, that socialist are the ones who care and take action.

We will leave you larping on the internet, quoting dead people to each other while we do the work.

Again, so long as capitalism and it's inherent contradictions exist, communists will be there fighting against them, whether you personally recognize and like that or not.

This is the very same anti-intelectualist rot that stems from undisciplined movements with incoherent ideology. Theory is not "fantasy" it is a record of how prior movements used the science of Marxism-Leninism to shape the world and build successful communist revolutions. It is necessary if you want to do the same. You wouldn't criticize a baker for studying and applying chemistry to their craft.

Mamdani won the primary while identifying as a socialist, the fact you can somehow take that win and twist it into a negative, insisting we should abandon the label, shows that you in fact are the one who has abandoned reality for fantasy, the fantasy that the bourgeoisie has won a decisive battle against communism and our only remaining solution is to retreat onto their terms.

This is not the case. Organized, disciplined class struggle can, and will, break the chains of capital.

It's really a great representation because if Floyd actually overpowered Chauvin, you know for a 100% fact that Thao would have resorted to the same direct violence himself, he just didn't have to because someone else was doing the dirty work sufficiently.

And because he won that primary 2 other mainstream "Dems" are going to be challenging him in the General as well.

The idea that "historical marxists were right but this time it's different" is not a new or unique line. It's a common basis for revisionism which dates all the way back to early Leninism. I would also love to see this disciplined western leftist movement, because from what I see, western leftists have been trying your strategy of capitulations and reformism (in everything but name) since before Gus Hall cemented it in the 60s which is what led us specifically to this moment in which the movement has no teeth. The solution is not to defang even further by removing even the allusion to socialism.

Nobody wants to be a communist in the west because the western communist movement doesn't fight for anything. "Right wingers" and "progressives" don't want to be communists because we have allowed communism to become an ambiguous term for whatever they dislike, rather than standing firm and saying "we are communists we want x".

Have the workers been freed? Have the chains of capital been broken? If not then communism is alive and well, it just needs people willing to pick up it's banner and put in the work and stop throwing it under the bus every chance they get in efforts to capitulate to liberals. Mamdani winning while calling himself a socialist is proof that the banner itself isn't the problem, your asking us to retreat in the face of victory.

If it acts like a Nazi, Likes Nazi reading, And insists it's not a Nazi.

It's a Nazi.

Are you of the belief there was ever a time when the ruling class did not oppose communism with their full might? You think communism rose in popularity in Russia because there was no repression? Meanwhile Lenin was exiled?

No, communism will be opposed full force regardless of cutesty trying to shift terms around. The western left isn't toothless because it faces repression from the bourgeois organizations, the western left is toothless because it has no discipline to established party lines and nueters itself constantly.

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."

~ The Communist Manifesto

Instead of “Social-Democracy”, whose official leaders throughout the world have betrayed socialism and deserted to the bourgeoisie (the “defencists” and the vacillating “Kautskyites”), we must call ourselves the Communist Party.—Lenin

~ Lenin April Theses.

B-b-but he has a FAMILY now! Isn't that so WHOLESOME!

White people are the most oppressed group change my mind 🤓

The IAEA agency reports information on nuclear projects to western countries. That being their job doesn't change what they do, it just legitimizes it.

After having their nuclear sites targeted thanks to this information being known, Iran probably has little interest in making the same mistake again.

Also their nuclear sites are utterly destroyed and they won't be able to do anything nuclear related for years, so what would they investigate anyway.

There's a difference between expecting some form of attack at any moment and knowing the strategy and extent of opening attack to expect (internal Mossad agents activation to sabotage systems prior to a massive bombardment). Iran can now go into overdrive purging Mossad cells and account for the targets and strength of strike to expect next time, they aren't Hezbollah, so they couldn't assume they would get the same form of opening attack.

Israel didn't destroy, but they did disable the ability to use missile launchers in certain regions, the reason the missile barrages were limited to around 20 at a time towards the middle-end was because Iran had to resort to Guerilla tactics, using smaller launch forces to strike then moving them back to safety before Israel could take them out. The capacity wasn't destroyed, but it couldn't be used to its full extent, because using it would open it up to getting destroyed.

How can you say there was clearly no punishment for Israel when we were seeing bombs dropped on Tel-Aviv, Trading ports, and military targets, and now the people realizing they can be hit back and they didn't even get what they wanted. Israel wants us/their citizens to think there was no punishment and they achieved all their goals, but the truth is blatant.

Israel wasn't running perfect defense and avoiding Iranian hits, then just when their defense was weak a ceasefire happened. The opposite if anything, Israel kept taking hits and only when the US showed willingness to be involved directly militarily to save them did Iran agree to ceasefire.

Obviously Iran didn't end the Israeli regime, but they also withstood the Israeli aggression aimed at ending their regime.

I'm seeing a lot of defeatism about what should be a celebratory event for those who oppose the Israeli regime. We could build off of this moment.

Irans nuclear capabilities were totally destroyed, why would they need to continue to cooperate with a nuclear investigation agency, which totally doesn't leak information to the west.