As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[US Foreign Policy] is still practicing drone diplomacy

1495052545558

Posts

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    We won't actually know if sanctions will work until we try.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    No-Quarter
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    I'm not saying go all in, but the idea that all we can do is shrug at China's genocide seems really bad.

    The idea actually seemed to be the people you disagreed with are like nazi appeasers but ok sure.

    These two ideas aren't exclusive chief.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    China learned it could get away with the Hanization of a region
    That is one euphemism for genocide

    Its the term that is used but yes it is genocide but also replacement by moving in large groups of Han Chinese to replace the population you are removing.

    In other words, less a euphemism but more naming the specific variety of genocide, right?

    Yes. And is the term used when discussing this in policy and research. Also usually among FP circles.

    Same as Russification.

    Kayne Red RobeElvenshae
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    China learned it could get away with the Hanization of a region
    That is one euphemism for genocide

    Its the term that is used but yes it is genocide but also replacement by moving in large groups of Han Chinese to replace the population you are removing.

    In other words, less a euphemism but more naming the specific variety of genocide, right?

    Yes. And is the term used when discussing this in policy and research. Also usually among FP circles.

    Same as Russification.

    They are very much aligned as China's views of minorities actually built on Stalinist thought.

    What we call Uighurs is actually a collection of disparate groups who are a majority Muslim with a similar set of languages usually related to Central Asia or Turkish. But Stalinist theory on race puts them into basically a single category or at least how it was interpreted by the CCP in the 1950's.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    GiantGeek2020FencingsaxLord_AsmodeusElvenshae
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    I'm not saying go all in, but the idea that all we can do is shrug at China's genocide seems really bad.

    The idea actually seemed to be the people you disagreed with are like nazi appeasers but ok sure.

    These two ideas aren't exclusive chief.

    But the common argument about the appeasement was that the British should have taken a military interventionist stance against the Nazis during Chamblerains tenure. It is cited typically when calling for military intervention to prevent a greater tragedy down the line.

    Economic sanctions against Nazi germany weren’t exactly on the table as a solution given that Hitler and the Nazis already rose to power amidst the backdrop of an economically devastated post war Germany from the Great War

    Hence why when you cite the Nazis as your go to folks are going to think you’re calling for the military option

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Typhoid MannyGiantGeek2020Styrofoam SammichTefIncenjucarDee KaeMeeqeTicaldfjamShortySolarBullheadMagellButtersDoodmannSkeithDavid WalgasGnome-Interruptus
  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    yeah you've basically got it here i think

    we aren't the undisputed top dog anymore, which is gonna be a bitter pill for a lot of people to swallow since our whole deal is being able to exert our will on the entire rest of the world at the same time. PRC can't project force to the same extent that we can for a lot of reasons, but they can prevent us from fucking around in their sphere to a way bigger extent than state department and capital types are happy with

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
    Commander ZoomTefDee KaeGnome-Interruptus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    It ultimately shows hegemony as a force for good is ultimately kind of a farce. You need something greater than being the world police to establish lasting change, because human history shows no hegemon remains on top forever. You need more responsive, democratic systems in place instead of the US marching forth with its awesome might of economic and military powers to drive forth change. Because once there’s a meaningful rival we can’t do jack shit about it.

    You’d have thought we’d have figured that dynamic out in the cold war

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Dee KaeTefTicaldfjamShortyAistanErlecDavid Walgas
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    This was always US hegemony. Or any kind of hegemony. There are very limited somewhat crude tools for trying to change the internal politics of another country. Especially if the existing power structure there is against it. And the ones that do exist are not well reviewed by a lot of people, especially those concerned with human rights.

    Of course, then the alternative is stuff like the Rwandan genocide or the Chinese actions in Tibet. All those horrible things we just kinda go "Yup, guess that's happening" about.

    OneAngryPossumFencingsaxHarry DresdenElvenshaeCommander ZoomGnome-Interruptus
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    Lanz wrote: »
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    It ultimately shows hegemony as a force for good is ultimately kind of a farce. You need something greater than being the world police to establish lasting change, because human history shows no hegemon remains on top forever. You need more responsive, democratic systems in place instead of the US marching forth with its awesome might of economic and military powers to drive forth change. Because once there’s a meaningful rival we can’t do jack shit about it.

    You’d have thought we’d have figured that dynamic out in the cold war

    *raises eyebrows expectantly*
    Tef wrote: »
    If we are at the point where we are considering massive sanctions and a hot war with China, we have to stop to consider if the US could actually win such a conflict. I'm not actually convinced it could, and I think in most cases, it would be a pyrrhic victory at best. I think no matter the outcome, it would make the end of the American empire as we know it a la Britain after the world wars.

    If all cards are on the table to stop the spread of Chinese imperialism, the best option is to reform the USA under Communism, with a specific focus on internationalism, and the eventual goal of purging the Dengists from the CCP. What flavour of socialism is, as always, a whole debate onto itself and probably outside the scope of this thread. I would suggest Trotskyism, or something to the left of that, has the best chance of success. Regardless, a unified international socialist movement is the only real antidote to the spread of neoliberalism.

    Tef on
    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    @Tef I would be interested to see how China would respond to a real, authentic international socialist movement that their populace abroad has regular contact with, and then have to go home and confront the reality of the government’s fake communism.



    Reminder that a couple years ago Beijing went hard as hell against some labor activists who, upon graduating college, saw the conditions for labor around them and decided to help the workers in their communities unionize for better rights, protections, etc.

    Government was very not happy with them over that. Over unionization. In a so called “communist” society

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    I'm not saying reforms never going to come to China, but like the USSR you're either looking at outright civil war or economic collapse being the only thing that will drive major reform.

    Murdering dissidents and censorship will have that effect.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    IncenjucarOghulkLord_AsmodeusElvenshae
  • GiantGeek2020GiantGeek2020 Registered User regular
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    One of the things I think we should do as heavily as possible is strengthen (economically and militarily) all of China's neighbors. If they can't push them around so damn easy it would be an improvement.

    NATO never gets old.

    3. A surprisingly small number of adults have attempted the largely successful, “Punch the small children to escape” tactic.
    MazzyxStarZapperLord_AsmodeusElvenshae
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    @Tef I would be interested to see how China would respond to a real, authentic international socialist movement that their populace abroad has regular contact with, and then have to go home and confront the reality of the government’s fake communism.

    Reminder that a couple years ago Beijing went hard as hell against some labor activists who, upon graduating college, saw the conditions for labor around them and decided to help the workers in their communities unionize for better rights, protections, etc.

    Government was very not happy with them over that. Over unionization. In a so called “communist” society

    Like their own mini Kronstadt. To the topic at hand, I honestly can’t conceive of a better long term approach. Assuming of course that democratic rule and individual dignity for everyone is the driving factor

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    One of the things I think we should do as heavily as possible is strengthen (economically and militarily) all of China's neighbors. If they can't push them around so damn easy it would be an improvement.

    NATO never gets old.

    But that involves giving money to people who aren't us, for long-term reasons. That's not nearly so fashionable anymore.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    I'm not saying reforms never going to come to China, but like the USSR you're either looking at outright civil war or economic collapse being the only thing that will drive major reform.

    Murdering dissidents and censorship will have that effect.
    Major reform being a removal of the socialist mode of production? I ask because there are significant reforms that occurred in both countries that did not involve economic collapse or civil war. China and the USSR are very different beasts, so we need to be careful applying lessons learnt from the collapse of the USSR to the CCP

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    It ultimately shows hegemony as a force for good is ultimately kind of a farce. You need something greater than being the world police to establish lasting change, because human history shows no hegemon remains on top forever. You need more responsive, democratic systems in place instead of the US marching forth with its awesome might of economic and military powers to drive forth change. Because once there’s a meaningful rival we can’t do jack shit about it.

    You’d have thought we’d have figured that dynamic out in the cold war

    I mean the other option here is that the hegemon was actually not so when a lot of decisions were made that have inexorably led here.

    If Nixon stays home this all looks a lot different, but he wanted to make damn sure to cement the Sino-Soviet split, which... kind of made sense at the time (though it's debatable how much of a push China really needed to keep any rapprochement from happening.)

    There's probably an argument to be made that the situation we're in w/r/t the Uyghurs is a direct result of United States domestic tax law forty years ago, which is one of those "butterfly flaps its wings, creates hurricane" sort of scenarios that aren't really foreseeable. Though this one was at least something we should have been looking out for.

    uH3IcEi.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    One of the things I think we should do as heavily as possible is strengthen (economically and militarily) all of China's neighbors. If they can't push them around so damn easy it would be an improvement.

    NATO never gets old.

    But that involves giving money to people who aren't us, for long-term reasons. That's not nearly so fashionable anymore.

    Strengthening China's neighbours and allying them together and with the US was literally what Obama was doing and what the TPP's overall point was.

    FencingsaxMillknitdanrahkeesh2000OghulkBullheadHarry DresdenzagdrobButtersLord_AsmodeusElvenshaefedaykin666
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    It ultimately shows hegemony as a force for good is ultimately kind of a farce. You need something greater than being the world police to establish lasting change, because human history shows no hegemon remains on top forever. You need more responsive, democratic systems in place instead of the US marching forth with its awesome might of economic and military powers to drive forth change. Because once there’s a meaningful rival we can’t do jack shit about it.

    You’d have thought we’d have figured that dynamic out in the cold war

    I mean the other option here is that the hegemon was actually not so when a lot of decisions were made that have inexorably led here.

    If Nixon stays home this all looks a lot different, but he wanted to make damn sure to cement the Sino-Soviet split, which... kind of made sense at the time (though it's debatable how much of a push China really needed to keep any rapprochement from happening.)

    There's probably an argument to be made that the situation we're in w/r/t the Uyghurs is a direct result of United States domestic tax law forty years ago, which is one of those "butterfly flaps its wings, creates hurricane" sort of scenarios that aren't really foreseeable. Though this one was at least something we should have been looking out for.

    Not sure exactly what you mean by the bolded part. I doubt the Uyghurs were even on anyone's radar till really post 9-11 and that is more because the Bush admin was okay with the Chinese locking them down since China claimed they had Islamic terrorist groups.

    By the time Nixon was in China they were figuring out what to do Tibet already and the early stages of the modern system of Hanization was having its foundations laid. I doubt if Nixon never went or reproachmant didn't occur till Ford or Carter (it was going to happen in the 70's as the radicals lost power after the cultural revolution) I bet there is a good chance we would be in this place.

    More likely the line is from the CCP reaction Tienanmen with the rise of nationalism as a key aspect of the Chinese Communist Party and the success that occurred in Tibet even with global complaints along with the war on terror that set the foundations for this more than Nixon.

    Mazzyx on
    u7stthr17eud.png
    Commander ZoomshrykeSpoitElvenshae
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Tef wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »
    I'm not saying reforms never going to come to China, but like the USSR you're either looking at outright civil war or economic collapse being the only thing that will drive major reform.

    Murdering dissidents and censorship will have that effect.
    Major reform being a removal of the socialist mode of production? I ask because there are significant reforms that occurred in both countries that did not involve economic collapse or civil war. China and the USSR are very different beasts, so we need to be careful applying lessons learnt from the collapse of the USSR to the CCP

    I guess I should clarify and say that I meant reforms agitated from a presumed upper/middle class based on things they experienced abroad and not reforms that the top of the party thinks will help the machine perpetuate itself.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    One of the things I think we should do as heavily as possible is strengthen (economically and militarily) all of China's neighbors. If they can't push them around so damn easy it would be an improvement.

    NATO never gets old.

    But that involves giving money to people who aren't us, for long-term reasons. That's not nearly so fashionable anymore.

    Re the bolded, I think that this is an argument in favour of a move to socialism.

    Right now there is a fundamental difference in goals. You frame it as short term vs long term thinking, but I believe the overarching strategic, long-term goal (improve the long term safety, security, and quality of life of china’s neighbouring citizens to mitigate china’s influence) is at odds with the need for owners to extract surplus value and see a return on their investment.

    Socialism provides that unifying of objectives and targets, essentially we must raise the dignity, safety, and security of the people

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
    Commander Zoom
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    It ultimately shows hegemony as a force for good is ultimately kind of a farce. You need something greater than being the world police to establish lasting change, because human history shows no hegemon remains on top forever. You need more responsive, democratic systems in place instead of the US marching forth with its awesome might of economic and military powers to drive forth change. Because once there’s a meaningful rival we can’t do jack shit about it.

    You’d have thought we’d have figured that dynamic out in the cold war

    I mean the other option here is that the hegemon was actually not so when a lot of decisions were made that have inexorably led here.

    If Nixon stays home this all looks a lot different, but he wanted to make damn sure to cement the Sino-Soviet split, which... kind of made sense at the time (though it's debatable how much of a push China really needed to keep any rapprochement from happening.)

    There's probably an argument to be made that the situation we're in w/r/t the Uyghurs is a direct result of United States domestic tax law forty years ago, which is one of those "butterfly flaps its wings, creates hurricane" sort of scenarios that aren't really foreseeable. Though this one was at least something we should have been looking out for.

    Not sure exactly what you mean by the bolded part.

    That our supply lines would become so entwined with China that, far from the initial presumption that we could utilize the threat of sanctions or taking our business elsewhere to extract concessions leading to greater democratization, we'd have literally no leverage, because we are absolutely reliant on Chinese manufacturing.
    By the time Nixon was in China they were figuring out what to do Tibet already and the early stages of the modern system of Hanization was having its foundations laid. I doubt if Nixon never went or reproachmant didn't occur till Ford or Carter (it was going to happen in the 70's as the radicals lost power after the cultural revolution) I bet there is a good chance we would be in this place.

    China certainly would have moderated after Mao regardless, but if formal normalization of relations happens under Carter we probably actually have some policy in place that helps protect the US domestic workforce rather than everything being made in factories with nets to keep people from killing themselves.

    uH3IcEi.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    Man, it's a good thing half of you weren't in charge of anything in the 40's.

    I wonder if other nations should adopt a similar attitude towards the US and its immigration policy. After all, if we really want to keep people in camps there's nothing that can be done about it.

    at the risk of giving this argument more response time than it's worth

    the people in charge of this country in the 40s were plenty happy to put people in camps

    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
    Commander ZoomSpoitMagell
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    It ultimately shows hegemony as a force for good is ultimately kind of a farce. You need something greater than being the world police to establish lasting change, because human history shows no hegemon remains on top forever. You need more responsive, democratic systems in place instead of the US marching forth with its awesome might of economic and military powers to drive forth change. Because once there’s a meaningful rival we can’t do jack shit about it.

    You’d have thought we’d have figured that dynamic out in the cold war

    I mean the other option here is that the hegemon was actually not so when a lot of decisions were made that have inexorably led here.

    If Nixon stays home this all looks a lot different, but he wanted to make damn sure to cement the Sino-Soviet split, which... kind of made sense at the time (though it's debatable how much of a push China really needed to keep any rapprochement from happening.)

    There's probably an argument to be made that the situation we're in w/r/t the Uyghurs is a direct result of United States domestic tax law forty years ago, which is one of those "butterfly flaps its wings, creates hurricane" sort of scenarios that aren't really foreseeable. Though this one was at least something we should have been looking out for.

    Not sure exactly what you mean by the bolded part.

    That our supply lines would become so entwined with China that, far from the initial presumption that we could utilize the threat of sanctions or taking our business elsewhere to extract concessions leading to greater democratization, we'd have literally no leverage, because we are absolutely reliant on Chinese manufacturing.
    By the time Nixon was in China they were figuring out what to do Tibet already and the early stages of the modern system of Hanization was having its foundations laid. I doubt if Nixon never went or reproachmant didn't occur till Ford or Carter (it was going to happen in the 70's as the radicals lost power after the cultural revolution) I bet there is a good chance we would be in this place.

    China certainly would have moderated after Mao regardless, but if formal normalization of relations happens under Carter we probably actually have some policy in place that helps protect the US domestic workforce rather than everything being made in factories with nets to keep people from killing themselves.

    I doubt it.

    Also the major shift manufacturing occurs decades and multiple layers of decisions later. The initial opening is actually more tied with Japan than the US with a massive influx of infrastructure funding. A fun tidbit, 1/3rd of the sewers in China are built with funding from the Japanese government. In fact most of China's early influx of cash was oil exports as they repaired 30+ years of damage from the cultural revolution, great leap forward, and the hundred flower movement. It also led to mass inflation in the country which was a major driver of the protest in 1989.

    The very thing you are discussing is tied more with Clinton and Bush with the most favored nation status and acceptance into the WTO decades later. And Carter was actually in charge around the official formalization in 1979 when we recognized the mainland and the CCP as the official government of China and not the KMT in Taiwan.

    The decrease in US manufacturing and the shifts in the US domestic work force began before formalization or even the Washington Consensus was established.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    shryke
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Tef wrote: »
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    One of the things I think we should do as heavily as possible is strengthen (economically and militarily) all of China's neighbors. If they can't push them around so damn easy it would be an improvement.

    NATO never gets old.

    But that involves giving money to people who aren't us, for long-term reasons. That's not nearly so fashionable anymore.

    Re the bolded, I think that this is an argument in favour of a move to socialism.

    Right now there is a fundamental difference in goals. You frame it as short term vs long term thinking, but I believe the overarching strategic, long-term goal (improve the long term safety, security, and quality of life of china’s neighbouring citizens to mitigate china’s influence) is at odds with the need for owners to extract surplus value and see a return on their investment.

    Socialism provides that unifying of objectives and targets, essentially we must raise the dignity, safety, and security of the people

    Oh, sure. It's not going to happen, though.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Sleep
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    Not with that attitude!

    More seriously, that’s what a lot of rulers have said, right before it happens. I don’t think you can nor should rule it out as a possibility. Not sure we want to get into a debate over socialist change in the USA here though. If there’s consensus it is the best strategy except for ability to be implemented, logically it follows the conversation needs to be, what can be done to affect this change? I think for the present, we should focus on if it is indeed the best long term strategy

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    My honest assessment of the most likely future for our country, society and/or species would probably get me in trouble, especially the "no doomsaying" rule.

    tl;dr we're all fucked.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    OrcaAistanTicaldfjamDavid Walgas
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Oh, I don’t know. I’m not ready to go gentle into that good night. I think things will be significantly harder and more painful unless we start shifting our mode of production. I also think we are short on time. As they say, the best time was yesterday; the second best time is today.

    I think the single best thing we can do as individuals right now is participate in non-state mutual aid programs, and start building some solidarity with our fellow people.

    Tef on
    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
    DarkPrimusKaputaDavid WalgasGnome-Interruptus
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    I mean given global socialism probably isn't happening in the next two decades we're probably gonna need some imperfect solutions to a lot of problems that don't start with erecting a global socialist movement capable of disarming the propaganda networks of governments such as China's or the U.S.

    Kayne Red RobeElvenshae
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    I would argue that doing more of what we have been doing and hoping it will work out different is an even worse option.

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Tef wrote: »
    I would argue that doing more of what we have been doing and hoping it will work out different is an even worse option.

    And yet still we're pretty predictably not gonna do it your way.

    Like it's not that you're necessarily wrong so much as your observation doesn't really matter. You're basically offering up a solution that isn't going to come to fruition fast enough to help anyone.

    Sleep on
    Commander ZoomadytumFencingsaxKayne Red RobeElvenshaeSmrtnik
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Necessity is the mother of creation and I’m certainly not denying things are likely to get much worse for a large portion of folks. E- given our sluggish response this far

    I think by not making these sorts of changes and attempting to maintain the status quo, we end up in a situation much worse. I think things go very badly and we have the added problem of brutal, repressive structures designed around the desires of the few rather than the needs of the many. At least in what I am proposing, to follow along your line of thinking, we have the nascent elements of an internationally focused socialist movement to rely on

    Tef on
    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Yes, but they're the ones with the gold (and the guns), which means they get to make the rules. :(

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Tef wrote: »
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    One of the things I think we should do as heavily as possible is strengthen (economically and militarily) all of China's neighbors. If they can't push them around so damn easy it would be an improvement.

    NATO never gets old.

    But that involves giving money to people who aren't us, for long-term reasons. That's not nearly so fashionable anymore.

    Re the bolded, I think that this is an argument in favour of a move to socialism.

    Right now there is a fundamental difference in goals. You frame it as short term vs long term thinking, but I believe the overarching strategic, long-term goal (improve the long term safety, security, and quality of life of china’s neighbouring citizens to mitigate china’s influence) is at odds with the need for owners to extract surplus value and see a return on their investment.

    Socialism provides that unifying of objectives and targets, essentially we must raise the dignity, safety, and security of the people

    I disagree with your argument here that a move to "socialism" is necessary to accomplish this when the U.S. literally did what you're saying post WW2 in Western Europe and to a lesser extent helped accomplish in Japan. It's also what foreign aid over the last 80 years has been attempting to do (not very well in certain areas though) and what the entire point of the TPP was.

    FencingsaxshrykeTryCatcherSpoitGiantGeek2020QanamilElvenshaeSmrtnikGnome-Interruptus
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    I'm not sure that the economic system is especially impactful on the matter - it's about who is making decisions and who can affect who is in power. If the people in power over your society are comfortable with putting people into concentration camps it doesn't especially matter how labor is organized.

    FencingsaxSleepKayne Red RobeBigJoeMGiantGeek2020Harry DresdenElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Tef wrote: »
    This is what the end of US hegemony (and, possibly, the rise of a new hegemon to replace it) looks like.

    "What can we actually do to stop them?"
    "Honestly? Very little."

    One of the things I think we should do as heavily as possible is strengthen (economically and militarily) all of China's neighbors. If they can't push them around so damn easy it would be an improvement.

    NATO never gets old.

    But that involves giving money to people who aren't us, for long-term reasons. That's not nearly so fashionable anymore.

    Re the bolded, I think that this is an argument in favour of a move to socialism.

    Right now there is a fundamental difference in goals. You frame it as short term vs long term thinking, but I believe the overarching strategic, long-term goal (improve the long term safety, security, and quality of life of china’s neighbouring citizens to mitigate china’s influence) is at odds with the need for owners to extract surplus value and see a return on their investment.

    Socialism provides that unifying of objectives and targets, essentially we must raise the dignity, safety, and security of the people

    I disagree with your argument here that a move to "socialism" is necessary to accomplish this when the U.S. literally did what you're saying post WW2 in Western Europe and to a lesser extent helped accomplish in Japan. It's also what foreign aid over the last 80 years has been attempting to do (not very well in certain areas though) and what the entire point of the TPP was.
    Not sure why you’re putting scare quotes around socialism. I feel I pretty accurately described what I meant in specific regarding socialism, whilst leaving the final determination on the optimal method open for later discussion.

    Your equivalence is flawed; the things you are referencing occurred at the end of one of the longest and most devastating global conflicts we’ve ever seen. That changes the calculus a great deal. I would also suggest that saying that the work done in those spaces was done with the strategic intent of enriching all peoples’ lives, and that it is akin to what I’m suggesting, is a very credulous take.

    Jucar, the, ‘mode of production’ references more than what you’re considering an economic system. I think you do make a good point that you have to be ever vigilant against authoritarians attempting to build and protect their own parochial interests. That’s true of any mode though

    Tef on
    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 14
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    One that got trashed due to public sentiment and a bit of misinformation was actually Trans-Pacific Partnership where we were building an economic community of shared rules and goals to counter China's regional clout. This included everything from union and worker protections to helping mitigate dumping into the international system and closer connections between East Asia and SE Asia to help produce an economic ring around China. Even after the US pulled out many of the countries involved finalized a treaty that was much less protective of the environment and workers but still to help provide themselves a buffer verse China but the US was not involved.

    My memory of the attempt to adopt TPP is that public sentiment was thought to be largely irrelevant. Not talking about you Mazz, I think you would be capable of making a case for it, but the general attitude that I got was something like "it doesn't really matter what you or anyone else thinks, this thing will get passed during a lame duck, deal with it." If that's your foundation of how how you're gonna get what you want, I can't muster up that much sympathy for you when you fail.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
    YamiB.Shorty
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    There wasn't anything that any other country could do about the US keeping immigrants in camps

    There isn't anything that anyone can do to stop China putting Uighurs in camps

    This isn't saying it's right or it's good or we should just let China do whatever it wants

    Just facing... reality? Saying "what are we going to do, just let them do it?" Well... yes. We all are.

    Solar on
    electricitylikesmemrondeauMagellShortyMortiousCommander ZoomSmrtnikGnome-Interruptus
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    There wasn't anything that any other country could do about the US keeping immigrants in camps

    There isn't anything that anyone can do to stop China putting Uighurs in camps

    This isn't saying it's right or it's good or we should just let China do whatever it wants

    Just facing... reality? Saying "what are we going to do, just let them do it?" Well... yes. We all are.

    There are things we can do, they just might not work, they're difficult, and we don't wanna. Saying that nothing can be done is just a lie to help us sleep at night.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Solar wrote: »
    Kind of incredible if that happens tbh

    20 years of war in Afghanistan

    And in the end I would say that the US will probably... lose? I feel like the Taliban (that is to say, local relatively hardline Pashtun militias under an umbrella) will go back to controlling their territories, as they already do in many places

    I wonder what will happen post? Reprisals almost certainly, but then what? Will we see another Afghan Civil War? And then maybe a period of relative peace?

    Not to be a pedant but I don’t know what to call the last 18+ years but a civil war, so I’d say we see a continuation of an ongoing civil war if there’s no peace deal along with the pullout. For a new civil war to start, the old one would need to have stopped at some point.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    electricitylikesmeKayne Red RobeSleepmrondeaushrykeTicaldfjamShortyKaputaCommander ZoomMillHappylilElfElvenshaeDavid Walgas
Sign In or Register to comment.