do you think we are going into ww3?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Still less than the dead of World War II
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
This is bullshit projection.
- The Atlantic, 2021: The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth
- Geopolitical Economy Report, 2022: China forgives 23 loans for 17 African countries, expands ‘win-win’ trade and infrastructure projects
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Sure, but this isn't an "inordinately peaceful "time just because it isn't as deadly as the single biggest war in all of history.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
In the west I think it’s mostly used to sell ads, but in other countries like China and Russia, I think it’s more sinister.
Which social media algorithm caused you to form this opinion?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Economic growth is optimized by beginning a proxy war with China.
But where? Taiwan seems the obvious candidate. Not sure if that would really lead to (quaterly) economic growth though.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
In the west I think it’s mostly used to sell ads
The Twitter Files showed us that this is not true. Though corporate social media didn’t invent propaganda. Previously.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I didn't just provide one example, though. There are cycles of war and peace in Europe that got mapped out to the globe as European nations became the dominant powers. There are eras of wars where various great and lesser powers participate in more destructive wars because the international order has broken down and isn't there to restrain belligerents. There are also times when costly wars don't end with a lasting "peace", but an armistice before fighting resumes.
We seem to be at a point where the post World War II international order is breaking down. When that happens historically, there is usually a big war and destruction on the order of magnitude of World Wars I and II.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
We have been in WW3 since Russia started it's fully scale invasion if Ukraine in 2022. The major conflicts if it just haven't become kinetic yet. China has conducted cyber attacks in the United States, Russia has been attacking undersea fiber. China is building ships that on gave one ouroose to invaide Taiwan. In 100 years thus will be seen as the early days if the war.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Yes, surely with programs like PRISM and the NSA, and corporations collecting information about literally every aspect of our lives with every device we purchase...they are just trying to sell us ads.
Our ruling power structure is paranoid, our government is rogue and does not serve US citizens, they maintain control by invoking fear, outrage, and stress in the population and they count on our learned helplessness and slave mentality. They want us to be depressed, they want us to be tired, they want us to be poor and struggling, they want us to think we're the "good guys".
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Not sure if that would really lead to (quaterly) economic growth though.
Regarding war and money, the question often isn't who's positioned to gain the most, instead who's positioned to lose the least. We often don't measure self against history and reason, instead relative our competitors.
Taiwan seems the obvious candidate.
The US has already manufactured consent to have a proxy war with China. I assume we've not done it in Taiwan because we'd lose more on trade than we'd gain consuming weapons.
But where?
To be determined. We're ready and waiting for an opportunity to present itself.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
when the rich wage war it's the poor who die
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I think sort of, although it won't be as cut-and-dry and the first two. I think it'll be somewhere between a traditional 'hot' war and a cold war, where the larger players (ie: China, the US, Russia, the EU) will engage in propaganda wars, attempts to destabilize each other, cyber attacks, trade wars etc. while in areas outside of those groups (eg: Ukraine currently) there will be physical wars fought by proxy between the bigger groups.
I think we're seeing the start of it now, and IMO the US is probably doing the least well so far of the major groups. Russia is doing the destabilization thing, which is working quite well in Europe and spectacularly well in the US, China seems to be leading in trade and tech (both cyber attacking and just undermining the US tech sector with things like DeepSeek) and I think Europe's strategy seems to be to just bunker down and see what happens.
I think the main advantage the US traditionally has always had is its military - it's geared up very well for a big physical war, but I don't think this is that kind of conflict. And with the Trump administration's obsession with tariffs and the general disregard for education and soft power, I think the country is really heading in the wrong direction for what may be coming.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Yes, the World Bank and the IMF. I've even seen it personally, which is what led me to dig down the rabbit hole - I got interviewed by a world Bank employee to explain why I was installing a system for an airport, and they kept trying to guide me to explain why it was helpful...I couldn't, because it was only useful if the Internet is down, and if that happens it's probably not useful because the system had to be taken down if there's bad weather, and the airport regularly flooded during storms anyways
They were constant protests and news coverage of projects being pushed on them, and it was an open secret for the airport workers. It was for things they didn't need or want, even though they had plenty of infrastructure in disrepair already
Argentina is the classic example, they resisted and had their currency destroyed, which makes international trade hard. Other countries go so deep in debt they have IMF officials installed in their government to implement austerity measures, some even are forced to hand over their currency printing powers
Sometimes countries get into our good graces, like Peru, and they are let off the treadmill in exchange for beneficial trade deals. That's after having their resource rights sold off and letting in foreign investments to extract wealth moving forward, but mostly they're kept in perpetual debt as leverage
It's a wild and very deep rabbit hole. The information isn't hidden, it's just spun in a positive light
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
You're describing Imperialism as outlined by Lenin in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and its contemporary form by Hudson in Super Imperialism, but these are overwhelmingly done by Western countries, especially the United States. Do you have specific evidence of this being a primary factor for China specifically?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
They're not Marxist-Leninists at all though... They're just a highly regulated form of capitalism.
The government doesn't own Tencent, they just keep a strong grip on them. They have their own billionaires, the factories have owners, companies bid to fulfill government contracts, you apply for a job and get paid what they offer. It's just capitalism
Their government does a lot more than in the US and has a lot more influence, and they do influence the market more... But that's just regulation and public services
They basically do what we did to tik tok. The US government can revoke a corporate charter for any or no reason, China just actually uses this authority actively
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
They claim to be Marxist-Leninists, explain their actions, and have an economy driven by Marxist-Leninist analysis. They have Markets, yes, but markets aren't the same thing as Capitalism itself. Rather, they have a Socialist Market Economy, which is driven by public ownership and planning of heavy industry, energy, finance, infrastructure in general, etc and have partial private ownership over light industry.
By what reasons do you say they aren't what they say they are? What do you think their economy would look like if they were "true Marxist-Leninists" in your eyes? When does an economy become "Capitalist" and when does it become "Socialist" in your eyes?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
The class war never stopped.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Yes, the World Bank and the IMF are major actors in post-WWII neocolonialism.
Guess which is the sole country with veto power in both the World Bank and the IMF?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I mean... They're not exactly hiding it. The expressed purpose of belts and roads is to invest in their infrastructure and partner with them to build industrial capacity. Conveyer belts and roads. They openly state they're doing it to build up trading partners and global influence
It's literally the same thing... Will they be better partners? Hopefully, it's not exactly a high bar
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
It's not at all the same thing, and I suggest you read the linked texts. Building infrastructure and trading deals is not the same as Imperialism, where brutal loans entrap countries and industrial capital is exported to produce with lower wages for super profits domestically. I already explained that China is heavily industrialized and seeks to sell what it produces.