Is that a thing in Spain? Sounds wonderful.

I guess I don’t understand what keeps the police from just escalating to a level of violence beyond what activists can defend against in Europe and other places where these actions are successful.

I read that but it also seems to indicate that she’s a third generation monarch in her family. Maybe it’s not officially hereditary but it’s a bit sus. Not to mention that monarchies are bad for reasons beyond their (typically) hereditary nature.

I also think the presidency is a harmful institution but I know most people aren’t there yet.

On the one hand, awesome to see young women having a role in leadership. On the other hand, monarchy is pretty much the worst form of government.

In the current moment I would agree. I’m not sure that would be true in comparison to a hypothetical sole superpower China. But who can say for sure.

Removed by mod

Is this a bad thing somehow? I would think reducing debts is generally beneficial, especially in times of economic crisis.

What do you mean by keeping write-offs from occurring?

Chinese foreign policy has been fairly cautious and covert compared to other world powers. I think this has generally been a good strategy as it has avoided major conflicts with the US and Europe in recent times.

I can’t think of any coup they’ve directly supported but they certainly have supported military movements and governments in other countries, including Vietnam, North Korea, Myanmar, and Venezuela. So they’ve been a bit less prone to overthrowing governments but they aren’t afraid to use similar tactics to keep friendly regimes in power, and help those factions expand power. So is it a coup to help the North Vietnamese conquer the South? I guess it depends on the definition of coup which can be a fraught word.

Personally I’m not sure I see any of these as coups. The closest might be Myanmar but while China has protected and supported the junta there, it’s not totally clear they actually supported the coup itself. I interpret their actions as seeking stability and wanting to minimize Western influence.

Most likely some other country (or countries) would simply fulfill the same role of projecting their military and economic power onto the rest of the world to maintain their hegemony. We see this in limited ways already with many other countries, though with a few exceptions, they’re careful in how much they conflict with US interests. One of these, likely China, would move into that role and while the details would be different in some ways, many of the overall dynamics would be similar.

Is it because they’re shitty overpriced pieces of junk hawked by a known con artist? Or some other reason?

I tried to approach this as objectively as possible but you are correct that I’m speculating as far as intentions here. But several Israeli politicians have made statements supportive of ethnic cleansing, and the broader strategy from their side seems in line with this goal. As far as Hamas, I admit to being more uncertain about their motivations but their original charter and some Oct 7th actions seem in line with a desire for ethnic cleansing.

But I am curious: what do you think Hamas’s end goal is?

I think differences in prisoner treatment (if real—I have not investigated this and there is much propaganda out there currently) are attributable to differences in bargaining position, and not differences in ideology. The prisoners held by Hamas are important bargaining chips so that is why they may not be mistreated. Prisoners held by the IDF are not as important to the Israeli strategy due to their greater force of arms.

My view is that the armed forces on both sides are controlled by far-right ethnonationalists that in their dream world would like to kill or expel everyone who does not belong to their ethnic/religious group. Views within the wider populace vary but there has not been much organized opposition to this goal.

The biggest difference is that Israel has a much greater ability to enact this vision of ethnic cleansing.

Removed by mod

Cold blood probably makes a lot of sense for an aquatic ambush predator that needs to lie motionless for most of its life. Keeping that body warm the whole time wastes a lot of energy, especially under water. If you conserve energy, you can go longer without food which is important if you are waiting for food to come to you rather than seeking it out.

First, the vast majority of species depend on camouflage at least somewhat, since there are very few species that are neither predator nor prey. Also, albinism prevents your skin from properly protecting you from the sun. So even then, it is selected against. As other have pointed out though, caves don’t have either of these forces at play—the darkness makes visual camouflage irrelevant and there is no UV light. So there, as you predicted, most species are albino.

This isn’t the gotcha that you think. Party and business elites (to the extent that these two groups are even distinct—in many cases there are overlapping members) cooperate to maintain control over the economy and political system at the expense of working Chinese. In recent years, Xi Jinping’s tightened grip on power has involved the elimination of some rivals from the ruling class, but he has not changed its overall structure, merely eliminating those deemed threatening and replacing them with allies. But we’ve seen many examples of countries where totalitarian dictatorships coexist with capitalism. Though the capitalists often have more power collectively, as long as they are allowed control of the economy and fabulous wealth, it’s not worth the risk of resisting the president, Führer, chairman, or whatever he wants to call himself.

I’m familiar with and agree with these criticisms of republican democracy in the West. But what you don’t seem to understand is that the situation in China is not materially different. In fact, the idea that China is socialist is actually also Western propaganda—and very successful propaganda at that. Most informed people can see that China is not a good place to live for ordinary people, and by labeling this system socialism, it confuses people into believing that socialism is a bad economic system. This is a big reason we have not had a real socialist movement for the past 100 years. The west was able to successfully associate the term with unpopular totalitarian governments, even though they never allowed any kind of real worker control or autonomy. For example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY. These films were effective because people could see that workers under Stalin or Mao did not have appreciably more control over their own lives or prosperity than workers in the US.

But I am interested in your claim that Chinese workers have more of a voice than we do in the west. Others have merely attempted to assert China is definitionally socialist or distract with irrelevant and cherry-picked economic statistics. Can you substantiate this claim? In my view this is the heart of our disagreement. From where I am I do not see much to suggest that Chinese workers have any say at all in political or economic decision-making but if that is incorrect there must be evidence.

While I appreciate you going through the trouble of finding this, it kind of misses the point. Have you read this book? Is it an honest examination of the Chinese economic system? Is it acknowledged by the wider community (and not just Leninist and Chinese apologists) to be a serious work that is based on reality and not propaganda? I don’t have enough faith in the other user to read something this long solely on their recommendation.

Funny because I was going to say the same thing. Keep on believing imperialist propaganda, I’m sure communism will arrive any day now. Just need to force capitalism on a few more generations.

I’m not slandering you, just expressing skepticism at your own interest in constructive conversation and explaining why I don’t value your book recommendation very highly.

As to the rest of this, it is again much too long to read in its entirety but it seems to come down to the same economic growth metrics that are used to justify neoliberal economics in every country. Yes, a small fraction of the wealth falls down to the poor and by some metrics this leaves them better off. This is not socialism in Western countries and it is not socialism in China. In fact, these are the same reasons people supported far right politicians like Trump or Hitler. If we concentrate power in the hands of the people who know better, they will grow the whole economy and we will all get richer, right? It doesn’t matter if the ruling class seizes most of the wealth and power, now you can buy two toys for your kids instead of one!

The global definition of poverty is an especially misleading metric since it doesn’t actually measure people’s material conditions, just “dollars per day” which is often only tangentially related to actual well-being. See this paper for more information: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169

Notably:

The results of this method demonstrate there is often a significant divergence between the poverty rate as defined by the World Bank’s $1.90 method and the BNPL. Consider the case of China, for example. According to the $1.90 method, the poverty rate in China fell from 66% in 1990 to 19% in 2005, suggesting capitalist reforms delivered dramatic improvements (World Bank 2021). However, if we instead measure incomes against the BNPL, we find poverty increased during this period, from 0.2% in 1990 (one of the lowest figures in the world) to 24% in 2005, with a peak of 68% in 1995 (data from Moatsos, 2021).3 This reflects an increase in the relative price of food as China’s socialist provisioning systems were dismantled (Li, 2016). It is likely that something similar occurred across the global South during the 19th century, as colonial interventions undermined communal provisioning systems. As a result, the $1.90 PPP line likely reflects a changing standard of welfare during the period that the Ravallion/Pinker graph refers to.

But even if conditions did improve during some periods, none of this means there isn’t a better economic system, nor does it make any country where conditions improve socialist. There have been periods of economic improvement in many capitalist countries, partly because pure capitalism is extremely difficult to implement and maintain, so most capitalist countries do allow for some socialist practices to exist. Again, socialism means proletarian control of the means of production, something that no one in these conversations has even attempted to argue is happening in China. Workers in China, like workers in all capitalist countries, have very little say over their own working conditions and economic decision making. This is extremely obvious from the fact that corporate structures in China are very similar to elsewhere in the world; a structure that is incompatible with socialism.