😆
66
13
China intends to crush the trade war. Beijing has retaliated against Donald Trump's tariffs — and the response was far stronger than expected.
The reality is that these countries have no choice now. EU and Vietnam came crawling asking for zero tariffs and they got rejected. Given that the US will not even allow them to supplicate, they have no choice but to work with China or their economies will crash. Many European countries may choose to implode rather than work with China, but majority of the world will now.
I also expect that a moon launcher would probably be the most practical. There's no atmosphere to worry about, and very low gravity. Earth based launches like this do face a lot of challenges, but I guess we'll see if they manage to produce anything interesting. Even if they can't make it practical for use here, the research and development that will go into it will be useful for building this on the moon later.
China intends to crush the trade war. Beijing has retaliated against Donald Trump's tariffs — and the response was far stronger than expected.
I don't expect Trump to change course either, and I expect that it will work in China's favor in the end. Currently, most countries are trying to keep a balance between China and the US, but the tariff war makes pursuing a relationship with the US largely pointless. China standing strong will create a rallying point for the rest of the world.
At first I was shocked of reading this, on a ML instance of all places, to take Parenti’s siege socialism and attempt to make it as the result of some kind of struturalistc analysis feels unbelievable, but considering that our discussion has been around the fact that you’d rather use an agnostic analysis over a materialistic one, and that you don’t follow Hegelian dialectics and therefore the term “contradiction” means whatever you want, it’s then possible to see how one could claim such absurdities.
You continue to put words in my mouth while ignoring what I'm actually saying. I am very much using materialistic analysis, but you keep labelling it as agnostic while failing to actually engage with what's being said to you.
Parenti literally wrote that the external influences exacerbated the internal contradictions already present within the system, because he was using dialectical materialism and therefore saw first the existence of internal contradictions and then those being affected by the external influences, not the other way around as you claimed.
Except I did not claim the other way around anywhere. What I said is that internal contradictions are influenced by external factors. Which is precisely what Parenti identifies.
I need to say, having never had a discussion with a western “leftist” before, even though I somewhat knew what to expect, it is still impressive seeing it first hand how one can believe to make no mistakes and their arguments don’t require any proof since they personally own the truth, thinking that repeated enough times anything they say will become real.
Given that I grew up in USSR, this is the most hilarious thing I've been told in a while. I have to give you credit for the level of sophistication in your trolling. It took me a while to catch on.
Leaving that aside, this recent discussion has left me with a question which I look forward to the answer. If you can dismiss dialectical materialism so easily in favor of a struturalistic analysis, and don’t care about Hegelian dialectics, why were you writing about diamat in the first place?
Maybe you should spend a bit of time to actually understand what dialectical materialism is instead of writing pseudo intellectual comments.
You're right that there are many unexpected ways things can work out, but many of the advantages that the current US empire is propped up on would not have existed. Even the US and UK together would not have been central to the world economy. The Soviet bloc would've been by far the bigger player in that scenario. It's hard to overstate just how much the US benefited from WW2.
view more: next ›
What I dislike is you misrepresenting what the words I wrote say. What I very clearly was saying is that internal contradictions CANNOT be viewed in isolation without considering external factors. The fact that you're unable to comprehend this simple fact is frankly phenomenal. In fact, it can be easily shown that contradictions can be broken down. The whole planet can be viewed as a set of materialist contradictions, and then each contradiction can be examined, and at ever smaller scale as a set of internal contradictions. Things don't just exist in a vacuum, and the notion of looking at any set of contradictions without considering the greater context is frankly infantile.
What you're doing here is known as sophistry. You provide no actual analysis or a counterpoint, and just use write a word salad that lacks any actual meaning.
Nowhere did I say that abstractions were conclusion of the process in reality. This is just a straw man you're making instead of engaging with what's actually being said to you.
The fact that you think the word salad you wrote corrected anything really says all I need to know. Simply regurgitating things you've read does not constitute genuine understanding of the subject you're attempting to debate. You are utterly incapable in engaging with an argument you're presented with in good faith and you use sophistry in lieu of argument. I've said all I have to say to you.