☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

  • 2.68K Posts
  • 3.15K Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 18th, 2020

help-circle






  • Secondly, when I make my point (“my moral code does not allow me to accept that certain means, especially those based on cruelty, can be justified by any number of material results measured by any metrics”) you keep rebutting it by pointing me back to those very result-metrics. It means I feel we are just talking past each other in a failed dialogue on that point, meaning the only constructive response is to just “agree to disagree” on baselines regarding it.

    Again, there is zero evidence that cruelty is state policy in China. Meanwhile, if you think that society can completely eliminate individual acts of cruelty and other human vices then you’re once again engaging in fantastical thinking.

    I suspect my comments are frustrating you (?) because, on the one hand you are championing a political system and inherently accepting that its expediencies are acceptable, whereas I am arguing from a moral standpoint which explicitly considers many of those expediencies to be unacceptable, irrespective of the political ends.

    Your comments are frustrating to me because they’re born out of ignorance. You have not spent the time to actually understand how Chinese system works, and your criticism is rooted in idealistic thinking that ignores the realities of the world we live in.

    You have made many strident criticisms of many political systems and governments, many of which i concur with. I just also include the Chinese government in those criticisms along with the others.

    Nobody is arguing that the system in China is perfect. What’s being argued is that it is a system that actually works in the interest of the majority, and it’s a preferable real world alternative to what the west is doing. It’s a tangible improvement.

    Conversely, I think all governmental implementations which think they can get away with sidestepping those moral baselines in the name of expedience are destined for corruption and collapse, while leaving a trail of cruelty in their wake.

    Again, if you bothered to learn a bit of history you’d see that the general principles of the Chinese model has proven to be very stable historically. China has enjoyed centuries long stretches of peaceful existence, while the west has been drenched in blood and violence. I urge you to actually spend the time to learn about China instead of regurgitating demagogy.






  • My post was about two different social systems. The government is a product of the way society is structured. Your claim that Chinese government is a bad actor is at odds with reality as the citations I provided above clearly show. Talking about core values, shared humanity, moral codes, and so on, is all nice and good, but it’s ultimately meaningless unless you can show how that translates into something tangible.

    Real kindness and humaneness is measured by how society is able to lift people out of poverty, provide them with education, housing, jobs, food, and healthcare. That’s what the government in China achieved for 1.4 billion people. Meanwhile, idealists in the west have been preaching kindness while allowing the dictatorship of capital rule over every aspect of their lives.
















  • People keep doing vibes based analysis here, but the reality is that the situation for Europe is extremely grim. The problems Europe faces can’t be resolved quickly or painlessly, and the sheer scale of rebuilding self-sufficiency is a decades-long overhaul with no guarantee of success.

    The biggest problem is that Europe imports 60% of its energy, with natural gas prices already inflated by post-Ukraine war sanctions and the loss of Russian pipelines. Transitioning to domestic renewables or reviving nuclear power would require trillions in infrastructure investment into grids, storage, and reactors. As a concrete example, Germany’s Energiewende, launched in 2010, has only reduced fossil fuel use by 15%. Additionally, solar infrastructure relies on lithium and cobalt dominated by China. Without access to cheap energy, Europe faces either energy rationing or permanent deindustrialization as factories relocate to cheaper markets.

    Having outsourced its military-industrial capacity to the US, Europe now has to rebuild domestic arms production. Doing so requires massive investments in establishing supply chains and retooling of civilian sectors. However, decades of offshoring has eroded existing technical expertise in Europe. Just training a new generation of engineers and machinists could take a whole generation. Furthermore, creating self-sufficient supply chains is a difficult process with many steps, each step depending on the previous one. A single bottleneck, such as missing rare-earth refinery, can derail entire sectors for years.

    Another major problem is that Europe lacks domestic access to steel, titanium, and rare earths, forcing further reliance on external suppliers like China. Even if Europe started today, it would take decades to see tangible results, and that’s assuming political unity holds. The EU member states disagree on everything from debt sharing to defense priorities. Eastern Europe demands immediate rearmament, Germany resists militarization, and France pushes for strategic autonomy. Meanwhile, nationalist parties are gaining ground, threatening to fragment the bloc further. Even if consensus emerged, funding this transition would require further cutting social programs, which is political suicide in countries already reeling from inflation and austerity.

    Europe’s security crisis is a slow-motion collapse. There are no shortcuts to untangling energy dependency, reviving industry, or forging supply chains. By the time Europe might achieve autonomy, economic and geopolitical forces might make the whole EU project obsolete. The US security guarantee was a crutch, and now Europe finds that it must learn to walk on its own.