Comments by "GuyWhoLikesTheSnarkies14" (@guywholikesthesnarkies1435) on "Geopolitical Economy Report"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kphamcao "..if they are working for US entities, then it doesn't count.." Or in other words, "I don't wanna read all that you're trying to prove me, but I demand you to listen my rhetorics instead!". Did you even watched any of videos I showed you up there? On-shoring assets of foreign companies into your countries isn't a display of US in possession of much of the technology, manufacturing capacity and anything else, even when foreign assets owned by US in China won't mean a lot because China's in real control of the manufacturing capacity and the supply chain overall, they can exert their authority over any said multinational companies or else, you'll never heard of Huawei, BYD, NIO, Alibaba, WeChat etc etc. Your logic is a flawed one, buddy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason why do we keep seeing and hearing all those ultra-left critiques of SWCC as a "merely social democratic liberalism but make it red" is because SWCC is a direct continuation of Lenin's legacy of NEP, an early form and experiment at socialist market economy, by means of pragmatic and materialist endeavor on scientific socialism development and expansion.
Emphasizing on extensive, long-term socialist construction in mind addressing the intricacies of capitalist contradiction by scientific means, instead of radical experiment found in Stalin's autarkic collectivism which, let's be real, failed to materialize into successful legacy to be carried over by its successors at home, and applied by other countries abroad due to its inherent limitation and subsequent contradictions that rose relative to specific political and material condition at that specific time i.e. post-WWII reconstruction and isolation period.
Let's not forget some important context here: Soviet Union under Stalin didn't immediately become isolated in the first place by Western nations altogether until post-WWII period despite continuous barrages of anti-communist propaganda. In fact, Soviet was actually a major beneficiary of US industrial expansion extensively that's brought upon by the "New Dealers"/the northern industrialist cliques.
This condition left Soviet Union with a major weakness that's being critically dependent to US's specific position of relative political pragmatism at the time, given the autarkic nature of Stalin's collectivist economic policy. And we shouldn't mistake Stalin's collectivism and its material results as an advance toward higher stage of socialism, it's not.
Collectivism was actually a decisive political economic strategy conceived with primary objective as a defense mechanism against imminent threat of fascism currently on the rise in Europe (at the time), and to safeguard socialism construction by means of improving the material condition and developing the productive forces immediately.
Therefore, Soviet Collectivism was meant more as a temporary, somewhat accelerationist political-economic policy with primary intent to raise the living standard and productive capacity of the people, in the face of the rise of fascism in Europe, and later on as a potent defense mechanism to mitigate subsequent fascist military conquest led by Nazi Germany.
Moving on, most ultra-left critiques against SWCC tend have no firm basis in real-world material reality. They're, for the most part, a part of alienated left-wing groups unable to contribute anything meaningful to the existing socialist development or even to start one and therefore, are subject to anti-communist propaganda themselves.
Furthermore, most of "social democracy" assertions against SWCC are also due to the fact that modern Western social democracy, as well as its derivative eurocommunism form, came about in the first place as a reaction to Lenin's NEP/socialist market economy (and broad socialism in general), tracing its roots from Bismarck's economic and social policy during Imperial Germany.
Therefore, their criticism are inherently anti-communist in essence. They're simply capable to mask it through sophistry and dogmatic interpretation of ML-ism in order to distract you from a major fact that SWCC is still a real socialism, and it's what makes China capable of having significant economic growth and material development independently. Whilst Western social democracies wouldn't even be exist without extensively expropriating wealth from other countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aprescoup You're desperate for strawman and has nothing to argue here. I'm just gonna drop some truth bombs before your faces:
-China's FDI inflows to Indonesia ranks 2nd highest in the recent years, only behind Singapore;
-China has extensively cooperated on our infrastructure projects since the dawn of our intensified diplomatic relation. Amongst them are the Suramadu bridge, Jatigede hydroplant, Jakarta-Bandung HSR, Kayan hydroplant, several hydroplants in Sulawesi, numerous smelters in Sulawesi, extensive expressway projects in Java and numerous ports built across Java, Sumatra, Sulawesi and Papua.
-China also invested heavily in numerous joint ventures under strategic "Two Countries, Twin Parks" project, encompassing numerous industrial park projects in Java, Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi, which will help developing our industrial capacity e.g. Konawe and Morowali Industrial Parks in Sulawesi and planned Mangkupadi Green Industrial Park in Kalimantan, all of which will be expected to kickstart our first ever domestic EV plant and renewable energy development. We'll also benefit greatly from tech & knowledge transfer scheme and we'll be able develop our own national industrial capacity.
1