• 0 Posts
  • 431 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle


  • Yeah… Because Trump has such a good track record of maintaining nuclear deals. This is just a pretense to allow Israel to invade Iran once they’ve finished their genocide in Gaza.

    The whole reason Israel felt comfortable enough to commit to purging Gaza is because Trump ended the original nuclear deal to begin with. Now that Benni feels things are wrapping up in Palestine, he’s going to need another war to keep Israel’s bloodlust going and keep his coalition together.

    International law no longer holds any water. Every world power seems hell bent on making geopolitics revolve around hard power. The US backs out of treaties every four years, the Russians haven’t ever made a deal they didn’t pretend never happened, and China is out there pretending a vast swath of the Pacific is there’s because of reasons…

    In a time where a level of global cooperation is needed greater than ever before to prevent climate change, we as a species are shitting the bed harder than ever before.




  • is there a news page that does NOT contain American politics?

    I get the sentiment, but politics and news are irrefutably intertwined.

    I feel for the victims, but only Americans can do something about it. And they never dealt with the “death penalty for walking on the street while black” problem.

    I would argue this is a lot like people in France questioning why they should pay attention to Nazis invading Poland. Nearly all democratic nations are currently being subversively attacked by right winged political parties .

    If people in your nation don’t learn from the US’s example, right winged parties will continue to grow in power.



  • think he’s accelerating the decline of the US empire. And I think a new multipolar world with China taking on a leading role will emerge shortly. Within a few years at latest.

    Thinking of geopolitics as a polarity is a way to make a complex subject more digestible, however when it’s examined against actual history its highly reductive.

    Even when the world was less complicated and communist nations weren’t a hodgepodge of mixed markets, nothing was delineated so cleanly into something as simple as multipolarism.

    Democratic capitalist nations still overthrew emerging capitalist democracies, communist nations still went to war with other communist nations. I think it’s a bit optimistic to believe that political and economic instability inexplicably births unity.





  • Neither the US, Ukraine, nor Russia is even approaching socialism, so I don’t see how campism is relevant. What is relevant is imperialism vs. anti-imperialism.

    I would say a socialist defending a violent imperialist nation invading a nation simply because they are at times geopolitically opposed to another violent imperialist nation is a form of campism.

    in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.

    And what evidence supports the idea that it will be easier to liberate one colonizer state from a second colonizer state located right next door? Seems you are perpetuating a lot of violence based on nothing.

    Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US.

    In what way have they liberated themselves from shock therapy? Their government is the result of shock therapy, where the vast majority of wealth is tied to an oligarchic control that’s even more hierarchal than just about any other nation in the world.

    It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.

    Therea no actual evidence to support thwre was a “genocide” happening in donbos. They were just doing the same form of imperialism they didn’t in 08’ in Georgia, where they participated in ethnic cleansing.

    The idea that Russia was provoked into invading their neighbors is ridiculous if you actually look at the history Russias relations with their neighbors in the late 00’s. It’s just imperialism…


  • Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.

    So he’s just upset at the name, not the implied criticism behind it?

    is a matter of observation.

    Ahh, so because you said so. Got it

    Quite a stretch of the word quote

    Literally is a quote from Wikipedia, yes.

    Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist we can reject only dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis

    And what is that rational bias of defending his views other than Russia supposedly standing up to western imperialism by doing western styled imperialism?




  • Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult.

    Many people respond to criticism with negativity…

    his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies.

    Says who?

    From your paste is also Ukraine missing.

    The whole thing about quoting something is you don’t control what is left in or out, but yes Ukraine is a former Soviet state.

    Why exactly is this supposed socialist sub defending the honor of a capitalist economist who participated in the parting out of the Soviet economy?

    Is campism so strong that we are now cheerleading capitalists economists just because they support Russian nationalist?



  • In 1989, Sachs advised Poland’s anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland’s reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Sachs was the main architect of Poland’s debt reduction operation. Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised on the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership. Closure of many uncompetitive factories ensued.[33] In Poland, Sachs was firmly on the side of rapid transition to capitalism. At first, he proposed American-style corporate structures, with professional managers answering to many shareholders and a large economic role for stock markets. That did not bode well with the Polish authorities, but he then proposed that large blocks of the shares of privatized companies be placed in the hands of private banks.[34] As a result, there were some economic shortages and inflation, but prices in Poland eventually stabilized.[35][independent source needed] The government of Poland awarded Sachs one of its highest honors in 1999, the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit.[36] He also received an honorary doctorate from the Kraków University of Economics.[21] Based on Poland’s success, his advice was sought first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and by his successor, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, on the transition of the USSR/Russia to a market economy.[37]

    Sachs’ methods for stabilizing economies became known as shock therapy and were similar to successful approaches used in Germany after the two world wars.[31] He faced criticism for his role after the Russian economy faced significant struggles after adopting the market-based shock therapy in the early 1990s.[38][39][40]