One reason this administration is so disorienting is that U.S. foreign policy has been guided for decades by the opposite of realism. The key fights in Washington, especially in recent decades, were between neocons who wanted to spread democracy through war and liberals who wanted to spread democracy through soft power like U.S.A.I.D. contracts to bolster civil society.

…

While Mr. Trump embraces some elements of realism — giving in to the strong and sacrificing the weak — his tariff wars and threats against peaceful neighbors could end up being as costly as the military adventurism of the previous liberal order. Rajan Menon, a professor emeritus at the City College of New York, told me that people who expect the Trump administration “to follow the playbook of realism” by showing restraint “are going to get very disappointed.”

…

To Mr. Trump, America is a great power that Russia wouldn’t dare attack, and Ukraine is a pawn that can be sacrificed. But here’s the thing about great powers: They all decline eventually. Neanderthal realism doesn’t save them. After Athens sacked Melos, word of its brutality spread. Its allies turned against it. Athens lost the war. Noble ideas, it turns out, do matter.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The main fallacy there is the idea that the west is a force for good in the world. The harsh reality is that liberal democracy being portrayed as the sole legitimate form of governance amounts to nothing more than modern-day marketing for colonialism, serving as a pretext for Western invasions and global atrocities masquerading as benevolent civilizing missions. This is precisely what the author laments under the guise of "noble ideas".

[–] mitram2@lemm.ee -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Honestly curious, what forms of governance, other than a democracy, do you see as legitimate alternatives?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You are conflating the concept of democracy with the failed attempt at its implementation in the west. China is the obvious legitimate alternative today, based on the principles of democratic centralism, where the government actually works in the interest of the working majority and thus enjoys mass public support.

[–] mitram2@lemm.ee -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Thanks for the interesting read.

So you prefer a more centralised state that is still beholden to the will of the populace. That sounds nice, but also somewhat makes me worry that in such a state the issues in local governance, especially in less populated rural areas, are easy to ignore.

About China, and I'll try to word this as unbiased as I can, from what I've seen it's not a state known for complete freedom of speech. In my country, some Chinese critics are harassed by "Chinese police stations" or radical lovers of china who seem to believe any critic is a death threat. In contrast, people from the country I'm from openly defy and mock ourselves (a bit too much if you ask me).

Btw when you said "liberal democracy" I took it as a democracy where personal freedoms (speech, privacy etc) are respected at least to the point no one really complains about it.

Would love to read your thoughts on this topics.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago

So you prefer a more centralised state that is still beholden to the will of the populace.

The mistake here is in treating the populace as being homogeneous. The reality is that capitalism creates classes. You have a class of people who own capital and use it as their primary source of wealth. These are factory owners, landlords, financial capitalists, and so on. Then you have a second class of people who do not own significant amount of capital and rely on selling their labor as their means of survival. That's the working class. The state fundamentally represents the interests of the class that holds power in society, and a capitalist liberal state represents the interests of the capital owning class.

About China, and I’ll try to word this as unbiased as I can, from what I’ve seen it’s not a state known for complete freedom of speech.

The reality is that every society puts limit on freedom of speech and expression. There’s nothing unique about China in this regard. What makes you think that the west got this balance fundamentally right while everyone else got it wrong aside from the anchoring bias you experience by virtue of growing up in a particular society? It’s seems clear that China’s approach results in far more social stability than western approach.

The whole narrative of Chinese police stations has been debunked. It's just another piece of western propaganda.

In contrast, people from the country I’m from openly defy and mock ourselves (a bit too much if you ask me).

People in western countries have the freedom of screaming into the void, but not the freedom to translate their grievances into tangible material change. As Eric Li put it, the biggest difference in the political systems between China and US is that in America, you can change the political parties but you can't change policies. In China, you can't change the party but you can change policies.

It's also worth noting that centralization at high level is in no way at odds with local governance. I urge you to read this excellent article explaining how Chinese system encourages decentralized governance and grassroots organization https://www.noemamag.com/what-the-west-misunderstands-about-power-in-china/

Similarly, the government itself is also organized based on using grassroots structures as its foundation https://news.cgtn.com/event/2021/who-runs-the-cpc/index.html

Btw when you said “liberal democracy” I took it as a democracy where personal freedoms (speech, privacy etc) are respected at least to the point no one really complains about it.

Liberalism is an ideology with two main parts. First is political liberalism which focuses on individual freedoms, democracy, and human rights. Second is economic liberalism which centers around free markets, private property, and wealth accumulation. These two aspects form a contradiction. Political liberalism purports to support everyone’s freedom, while economic liberalism enshrines private property rights as sacred in laws and constitutions, effectively removing them from political debate.

Liberalism justifies the use of state violence to safeguard property rights, over supporting ordinary people, which contradicts the promises of fairness and equality. Private property is seen as a key part of individual freedom under liberalism, and this provides the foundational justification for the rich to keep their wealth while ignoring the needs of everyone else. The talks of promoting freedom and democracy is just a fig leaf to provide cover for justifying capitalist relations.

This is an excellent primer on the subject https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

... But the leaders of Melos were braver than me. They chose to fight. The result? The men were slaughtered, the women and children were enslaved, and the island was colonized. Were they heroes or fools? If you think of them as heroes, you are a liberal internationalist, who believes that peace and security depend on just governments that abide by enlightened rules. If you think they were fools, you’re a realist.

i used to think boudica was a great example of prevailing sentiments at how we see realism and idealism. in the past she was as regarded as a example of the price you pay for liberal idealism, like melos; but now she's regarded as an inspiring story that typifies the idealism that drives our world today.