this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
-4 points (45.5% liked)

Socialism

5140 readers
3 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
-4
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
 
all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

China is state run capitalism. So a tale of two flavors of one system?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

Neither country is state-run capitalism. And anyway, state capitalism is an oxymoron when a state has fiat monetary sovereignty—which the US and China do. Such a state has no need to make a profit, which is foundational to capitalism, because it can and does create as much money as it pleases. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can take Alan Greenspan’s.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

China is not state run capitalism, but I guess western libs will never stop repeating it in face of all evidence to the contrary.

[–] InfinitiZEr0@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

Indo-Chinese war of 1962 begs to differ. Many more border clashes with India that are happening almost every year, with continued annexation of Indian land inch by inch, without any retaliation by India because india is weak.

Also Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China.

[–] Lightcrater@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Nice argument, can you back it up with a source?

[–] Arelin@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

NATOpedia says "nearly 400 military interventions" for the US, listing this as the source.

China's is likely referring to the Korean war or the Vietnam war. So it should probably be 2 ig, though for Korea China was firmly on the right side of history.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Lightcrater@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I like how this has a table of many wars and their outcomes but I commend you for actually giving a source Edit: I didn't check if they initiated the conflicts, so the source might actually prove your point kinda right but I'm lazy

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago
[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

All this shows is that these two countries disagree fundamentally on how to conduct diplomacy.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

And the respective political systems of these two countries obviously play no role in this.

[–] Arelin@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago

Do you think this is because the leadership is magically nicer for some reason, or because their political/economic system is better able to stay out of conflict?

[–] BingBong@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

It also overlooks that China has historically been conquered by outside forces as its leadership grew weak. And the Communist party was having enough trouble internally feeding its people and causing issues like the "break four olds" period that there was little ability to wage effective war.

Let's also not forget the the communists literally aided the Japanese in the rape of Nanking as it helped to undermine the GuoMinDang.