Cowbee

joined 2 years ago
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 days ago (17 children)

Germany is also imperialist. The countries that rely on imperialism have higher metrics by plundering the global south. It's kinda like looking at life expectancy of the rich vs the poor in any one country, the better metrics of the top come at the expense of the bottom.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 days ago (23 children)

Political Economy is complex. What GDP aims to measure is overall production, it's an explanation of wealth, however it paints a very uneven picture as it overvalues financial transactions and undervalues raw productive capacity. As a consequence, imperialist countries are overvalued (like the US), while production-focused countries are under-represented.

GDP is often pushed by liberal, western countries as it makes them look good. A more honest look, however, is multi-faceted and takes into account other metrics like social services, which often run into negative "profitability" or break even, as they aren't producing for profit. There's also the fact that the US doesn't outproduce in non-physical goods either. The US certainly has popular media and software, but it doesn't have overwhelming productive capacity in these areas.

The point of focusing on BRICS is because if you remove the financialized, almost ficticious look at capital as displayed by GDP, BRICS is more economically strong and significant, and this better reflects the real world, not just US-based self-perception.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 days ago (26 children)

GDP is a terrible measure of genuine economic output, especially considering that it doesn't center production, but transaction and currency. A system highly financialized like the US, in reality, produces far less than China does, yet the US GDP is larger due to the dollar.

Plus, people still show up to argue all the time.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago

Horse is a Lemmygrad.ml account. Their comments arw invisible when viewing this post from Lemmy.world, thanks to Lemmy.world censorship.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

.world has Lemmygrad.ml and Hexbear.net blocked, not Lemmy.ml. If .worlders could not see Lemmy.ml posts, they would not be able to see OP, OP's post, or the community we are commenting in.

Coincidentally, dbzer0 blocks Lemmygrad.ml as well.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Hopefully, as US influence wanes, relations between the DPRK and ROK can move in a positive direction. Korea is one nation with two governments. One people. President Lee Jae-Myung seems to be interested in boosting ties with the DPRK and PRC, and being less reliant on the US and Japan, so this genuinely seems like a positive shift after President Yoon's impeachment.

I hope to one day see the resurgance of the PRK (1945-1946), one unified country over all of Korea.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Lemmy.world blocks Lemmygrad.ml, unfortunately, so they can't see Horse's comment.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

No, this is wrong.

  1. The Soviet economic system was federated and planned. The political control in Moscow wasn't absolute by any stretch.

  2. The various Soviet Republics were not colonies, not by any stretch. Resources and goods were shipped around the whole system as needed, not just imported into Moscow.

  3. There was no forcible cultural assimilation. There was a huge effort to cultivate a soviet identity, but there wasn't an attempt to erase cultural identity. The famine in the 1930s was caused by natural causes, not "demographic engineering," grain was re-allocated to Ukraine once it was known that there were famine conditions. There was forcible re-allocation of various ethnic groups like Koreans, which did exist, but this isn't the same claim you made either in scope or character.

So no. The USSR was not imperialist, not by the correct concept of imperialism as a form of international extraction, nor the vague "Soviet Bad" thing you tried to make it out to be.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

The US is absolutely an Empire, it practices imperialism, by which it extracts vast wealth from the global south. The USSR didn't do that.

Further, I'm absolutely focused on economics. The Soviet economy slowed, but was still growing. The dissolution of the USSR was multifaceted, complex, and not boiled down to one failure. Further, its conditions are entirely different from the US, which is a decaying Empire, the fruits of imperialism are diminishing and disparity is rising.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, economics are core to my analysis.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago

The US has always been a settler-colony, but it became more Imperialist after World War I with the inter-ally debts. It became world hegemon after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (4 children)

The USSR wasn't an Empire, which played into that. Further, the reforms it introduced weren't because it opened up too late, but because they played against the socialist system of planning. The PRC's approach to economic reform retained full state control and is focused on unity, rather than disunity, which is why it's working.

view more: ‹ prev next ›