Apr 13, 2022Womanpuncher69lol its still f*** the Dalai Lama
Cia asset
Apr 13, 2022·1 replykrishna bound
Marx from his grave when he realizes he never considered "but what if someone drop £1000"
- Apr 13, 2022fun guy
Marx from his grave when he realizes he never considered "but what if someone drop £1000"
- Apr 13, 2022·1 reply
is there a word for this, propaganda which is so ineffective it ends making the other side look based?
- Apr 13, 2022·1 replyhttps://twitter.com/orikron/status/1513858891204997125krishna bound
is there a word for this, propaganda which is so ineffective it ends making the other side look based?
i’m a maoist and this is making me a dengist
- Apr 13, 2022·1 replyWomanpuncher69
i’m a maoist and this is making me a dengist
U watching this nets game?
- Apr 13, 2022space0cadet
U watching this nets game?
nah listening to frank ocean and drawing
Apr 13, 2022·4 repliesBeen reading a lot ot Ha Joon Chang, very interesting to learn about how east asia developped/industrialized and how mainstream economists not only don't give credit to the methods they used but how they then go back in time and retcon how western europe developped itself. They all needed state intervention and heavy protectionism for decades, and onlu once their industries were safe did they start talking about "free trade". But the mainstream economists ofc just ignore the first step. Now my question is why didn't Africa get to develop the way the east asians were?
Apr 13, 2022·edited·1 replyLeinBeen reading a lot ot Ha Joon Chang, very interesting to learn about how east asia developped/industrialized and how mainstream economists not only don't give credit to the methods they used but how they then go back in time and retcon how western europe developped itself. They all needed state intervention and heavy protectionism for decades, and onlu once their industries were safe did they start talking about "free trade". But the mainstream economists ofc just ignore the first step. Now my question is why didn't Africa get to develop the way the east asians were?
East Asia was not subjugated nearly to the degree Africa was because of the historical presence of extremely powerful empires across the continent
- Apr 13, 2022·1 replyamericana· edited
East Asia was not subjugated nearly to the degree Africa was because of the historical presence of extremely powerful empires across the continent
wdym
Apr 13, 2022·edited·1 replyLeinBeen reading a lot ot Ha Joon Chang, very interesting to learn about how east asia developped/industrialized and how mainstream economists not only don't give credit to the methods they used but how they then go back in time and retcon how western europe developped itself. They all needed state intervention and heavy protectionism for decades, and onlu once their industries were safe did they start talking about "free trade". But the mainstream economists ofc just ignore the first step. Now my question is why didn't Africa get to develop the way the east asians were?
Much of Africa did develop for a while until the late 70s, much of it was undone by the third world debt crisis
- Apr 13, 2022
And yeah protectionism and other forms of state intervention to build up your own industry is a very important step to development, all western countries did it, now they're kicking away the ladder as Ha Joon Chang put
- Apr 13, 2022·1 replyLein
wdym
Like Japan for example wasn't subjugated like African countries because it was an empire in its own right
- Apr 13, 2022·2 repliesScratchin Mamba
Like Japan for example wasn't subjugated like African countries because it was an empire in its own right
Yeah but Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, n Hong Kong all have colonial Histories
- Apr 13, 2022·edited·2 repliesLein
Yeah but Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, n Hong Kong all have colonial Histories
That's true, these countries were propped up in order to wear off communism, they got a higher spot on the totem pole of the global order after WW2, they were allowed to have their own developmentalist state capitalist economic policies with entire 5 year plans and all. The threat of communism and socialism was obvious in some of these countries like South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan, but it was a real threat in Japan also, during much of the 50s their second biggest party was a socialist party, which worried the US so much that the CIA pumped millions into Japan's liberal party.
The question of why they chose this method of propping these countries up, as opposed to a more subjugative and exploitative approach like in Latin America for example is another question. I think it's mostly because the US had more of a say than Europe as an emerging global hegemon post-WW2, and they didn't have east Asian countries as their own "backyard" as they did in Latin America, so their interest in the region skewed more towards geopolitics and ideology than direct short term corporate interests as had been the case in Latam. And propping up capitalist countries to ensure development to wear off revolution and a model for development in other countries is one way to do that, the US also did this in Europe post-WW2 or on a smaller scale in Puerto Rico after the Cuban Revolution.
And you can see how this has turned out historically too. Geopolitically, these East Asian countries are much more tied to the US, but the US isn't able to exploit these countries on the same level that they are in Latin America, since they are much more on the same level. But on the other hand, while the US is much more able to exploit Latin America, it has been a constant battle to keep Latin American countries in their orbit geopolitically up until this day, which you don't see to the same extent in those East Asian countries.
Apr 13, 2022!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhvlnC-oKEwspace0cadet"Some type of socialism like european countries"
every f***ing time- Apr 13, 2022Lein
Yeah but Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, n Hong Kong all have colonial Histories
the only third world countries to rise to first world living standards are taiwan south korea and japan.
the common thread between them should be self evident but id draw comparisons to why the countries on the border of the eastern block had much much more robust social democratic systems in place.
the best way to fight communism is to prop up the success of surrounding countries and use them as both propaganda and staging points for hybrid warfare. without significant advances in socialism in southern america there was no need to significantly artificially inflate the success of US puppet states, leading to the uncontested severity of exploitation imo.
Apr 13, 2022·1 replyfiveprestosBro Joe Rogan’s one thing, but who the hell made this happen
!https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xBPjeCRmKZI&t=222s
Info on who this mf is
Apr 13, 2022👑
- Apr 13, 2022·1 replyScratchin Mamba
That's true, these countries were propped up in order to wear off communism, they got a higher spot on the totem pole of the global order after WW2, they were allowed to have their own developmentalist state capitalist economic policies with entire 5 year plans and all. The threat of communism and socialism was obvious in some of these countries like South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan, but it was a real threat in Japan also, during much of the 50s their second biggest party was a socialist party, which worried the US so much that the CIA pumped millions into Japan's liberal party.
The question of why they chose this method of propping these countries up, as opposed to a more subjugative and exploitative approach like in Latin America for example is another question. I think it's mostly because the US had more of a say than Europe as an emerging global hegemon post-WW2, and they didn't have east Asian countries as their own "backyard" as they did in Latin America, so their interest in the region skewed more towards geopolitics and ideology than direct short term corporate interests as had been the case in Latam. And propping up capitalist countries to ensure development to wear off revolution and a model for development in other countries is one way to do that, the US also did this in Europe post-WW2 or on a smaller scale in Puerto Rico after the Cuban Revolution.
And you can see how this has turned out historically too. Geopolitically, these East Asian countries are much more tied to the US, but the US isn't able to exploit these countries on the same level that they are in Latin America, since they are much more on the same level. But on the other hand, while the US is much more able to exploit Latin America, it has been a constant battle to keep Latin American countries in their orbit geopolitically up until this day, which you don't see to the same extent in those East Asian countries.
I think the reason why the Latin american countries didn't get that same allowance was because their objective was primarily exploitation not state craft. East Asia wasn't a critical economic region for them the way Latin America was.
I think they had just as much if not even more say in East Asia at least at the beginning since the US military had hundreds of thousands of troops stationed there while in LatAm their influence was mostly by proxy. They could've set a policy similar to the LatAm one, but it would have been counterproductive because theres no economic incentive and the security aspect requires a different approach. 1. The raw materials that those LatAm puppet states were singularly structured around extracting werent there in Korea or Singapore. 2. Like you mentioned the specter of Communism is much realer in East Asia, the instability and economic weakness that comes with a 50s Cuba type of state makes it a terrible buffer state especially when it's so close to the USSR and China.
Thinking about Africa again I'm leaning towards the explanation of neocolonialism and the structural adjustments you mentioned.
Apr 13, 2022·1 replykrishna boundhow in the f***
I’d this different than having pastors and religious figures on the breakfast club n hot97
I feel like I’m missing something
- Apr 13, 2022·1 replyPhlegm
@fiveprestos
I’d this different than having pastors and religious figures on the breakfast club n hot97
I feel like I’m missing something
Sadghuru isnt the same as having a religious guru on. This is more the equivalent of having a cult leader who's gotten away with multiple crimes on. He promotes himself as basically an eastern guru toward westerners, but in reality he owns a shady foundation called Isha and has a large history of both his organization and himself committing numerous crimes, but hides behind his religion and the ethno-religious nationalism common in India in order to take advantage of others and stay free.
- Apr 13, 2022krishna bound
Sadghuru isnt the same as having a religious guru on. This is more the equivalent of having a cult leader who's gotten away with multiple crimes on. He promotes himself as basically an eastern guru toward westerners, but in reality he owns a shady foundation called Isha and has a large history of both his organization and himself committing numerous crimes, but hides behind his religion and the ethno-religious nationalism common in India in order to take advantage of others and stay free.
Gonna look into this more. Thx
- Apr 13, 2022Vox
Info on who this mf is
See above^^^
- Apr 13, 2022Scratchin Mamba
That's true, these countries were propped up in order to wear off communism, they got a higher spot on the totem pole of the global order after WW2, they were allowed to have their own developmentalist state capitalist economic policies with entire 5 year plans and all. The threat of communism and socialism was obvious in some of these countries like South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan, but it was a real threat in Japan also, during much of the 50s their second biggest party was a socialist party, which worried the US so much that the CIA pumped millions into Japan's liberal party.
The question of why they chose this method of propping these countries up, as opposed to a more subjugative and exploitative approach like in Latin America for example is another question. I think it's mostly because the US had more of a say than Europe as an emerging global hegemon post-WW2, and they didn't have east Asian countries as their own "backyard" as they did in Latin America, so their interest in the region skewed more towards geopolitics and ideology than direct short term corporate interests as had been the case in Latam. And propping up capitalist countries to ensure development to wear off revolution and a model for development in other countries is one way to do that, the US also did this in Europe post-WW2 or on a smaller scale in Puerto Rico after the Cuban Revolution.
And you can see how this has turned out historically too. Geopolitically, these East Asian countries are much more tied to the US, but the US isn't able to exploit these countries on the same level that they are in Latin America, since they are much more on the same level. But on the other hand, while the US is much more able to exploit Latin America, it has been a constant battle to keep Latin American countries in their orbit geopolitically up until this day, which you don't see to the same extent in those East Asian countries.
bruh japan commie history is crazy they had someone hijack a plane and fly off to North Korea and another small proto maoist group declaring running of to the forest and ppw against the state and once they lost it was revealed most of them died in training