BRICS & New World Order Thread

[FairAndUnbiased]

Might be a bit heretical for me to say so, but a communist party is not too different from organised religion. Certainly in the Mao (or Lenin and Stalin, or Pol Pot etc) years. Iran even had its own cultural revolution. And today, 35 years after the end of war, society is becoming increasingly secular and less ideological, focusing on economic development rather than export of the revolution. So there are some similarities

Also there was the Taiping heavenly kingdom, which really isn't discussed often enough. If you need an example of the dangers of western influences, the Christians probably did more damage to China than the British

if it is an organized religion then its the only one whose religion is pro economic development and based on science.

you know who the Soviets idolized other than Marx and Lenin? Henry Ford.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

you know what Mao's objective was other than winning the civil war? industrial development which the KMT failed at for decades.

I somehow doubt that traditional religious ideologies have such a central focus on economic development.

 

[Overbom]

if it is an organized religion then its the only one whose religion is pro economic development and based on science.

you know who the Soviets idolized other than Marx and Lenin? Henry Ford.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

you know what Mao's objective was other than winning the civil war? industrial development which the KMT failed at for decades.

I somehow doubt that traditional religious ideologies have such a central focus on economic development.

Create a religion based on economic development? Based

 

[ficker22]

Macron wants to hedge. He is doing ok for now, however I don't think its enough. He needs to signal a bit more.

In any case, getting France to participate in BRICS meetings (certainly not join BRICS itself!) would be a good idea as that would make France the weak link of the Western hegemony. After that weak link is exploited then more European countries could be influenced to do the same which would effectively paralyze the EU's function of being a US puppet

Its a long shot, but we also have to be careful. You know how the US works, they create a scandal out of nothing, Macron resigns, new US-friendly president replaces him. So Macron has to work hard to prove that France isn't so easily influenced by the US

Luckily it is widely known that he f€€€ his former teacher so that is one scandal less the usa could exploit

 

[gelgoog]

Macron is a dolt. He basically told Putin to his face that the LPR/DNR leaders had basically no rights, as granted to them under the Minsk accords, since they were not the rightful leaders of those regions. That the rightful leaders of those regions were the ones elected under fraudulent elections conducted by the Ukrainian government after Minsk was signed, which only polled populations in the fringes of those regions, a small fraction of their overall population, which did not even include their capital of the areas supposedly polled, against the original accords which specified that elections should be made where *all* people in the regions should be polled to elect the next leaders of those regions.

Macron basically told Putin, who has a degree in international law (yes Putin is a lawyer by trade), that he did not know how international treaties worked. Macron, an idiot who only got a job because of his parents connections with the elite in France. He flunked his university admission and went on to study to get a philosophy degree. i.e. he is all talk.

Macron likes to pretend he is a strong leader in the tradition of De Gaulle or the like, but it is all posturing. People who know him better know that it is all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Minm]

if it is an organized religion then its the only one whose religion is pro economic development and based on science.

you know who the Soviets idolized other than Marx and Lenin? Henry Ford.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

you know what Mao's objective was other than winning the civil war? industrial development which the KMT failed at for decades.

I somehow doubt that traditional religious ideologies have such a central focus on economic development.

Have you ever heard of the Protestant work ethic, which arguably contributed to the economic rise of America and Germany? Or the Iranian islamic foundations which are essentially like chaebols? Ideologies aren't too different, but ideological states like the modern West can be very difficult to work with if you don't subscribe to their ideology.

China is a post ideological, post revolutionary state. It should work together with other states that are pragmatic and don't put their ideology above all else

 

[BlackWindMnt]

Macron is a dolt. He basically told Putin to his face that the LPR/DNR leaders had basically no rights, as granted to them under the Minsk accords, since they were not the rightful leaders of those regions. That the rightful leaders of those regions were the ones elected under fraudulent elections conducted by the Ukrainian government after Minsk was signed, which only polled populations in the fringes of those regions, a small fraction of their overall population, which did not even include their capital of the areas supposedly polled, against the original accords which specified that elections should be made where *all* people in the regions should be polled to elect the next leaders of those regions.

Macron basically told Putin, who has a degree in international law (yes Putin is a lawyer by trade), that he did not know how international treaties worked. Macron, an idiot who only got a job because of his parents connections with the elite in France. He flunked his university admission and went on to study to get a philosophy degree. i.e. he is all talk.

Macron likes to pretend he is a strong leader in the tradition of De Gaulle or the like, but it is all posturing. People who know him better know that it is all smoke and mirrors.

Yeah can't trust European Leaders they are not the ones in the driving seats.
Putin trusted European leaders of a grander stature then the current crop of leaders and Putin still got scammed by the US.
Once the US starts pulling the strings the EU leaders will dance to US tune.

 

[quim]

Might be a bit heretical for me to say so, but a communist party is not too different from organised religion. Certainly in the Mao (or Lenin and Stalin, or Pol Pot etc) years. Iran even had its own cultural revolution. And today, 35 years after the end of war, society is becoming increasingly secular and less ideological, focusing on economic development rather than export of the revolution. So there are some similarities

Also there was the Taiping heavenly kingdom, which really isn't discussed often enough. If you need an example of the dangers of western influences, the Christians probably did more damage to China than the British

In the West some identify that Marxist revolutions were financed by Western businessmen and their governments to destabilize and delay industrialization and potential competition from great powers that could urbanize and rival the UK and then the US.

And indeed, a Russian Empire in the process of urbanization and industrialization would be more threatening in size to the British ambitions than the German Empire was. And a China without the Opium Wars and Western occupation could be far more powerful than Meiji-era Japan.

And with countless revolutions and impractical dominant ideas, Russia and China did not threaten Western hegemony for a long time, which only grew.

Even the USSR at its peak was never a real threat that aroused so much insecurity in the US, as the USSR was self-isolated and could hardly finance its own technology and supply the market, without being able to compete with the US.

But today, China has a competitive market economy and a farsighted and patriotic political elite, which is why China generates so much insecurity in the US and exposes the weakness and historical fears of the American Empire.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

In the West some identify that Marxist revolutions were financed by Western businessmen and their governments to destabilize and delay industrialization and potential competition from great powers that could urbanize and rival the UK and then the US.

And indeed, a Russian Empire in the process of urbanization and industrialization would be more threatening in size to the British ambitions than the German Empire was. And a China without the Opium Wars and Western occupation could be far more powerful than Meiji-era Japan.

And with countless revolutions and impractical dominant ideas, Russia and China did not threaten Western hegemony for a long time, which only grew.

Even the USSR at its peak was never a real threat that aroused so much insecurity in the US, as the USSR was self-isolated and could hardly finance its own technology and supply the market, without being able to compete with the US.

But today, China has a competitive market economy and a farsighted and patriotic political elite, which is why China generates so much insecurity in the US and exposes the weakness and historical fears of the American Empire.

How did Marxism contribute to the Opium Wars? How was an industrializing Russian Empire a threat to the British when they were humiliated by much weaker Imperial Japan after half a century of industrializing under the very non-Marxist tsars?

The first revolutionary sent to China was Sun Yat-sen from Japan, who predated Lenin. Though regarded as a national hero, his ideology failed to unite China. Is this an example of a western financed politician with impractical ideas that held back the country? Would the Qing monarchy have done better? If they would have how come they didn't do better in the 70 years between the Opium Wars and Sun Yat-sen?

 

[2handedswordsman]

Have you ever heard of the Protestant work ethic, which arguably contributed to the economic rise of America and Germany? Or the Iranian islamic foundations which are essentially like chaebols? Ideologies aren't too different, but ideological states like the modern West can be very difficult to work with if you don't subscribe to their ideology.

China is a post ideological, post revolutionary state. It should work together with other states that are pragmatic and don't put their ideology above all else

Believing that Marxism is like a religion doesn't help you to understand a subject correctly especially if it has to do with Marxism. Fist of all Marxism is based scientifically on the philosophy current of materialism, more specific dialectical materialism. Conservatists and neo-liberals get their philosophy from Idealism. After that, the whole point is the point of view. Marxists never invented any marxist physics, mathematics or else. It's about how do you make the knowledge to be applied and evolve. It's about setting the material terms of how the society works (or could work) based on scientific research both in economy and the society. China I believe is meta-revolutionary. Russia is post, but the marks of the revolution remains firm till nowdays. Anyone saw the flags raised in St.Petersburg recently? A Russian Imperial, a USSR and a modern Russia's flag side by side...how many lols?? Hmm maybe Russia can be considered meta-revolutionary judjing by the West's posture. Who knows?

 

[quim]

How did Marxism contribute to the Opium Wars? How was an industrializing Russian Empire a threat to the British when they were humiliated by much weaker Imperial Japan after half a century of industrializing under the very non-Marxist tsars?

The first revolutionary sent to China was Sun Yat-sen from Japan, who predated Lenin. Though regarded as a national hero, his ideology failed to unite China. Is this an example of a western financed politician with impractical ideas that held back the country? Would the Qing monarchy have done better? If they would have how come they didn't do better in the 70 years between the Opium Wars and Sun Yat-sen?

I didn't say Marxism. I said Marxist revolutions and consequences.

And it was just one of several sabotage operations that have been part of the history of Anglo interference in the world. The British have always financed movements that destabilized and could weaken their enemies at certain times, from piracy and even support for revolutions to delay the rival French and Austrian empires in Europe itself, operations within Germany that generated the world wars and so on.

It has always been Anglo doctrine to support divisions financially to occupy their rivals' time.

Today Anglos still explicitly support the Nazis in Ukraine, radical Islamic groups and terrorists in the Middle East against secular and rational Islamic countries. It is just a continuation of the Anglo policy of sabotage and division, supporting radicals to weaken competition.

The Anglos will always be enemies of peace and possible prosperity for others. Peace and prosperity they only support for themselves.