RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[oggsmash]

Given marx was a full on degenerate...not so certain communism has not always been mixed with degeneracy and pushed by degenerates.

Depends on how different the degeneracy of today is from the degeneracy of Marx.

  Full on raging drug addict who was jobless and let his kids suffer greatly is raging degenerate in any time period.

[BadApple]

Until recently, the degeneracy of the leading lights in communism and socialism were always something kept muted if not hidden.  The blatant hedonism as a form of activism and recruitment is new.

One of the big recruitment tools had been calling out the hypocrisy and hedonism of the leadership of of the establishment as a call to arms for the common man.  It was always a form of international shadow war to inspire the closet degenerates to be more open in "capitalist" countries so that they could point to them and tell their own subject how much more righteous they were.  It's interesting to compare the Soviet and Chinese propaganda of the 1950s and 60s to the marxist movements of today.   

[SHARK]

Vietnam is a member of SEATO...

Huh? SEATO was dissolved in 1977.

Greetings!

Ahh, right right. Well, my mistake. I meant to say that Vietnam has in recent times been included in several diplomatic and military alignments with the United States, and other nations of Asia and the Pacific. I was surprised when I read about such, though apparently, it is a very real thing. US forces have coordinated with Vietnam, as well as the Philippines and India, for example. Vietnam, despite having considerable economic exchange with China, has also made it very clear that they are eager to participate in numerous defense relationships primarily aimed at containing and deterring Chinese expansion.

I think I also saw some news videos by the Times of India and Hindustan Times discussing military arrangements between India and other Pacific nations, such as Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and of course, the United States. Economically, and diplomatically, Vietnam also seems to be very much involved with India, Japan, and the Philippines, which I found to be interesting.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[oggsmash]

I think the outward degeneracy was an evolution that went with the social marxists.  They needed something to sell their rotted goods with so a reskinning was in order.  All of the commies who were in charge have always been trash humans though.  Most political figures have things about them they like to hide, but commies are the worst of the worst.

[blackstone]

Vietnam is a member of SEATO...

Huh? SEATO was dissolved in 1977.

Greetings!

Ahh, right right. Well, my mistake. I meant to say that Vietnam has in recent times been included in several diplomatic and military alignments with the United States, and other nations of Asia and the Pacific. I was surprised when I read about such, though apparently, it is a very real thing. US forces have coordinated with Vietnam, as well as the Philippines and India, for example. Vietnam, despite having considerable economic exchange with China, has also made it very clear that they are eager to participate in numerous defense relationships primarily aimed at containing and deterring Chinese expansion.

I think I also saw some news videos by the Times of India and Hindustan Times discussing military arrangements between India and other Pacific nations, such as Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and of course, the United States. Economically, and diplomatically, Vietnam also seems to be very much involved with India, Japan, and the Philippines, which I found to be interesting.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The cooperation between the various S.E. Asian nations with the US has been a long developing situation since at least the early 2000s. It has to deal with several factors:

1. The discovery of oil reserves under the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea, which led to...
2. China's military modernization program which kicked off...
3. Japan reconsidering they're place geopolitically, by upping their military budget and being more proactive They have a "multi-purpose destroyer" (let's be real: it's a carrier) named the Kaga. Ring any bells?
4. India making a concerted effort to revamp their entire military (modernization, coming sown on corruption, etc.) in response to the PRC's modernization efforts
5. South Korea now becoming one of the major arms suppliers, now beating out Russia (or close to it)
5. Vietnam's long distrust, if not outright hatred of their "neighbor's" to the north (China): PRC invaded Vietnam in '79 and got their asses handed to them by the Vietnamese. I'd say they're still bitter.

[Wrath of God]

Wilhelm von Bismark level conservative?

More like Charlemagne, Justinian, King David and Cyrus the Great level conservative.

Fascism and values it purports and lauds like strength, capability, strong men, etc are the direct opposite of anything on TBP.  That is late stage communism, the other side of the bent-too-far horseshoe.

I'd say it's neither that simple.
If anything it's cancerous outgrowth of Western liberalism, that tried to embrace various kind of quasi-communist, socialist aspects as response to percieved contradiction of liberalism (and I can kinda sympathize with this) - but since they were unable to really ditch liberalism, they also failed to embrace really leftist idea - become epitomes of narcisstic whiny attention-whoring individualism, absolutely childish ones.
TBH they have little of this fascist hero worship - see all those RPGs and works where various DIVERSE INDIVIDUALS are shown as brave empathetic heroes who PUNCH NAZIS to the ground.

One could say it's toxic synthesis of all worst sides of ideologies borne from XVIII-XIX century revolutions.

Communism and Fascism are both far left, statist ideologies. They were widely recognized as such by proponents at the time.  It was only later that fascism was retconned into a far right ideology so that the far left could distance themselves from it.  National Socialism and International Socialism were two sides of the same coin not opposite extremes bent together by some horseshoe.

Statism does not count as far left, except in more derangedly libertarian classifications.
And while fascism is openly statist - in fact it's it most crucial element, it definitely is not such with communism.

And national socialism was no fascism, and they seen as synonyms mostly through derogatory commie propaganda, and well because history kinda make them ally at one point (but we should remember there was lot of mutual disdain especially when Germans started to really push into internal affairs of Italy).

That also show nicely how all one-axis or two-axis political compasses are generally useless, unless you want to fakely put all people you dislike in one bucket for promotion of own ideals.

As an off topic question for the more politically science educated among you folks...what is an example of an explicitly right wing form of government as it functions on a state scale?

None. Because left-right division is bogus.
It serves only those who want really put themselves as true-left or true-right and condemn all others as other side - united group of enemies. That's why nationally minded populists gonna deemed far-right by socialists, but far-left by libertarians or minarchist trying to show themselves as true RIGHT.

You need bigger multi-dimensional scheme to put various ideologies around. I'd say at least 3 dimensions, probably more. Usual political compass use left-right for economical axis, which is let's say bit less controversial, but then you have Authoritarian-Libertarian axis - and what's now. Is authoritarian power right wing - sure say monarchists. Of course not gonna say libertarians. Same on the other side where anarchists and ancaps compete.

Historically left and right were used so incoherently there is nothing even close to OBJECTIVE commonly accepted definition. It's a bogus. If anything only OBJECTIVE left and right is defined as original left and right - by places taken in actual Parliament by various factions (That's how those terms first arise - from Jacobines sitting on left of early French Parliament).

[SHARK]

Vietnam is a member of SEATO...

Huh? SEATO was dissolved in 1977.

Greetings!

Ahh, right right. Well, my mistake. I meant to say that Vietnam has in recent times been included in several diplomatic and military alignments with the United States, and other nations of Asia and the Pacific. I was surprised when I read about such, though apparently, it is a very real thing. US forces have coordinated with Vietnam, as well as the Philippines and India, for example. Vietnam, despite having considerable economic exchange with China, has also made it very clear that they are eager to participate in numerous defense relationships primarily aimed at containing and deterring Chinese expansion.

I think I also saw some news videos by the Times of India and Hindustan Times discussing military arrangements between India and other Pacific nations, such as Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and of course, the United States. Economically, and diplomatically, Vietnam also seems to be very much involved with India, Japan, and the Philippines, which I found to be interesting.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The cooperation between the various S.E. Asian nations with the US has been a long developing situation since at least the early 2000s. It has to deal with several factors:

1. The discovery of oil reserves under the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea, which led to...
2. China's military modernization program which kicked off...
3. Japan reconsidering they're place geopolitically, by upping their military budget and being more proactive They have a "multi-purpose destroyer" (let's be real: it's a carrier) named the Kaga. Ring any bells?
4. India making a concerted effort to revamp their entire military (modernization, coming sown on corruption, etc.) in response to the PRC's modernization efforts
5. South Korea now becoming one of the major arms suppliers, now beating out Russia (or close to it)
5. Vietnam's long distrust, if not outright hatred of their "neighbor's" to the north (China): PRC invaded Vietnam in '79 and got their asses handed to them by the Vietnamese. I'd say they're still bitter.

Greetings!

Yes, exactly, Blackstone! Good analysis, brother! It is good to see these various nations about in Asia really get their shit together. China is very real.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[ralfy]

Communism in China led to millions of dead. In the late 1980s, Deng adjusted policies to allow foreign partners to come in, but with the Party still dominating. The result was that in two decades, they were able to lift 800 million of their people out of poverty with an ave. economic growth rate of 7 pct per annum. Some say that what they did is a variant of the East Asian model, which Japan used after WW2.

I think several months ago some Harvard professors conducted face-to-face surveys in China, with full assurance of anonymity and decreases in extraneous factors, etc. They found out that most Chinese aren't Communists but vote for the Party because the latter has been promoting the right economic policies, which in turn benefits them. In short, all the while for them it was all about doing business, but that shouldn't be surprising because early on Deng himself called for more prosperity.

What about Vietnam? It was part of containment policies promoted by the U.S., following what Kennan said, throughout the Cold War. The problem is that after the Cold War the U.S. switched to encirclement, and needed to protect the U.S. dollar by keeping other countries weak and thus dependent on the U.S. (That's what those 700+ military installations are for.) Kennan warned the government that if they kept pursuing that then red lines would be crossed and would lead to war. That's what happened in Ukraine, and the U.S. is pushing the same in Asia by using the Philippines, Japan, and even Australia to counter China.

Vietnam is caught in the middle but has been trying to play both sides. It's bullied by China but works with China on various projects, like oil exploration. It has Russia as a military ally but the U.S. has been trying to sell armaments to it. It's ruled by a Communist Party but the U.S. has an approval rating of almost 80 pct in the country. Here's the punch line: it has the most installations in the West Philippine Sea, which is claimed by the Philippines as part of its EEZ, and the Philippines is an ally of the U.S. Go figure.

Meanwhile, that's the same Philippines that's been acting as a martyr for the U.S. for many decades. The U.S. has very high approval ratings in the Philippines, with various U.S. Presidents of either party also receiving similar, and with ratings that are in several cases higher in the Philippines than in the U.S. itself. And yet the same Philippines has been abused by the U.S. for many decades, with the Bell Trade Act, support for the Marcos dictatorship to maintain bases, and then pro-U.S. politicians who followed for the same reason.

By following U.S.-style neoliberalism and liberal democracy, the Philippines de-industrialized across decades (like Ukraine), and ended up as one of the poorest in the region. Even Vietnam, a Communist country, is doing better than it on multiple factors.

It gets even weirder: recently, the U.S. told China that it will not recognize Taiwanese independence because it does not want to anger its trading partner. But it will continue arming Taiwan anyway. And remember China's claim that it owns most of the West Philippine Sea? The claim originates from Taiwan, which still maintains it. That means U.S. ally Taiwan is going against U.S. ally the Philippines.

Maybe that's the other side of the madness depicted in RGPnet and others, but I don't think even they are aware of the points above.

[Wrath of God]

Communism in China led to millions of dead. In the late 1980s, Deng adjusted policies to allow foreign partners to come in, but with the Party still dominating. The result was that in two decades, they were able to lift 800 million of their people out of poverty with an ave. economic growth rate of 7 pct per annum. Some say that what they did is a variant of the East Asian model, which Japan used after WW2.

I think several months ago some Harvard professors conducted face-to-face surveys in China, with full assurance of anonymity and decreases in extraneous factors, etc. They found out that most Chinese aren't Communists but vote for the Party because the latter has been promoting the right economic policies, which in turn benefits them. In short, all the while for them it was all about doing business, but that shouldn't be surprising because early on Deng himself called for more prosperity.

What about Vietnam? It was part of containment policies promoted by the U.S., following what Kennan said, throughout the Cold War. The problem is that after the Cold War the U.S. switched to encirclement, and needed to protect the U.S. dollar by keeping other countries weak and thus dependent on the U.S. (That's what those 700+ military installations are for.) Kennan warned the government that if they kept pursuing that then red lines would be crossed and would lead to war. That's what happened in Ukraine, and the U.S. is pushing the same in Asia by using the Philippines, Japan, and even Australia to counter China.

Vietnam is caught in the middle but has been trying to play both sides. It's bullied by China but works with China on various projects, like oil exploration. It has Russia as a military ally but the U.S. has been trying to sell armaments to it. It's ruled by a Communist Party but the U.S. has an approval rating of almost 80 pct in the country. Here's the punch line: it has the most installations in the West Philippine Sea, which is claimed by the Philippines as part of its EEZ, and the Philippines is an ally of the U.S. Go figure.

Meanwhile, that's the same Philippines that's been acting as a martyr for the U.S. for many decades. The U.S. has very high approval ratings in the Philippines, with various U.S. Presidents of either party also receiving similar, and with ratings that are in several cases higher in the Philippines than in the U.S. itself. And yet the same Philippines has been abused by the U.S. for many decades, with the Bell Trade Act, support for the Marcos dictatorship to maintain bases, and then pro-U.S. politicians who followed for the same reason.

By following U.S.-style neoliberalism and liberal democracy, the Philippines de-industrialized across decades (like Ukraine), and ended up as one of the poorest in the region. Even Vietnam, a Communist country, is doing better than it on multiple factors.

It gets even weirder: recently, the U.S. told China that it will not recognize Taiwanese independence because it does not want to anger its trading partner. But it will continue arming Taiwan anyway. And remember China's claim that it owns most of the West Philippine Sea? The claim originates from Taiwan, which still maintains it. That means U.S. ally Taiwan is going against U.S. ally the Philippines.

Maybe that's the other side of the madness depicted in RGPnet and others, but I don't think even they are aware of the points above.

Excelent post, my friend.

[oggsmash]

Doesnt China still use the "World" standard (as in 3rd world) standard for poverty?  Meaning it might have gleaming shiny cities but its poverty line is on the order of 700 bucks a year or there about?  So I am not so sure the population was lifted out of poverty in the developed world sense.  I think they created some rich people and developed something that looks like a middle class but also have people living in way deeper poverty than anything the USA understands.

[ralfy]

Doesnt China still use the "World" standard (as in 3rd world) standard for poverty?  Meaning it might have gleaming shiny cities but its poverty line is on the order of 700 bucks a year or there about?  So I am not so sure the population was lifted out of poverty in the developed world sense.  I think they created some rich people and developed something that looks like a middle class but also have people living in way deeper poverty than anything the USA understands.

I think the international threshold was set by the World Bank, and it's around two dollars a day.

If one uses $10 a day, then the world poverty rate goes up to over 70 pct.

Given that, what should be noted is the degree of change from one period to the next. In the case, of China, most of its people were lifted out of poverty. And it's the same worldwide:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

That means the size of the total economy of BRICS and the Global South are growing at a very fast rate (two decades vs. a century for the West, and the former will eventually take over, leading to a multipolar global economy.

Also, this has nothing to do with race, cultural superiority, and so on. Rather, increased industrialization and the effects of the Triffin dilemma (the U.S. holds the global reserve currency, which is a double-edged sword: it makes its exports too expensive for most and imports too cheap, which explains why it has had trade deficits since the mid-1970s) will eventually lead to a shift in power, and this time to those who used to be have-nots.

The catch is that that industrialization is based on incredible levels of energy and material resources, both of which are commonsensically limited in a physical biosphere characterized by gravity. That's why the same economies are experiencing the effects of diminishing returns: increasing amounts of energy needed to get smaller amounts of new material and of lower quality.

[ralfy]

I forgot to add that the 30 pct, found not only in industrialized countries but even developing ones (Reich reports that as early as the 1990s many Western companies were partly or majority owned by rich people in the latter, including those in the Middle East, and now in China), rely on the 70 pct to earn, borrow, spend, and consume more because their own wealth is dependent on increasing production and sales of all sorts of goods and services.

Meanwhile, more of the 70 pct become richer and take over.