BRICS wants to expand

[Farm Boy]

China believe each country should bee free to choice their own type of governement, even if it's not democratic.

Except, you know, when the PRC wants something. Then if you assert you can choose, it asserts it can kill you.

Imperials and conquerors are all the same wherever and whenever they are. The worst humans to ever be vomited upon the earth. May their mothers rot in hell.

 

[Henri Christophe]

What principles do you want to govern that kind of future world?

This answer changes country to country, for example to US the best is the democracy, but for China the best is the socialism. Other countries as UK or Saudi Arabia the best is the Monarchy.
What I think is wrong is a country as US trying to enforce Democracy to everyone, some countries as Ruanda, who was governement by a minority Tutsi have a lot of troubles, as a genocide, when the democracy gave power to Hutus, and this situation just came back when a Tutsi leader took the power by force and it's a dictatorship since then. So, Ruanda case is an example wher democracy isn't a good solution for all countries.

 

[Birdjaguar]

but for China the best is the socialism.

I suggest you ask the Chinese about that. The CCP has less than 100 million members out of 1.4 billion people. About 7%.

 

[Verbose]

This answer changes country to country, for example to US the best is the democracy, but for China the best is the socialism. Other countries as UK or Saudi Arabia the best is the Monarchy.
What I think is wrong is a country as US trying to enforce Democracy to everyone, some countries as Ruanda, who was governement by a minority Tutsi have a lot of troubles, as a genocide, when the democracy gave power to Hutus, and this situation just came back when a Tutsi leader took the power by force and it's a dictatorship since then. So, Ruanda case is an example wher democracy isn't a good solution for all countries.

Nonono, it's not a question about the individual countries and how they work internally – it is about how they are supposed to peacefully coexist, as you said.

What principles need to be in place, mutually agreed upon and mutually maintained, and how?

 

[Henri Christophe]

I suggest you ask the Chinese about that.

I have a chinese friend called Xie, and she told me that:
It's know through the history all governement of China will fall some day, but they hope each one perdure as long as possible.
And while the population is happy, there will stay a socialist the China.


But I guess, that of asking of Chinese, the answer will change for chinese to chinese, I fell like Hong Kong chinese are more propably in favor of democratic changes on China meanwhile someone of other provinces would be satisfited with socialism.

 

[red_elk]

I suggest you ask the Chinese about that. The CCP has less than 100 million members out of 1.4 billion people. About 7%.

In USSR, party membership was considered a privilege and honor which had to be deserved. I suppose it's similar in China.

 

[Crezth]

Yes I'm aware of the Machiavellianism. It's just Machiavellianism is SO EVIL that most people find it reprehensible and would prefer a more moral and a less Lucifarian means of progression. Hence the split of Western leftists from Oriental leftists.

Some would wonder what was moral about Western leftists accepting a welfare state in many countries in exchange for continuing to pillage the workers of the rest of the world. I don't think the Western leftists believe in liberty because they choose to be good. They believe in liberty because the conflict they're facing is whether they should keep hurting others, or decline to continue doing so. They choose liberty so that they can justify whatever. They choose liberty so they don't have to be accountable.

Also how would the red princes be overthrown? How would that particular centralized socialist system crumble into communism and not return to a nation state run by an oligarchy like in Russia or even China? When there's no more outward/external alternative in the geopolitical world and the only thing left is for the socialism to cannibalize itself without returning to the outside worlds ways of doing things? In other words socialism has to conquer the world first so the masses including the red princes no longer see any alternatives and see socialism as monolithic and given thus triggering the necessary degeneration into communism via class conflict between them?

Yes.

But how can you have concerns for their souls if you believe in EVIL Machiavellianism? Does not your heart seem disingenuous and hypocritical?

Hahaha! I "believe" in it like I believe in the sun and the moon. The world may be ruled by devils, and humanity may be at the mercy of powerful forces it can barely comprehend, but humans are still humans.

But EVIL Machiavellianism is too reviled by most people of good conscience to ever be followed, hence the preference for democratic methods of peace and goodliness.

I mean, there's a whole buncha people in BRICS.

The masses are reviled by Machiavellianism and view it as the perceptions of a sick and twisted mind that only cares about themselves believing the ends justify the means. Very antisocial behavior and human beings are evolved to weed out and exile those who display such antisocial behavior for it is a threat to the tribe that we social animals depend on for our very survival against the outside elements.

Most are therefore genetically predisposed to hate Machiavellianism. It's an Avengers level threat!

People feel all sorts of ways, but they still work for their masters.

Also Unions aren't racist anymore like they were in the 30s and 40s, get with the times man!

A lot of progress has been made but you're in a dream world if you think racial discrimination and segregation are solved issues, within unions or outside of them.

Hence containment of Russians in the Ukraine leads to a reduction in the overall chances of queer genocide over here.

No... this is just wishful thinking and, honestly, a pitiful justification. At the end of the day, nations do not have "consciences" and the only reason people in any countries care about genocide is to justify invading other countries, thus oftentimes actually doing more genocide, or because it's part of their history they're curse-bound never to forget.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I have a chinese friend called Xie, and she told me that:
It's know through the history all governement of China will fall some day, but they hope each one perdure as long as possible.
And while the population is happy, there will stay a socialist the China.


But I guess, that of asking of Chinese, the answer will change for chinese to chinese, I fell like Hong Kong chinese are more propably in favor of democratic changes on China meanwhile someone of other provinces would be satisfited with socialism.

At my old school I had a Chinese-American friend whose parents fled during Deng’s regime who said that “communism is intolerable, and China (as the head of communism) should fall with it.”
I have another friend (a family friend) who had lived under Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward, and she was nearly killed by the CCP.

 

[Joij21]

Some would wonder what was moral about Western leftists accepting a welfare state in many countries in exchange for continuing to pillage the workers of the rest of the world. I don't think the Western leftists believe in liberty because they choose to be good. They believe in liberty because the conflict they're facing is whether they should keep hurting others, or decline to continue doing so. They choose liberty so that they can justify whatever. They choose liberty so they don't have to be accountable.

Yes but a civil war, a violent overthrow leads to more death, and would include death to many of those workers which one wishes to protect.

Accepting a welfare state is more moral cause it doesn't risk excess death via war that would harm your constituents. And it's part of a slow transitory process to improve the conditions of workers over many generations until they are no longer exploited.

Yes.

It would be disgusting and disappointing if you then required them to achieve this also through war and excess casualties for the workers which your trying to help cross over into the communist utopia.

Hahaha! I "believe" in it like I believe in the sun and the moon. The world may be ruled by devils, and humanity may be at the mercy of powerful forces it can barely comprehend, but humans are still humans.

But how can you say you care when you then want them to throw their lives away through class conflict?

Will you risk your life too? Or will you choose not to fight and let them do all the fighting and dying while you just eat bonbons all day?

I mean, there's a whole buncha people in BRICS.

I meant the common man not the elites.

People feel all sorts of ways, but they still work for their masters.

No they work for themselves and their closest of kin and mostly ignore what the so called elites are doing until those elites try to prevent them from properly working for themselves and closest kin.

The masters were never masters they are just fools who believe they are in the driver's seat but are nevertheless in the passengers seat, the common man is in the driver's seat.

Always has always will. And when it isn't that's when all the periods of civil war have taken place throughout history. Leadership always exists because of consent by the people, it's called the social contract.

A lot of progress has been made but you're in a dream world if you think racial discrimination and segregation are solved issues, within unions or outside of them.

Eh enough progress has probably been made whereby you wouldn't get an exact repeat of the past.

No... this is just wishful thinking and, honestly, a pitiful justification. At the end of the day, nations do not have "consciences" and the only reason people in any countries care about genocide is to justify invading other countries, thus oftentimes actually doing more genocide, or because it's part of their history they're curse-bound never to forget.

It's about preventing a toppling of dominoes that could lead it to spread here, hence better "over there! Over there! We'll be over, we'll be over, but it won't be over till it's over, over there!"

 

[Kyriakos]

I read a report about someone wanting to be in Brics, but who couldn't make it. @r16 ? ^^

 

[Crezth]

Yes but a civil war, a violent overthrow leads to more death, and would include death to many of those workers which one wishes to protect.

Accepting a welfare state is more moral cause it doesn't risk excess death via war that would harm your constituents. And it's part of a slow transitory process to improve the conditions of workers over many generations until they are no longer exploited.

I don't really think it's about counting beans and trying to do the best for the most workers at any given point. It's about developing the progressive forces of society and improving its material conditions. Whether a civil war is bad is irrelevant to whether it is inevitable. The welfare state, however, constantly creates excess death and war and harms foreign countries and colonizes foreign nations in exchange for the compliance of the domestic working class, which becomes stratified and syndicalized within the social democracy. Yes, however, the process is slow and dialectical, and ultimately pursues the inevitable.

It would be disgusting and disappointing if you then required them to achieve this also through war and excess casualties for the workers which your trying to help cross over into the communist utopia.

I require nothing. It is about what reality requires. And perhaps it does not require another war. But I think the regime of socialist state offers a better chance of progressing society and promoting the general conditions for mass democracy than the pathetic syndicalist table scrap-begging of the current western democracies.

But how can you say you care when you then want them to throw their lives away through class conflict?

They will throw their lives away. It doesn't matter what I want. The class conflict is beyond any of us individually.

Will you risk your life too? Or will you choose not to fight and let them do all the fighting and dying while you just eat bonbons all day?

I've been in this fight since I was a child.

I meant the common man not the elites.

The relationship is dialectical.

No they work for themselves and their closest of kin and mostly ignore what the so called elites are doing until those elites try to prevent them from properly working for themselves and closest kin.

The masters were never masters they are just fools who believe they are in the driver's seat but are nevertheless in the passengers seat, the common man is in the driver's seat.

Always has always will. And when it isn't that's when all the periods of civil war have taken place throughout history. Leadership always exists because of consent by the people, it's called the social contract.

The "common man" in your analogy is a witless and unaware driver, who has no sensation of his hands, no sensation of the wheel, the acceleration, the brake, the gear shift, or even the road ahead. It is the collective unconsciousness of all humanity which drives the inevitable forces of civilization onwards, and with capitalism, we are adrift. Scientific socialism is the cure to this problem. Collective, organized, and disciplined action, with correct practice.

Eh enough progress has probably been made whereby you wouldn't get an exact repeat of the past.

Usually is the case.

It's about preventing a toppling of dominoes that could lead it to spread here, hence better "over there! Over there! We'll be over, we'll be over, but it won't be over till it's over, over there!"

Again, you know, I fled Ohio because it's already spread over here, over here, over over over here, because it's in our frickin' water, because we still have sundown towns, so I do not know what the hell you keep going on about.

 

[Joij21]

Again, you know, I fled Ohio because it's already spread over here, over here, over over over here, because it's in our frickin' water, because we still have sundown towns, so I do not know what the hell you keep going on about.

Yo it's Ohio! When we mean over here we mean more civilized parts of the empire like California or New York.

Ohio is just as much of the periphery as Ukraine is.

I don't really think it's about counting beans and trying to do the best for the most workers at any given point.

Uhh yeah it is because that's how most NORMAL people think. It's about improving their lives now cause we only live once. Y.O.L.O.

It is about what reality requires.

Reality outside the body requires nothing, it is formless and dead.

They will throw their lives away. It doesn't matter what I want. The class conflict is beyond any of us individually.

They have an ability to make their own decisions and things may very well never get bad enough whereby they would.

I've been in this fight since I was a child.

But are you adequately fighting, or all your so called "fights" inadequate and impotent?

The relationship is dialectical.

But you can't claim Socialism is inevitable because society could easily move in a completely different direction. You just can't predict the far off future.

The "common man" in your analogy is a witless and unaware driver, who has no sensation of his hands, no sensation of the wheel, the acceleration, the brake, the gear shift, or even the road ahead. It is the collective unconsciousness of all humanity which drives the inevitable forces of civilization onwards.

Very insulting, because from the driver's perspective he has full control at all times combined with sheer grit and determination. His car representing society serves him for it is the social contract, and the leaders mere figureheads to talk with foreigners are in the passenger seat. See the driver doesn't like speaking with foreigners so he delegates that duty to the figurehead for such diplomacy to be conducted.

Usually is the case.

Common man! Live a little! Let's try it again and it might work.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Scientific socialism is the cure to this problem.

Interesting.

Scientific socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Joij21]

And that's precisely why scientific socialism is pro social darwinism.

Meaning their purges and violent cultural revolutions are part of the artificial selection process of breeding humans into a more communal and less greedy species.

 

[Crezth]

I'll respond to your other post later, but it's not about breeding humans at all, or changing the species at all. One must accept the reality that humans are as humans are. It is exactly because we accept this reality that we accept humans must be controlled. In the most obvious case, from murdering one another or committing acts of violence. We collectively endeavor to control that through the artifice of law, that ever-metastasizing compromise between the egoes of the powerful and the needs of the masses. Why is murder illegal? Because our society has developed now so that we will not tolerate any authority that does not regulate it.

Is protecting people from the depravities of the private market, and protecting the future of civilization from the anarchy of production, not simply an extension of the mandate that human law has always had, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land so that the strong will not harm the weak?

 

[Joij21]

Is protecting people from the depravities of the private market, and protecting the future of civilization from the anarchy of production, not simply an extension of the mandate that human law has always had, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land so that the strong will not harm the weak?

So purging people and creating a cultural revolution that pits neighbor against neighbor is about making it so the strong shall not harm the weak? Uh, okay buddy.

But like even if that were true, socialism would give way to communism and communism is an anarchial system without any government whatsoever. Who enforces the law then?

 

[Takhisis]

The BBC is reporting that the new invitees are "Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates".

So I'm curious what Takhisis's thoughts are.

I'm not sure how significant being part of BRICS really is? I thought it was a grouping of countries with similar economic growth patterns in the 90s and 2000s, who decided to start a coordination group, but that is wasn't a whole lot more than just that - a policy coordination group.

As the oracle at Tezmir says, you have paid the price and I am summoned once more.

Argentina's incorporation is a *weird* thing.

Argentina has a directly elected president who's legally the head of state and of government. It has a vice-president who's the actual ‘owner’ of most of the pro-government votes and the ideological director of the movement. It also has a ‘cabinet chief’ who's supposed to be a bit like a prime minister, appointed at the whim of the president. The foreign minister is… this idiot. He takes pride in not speaking English well because it means he hasn't been corrupted by imperialism.

Now, Argentina doesn't have a Congress. I mean, it does, but ever since the current misgovernment took office, first Congress was suspended using Covid-19 as an excuse and then the VP (who presides the Senate) actually got caught on tape saying that she didn't want to let people who weren't in her favour speak. As a result, congress has had six sessions so far in 2022. Congress is deadlocked due to fragmentation anyway so the executive legislates by decree.
Furthermore, the president of Argentina has been convicted for crimes in office (breaking his own travel restrictions to hold wild parties at the presidential residence like Boris Johnson) and the vice-president has been convicted for embezzlement and is undergoing trial for a few dozen more crimes including conspiracy, murder, etc. The ticket on which they won the election was technically invalid due to a hard constitutional ban on re-election.
In effect, both of them have mostly abandoned the reins of the country. The country's run by the ‘super-minister’ (sic) for Economy, who is a known pathological betrayer with no conviction except immediate personal gain. This is our presidential candidate for the upcomign October elections. The man is not an economist, so inflation has already worsened, in his first year in office, from 100% yearly to… 150? 200? We don't really know. We're closing in on hyperinflation and fast.
The president, still formally in office, says that he doesn't have anything to say about recent spates of organised looting, rising cartel-dominated crime, and more because he has already renounced his bid for re-election (he supports his superminister).

In the upcoming elections it'll be a disaster for the sitting government. The convictions of the super-minister are heavily against those of the vice-president who acts as ideological guard, but he once promised to jail her (before rejoining her).
The incorporation of Argentina to BRICS is going to be a disaster and it will most likely founder. First of all, it hasn't been run through Congress, so it technically hasn't happened: the constitution says that only congress can approve international treaties. Second: any of the possible winners in October (or a runoff in November) are explicitly against an alliance with such countries. So it won't be. This is a last-gasp measure to cut off one's nose to spite the face and do as much harm as they go and saddle us with grandafthered legislation a bit like the US Republicans packing the Supreme Court in 2020. The executive's not nominating anybody to the vacant seat in our Supreme Court because they don't have the votes to impose a partisan hack of their own.

On the international dimension, it is a major blunder. We were dragged along by Lula Da Silva, with whose Brazil we are already allied through the regional MERCOSUR bloc.
We have a latent conflict with Iran over its continued, decades-long support of organised crime to finance terrorism in Argentina (mostly the drug trade for Hezbollah) but also specifically for two bombings and later the assassination of a federal prosecutor who was investigating them.
We have just been saved from defaulting on our sovereign debt (yet again) by a short-term loan from Qatar. Entering an alliance with Saudi Arabia would be, uhm, ridiculous. Argentina being the Papal homeland and entering an alliance with a country in which Christianity is outright forbidden makes it even more so.
We also owe a crapton of money to other countries to which BRICS is more or less openly opposed. And we're asking them for leniency but at the same time fawn on their enemies.
Oh, China. They don't need BRICS to incorporate us, they already have a military base (against the constitution and congress, of course) down in Neuquén. They've been trying to use debt-traps to seize ports in Tierra del Fuego to gain access to Antarctica.

Enough?

 

[Crezth]

So purging people and creating a cultural revolution that pits neighbor against neighbor is about making it so the strong shall not harm the weak? Uh, okay buddy.

You say “neighbor against neighbor” but I say “exploiter against exploited” and “landlord against tenant” and “factory owners versus workers.” The cultural revolution was quite complicated but one thing it was not was the worst disaster China had that century.

It was also a political venture of Mao’s to retain control. But what can you do? There’s some people who want to do a cultural revolution here and would be unmoved by paeans to solidarity with neighbors. Indeed neighbors can be an oppressive thing.

But like even if that were true, socialism would give way to communism and communism is an anarchial system without any government whatsoever. Who enforces the law then?

Nobody, thus making it a moot point. But does it matter? Communism is a mostly hypothetical state anyway elicited by the final elimination of class conflict. But its still reasonable to assume there will be conflict in socialism. It just won’t be capitalist conflict per se.

 

[Joij21]

Nobody, thus making it a moot point. But does it matter? Communism is a mostly hypothetical state anyway elicited by the final elimination of class conflict. But its still reasonable to assume there will be conflict in socialism. It just won’t be capitalist conflict per se.

Then why insist socialism is better if you know it will not solve the issue of class conflict?

You say “neighbor against neighbor” but I say “exploiter against exploited” and “landlord against tenant” and “factory owners versus workers.” The cultural revolution was quite complicated but one thing it was not was the worst disaster China had that century.

It was also a political venture of Mao’s to retain control. But what can you do? There’s some people who want to do a cultural revolution here and would be unmoved by paeans to solidarity with neighbors. Indeed neighbors can be an oppressive thing.

I'm not convinced. Many people who are working class are also good friends with people who would be considered part of the Petite Bourgeoisie (Ma and Pa shops).

It's just how the middle class neighborhoods and towns are organized here, and their children are good friends in the public schools. Telling the workers to butcher the shopkeepers sounds too barbaric as it would destroy too many social circles, families, and connections groups.

That's why no one (at least here in the United States) wants socialism. Because they know such a revolution would mean potential social death and isolation. Not worth the cost.

 

[Crezth]

Then why insist socialism is better if you know it will not solve the issue of class conflict?

Class conflict is not an issue to be solved, it is a rule of history, as true now as it was when kings ruled peasants. The objective of socialism per the Marxist notion is to institute one final class conflict that will end class conflicts, one that is is meant to diffuse into nothing: that of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” in which the oppressed now oppress the former oppressors, and continue to oppress the enemies of the revolution until they are gone.

Perhaps a little too convinced of the permanence of industrial civilization, they were, and later the scholars of imperialism would find other problems with it, but so it goes.

I'm not convinced. Many people who are working class are also good friends with people who would be considered part of the Petite Bourgeoisie (Ma and Pa shops).

And many more are ruthlessly exploited by them. Indeed petite bourgeoisie can be just as ruthless and exploitative as the industrial bourgeoisie because the whole principle of their existence is to profit off the workers. The workers get to live and the petite bourgeoisie get to rule their local politics. So what exactly is your point? A serf could have a great relationship with his lord and still be a serf.

It's just how the middle class neighborhoods and towns are organized here, and their children are good friends in the public schools. Telling the workers to butcher the shopkeepers sounds too barbaric as it would destroy too many social circles, families, and connections groups.

Yes - “middle class,” a vastly shrinking “class” whose primary distinction is identifying with the ruling class and the state. Meanwhile outside of those well manicured middle class communities, the masses of America continue to toil in what are mostly segregated communities that don’t really mingle the poor with the rich.

That's why no one (at least here in the United States) wants socialism. Because they know such a revolution would mean potential social death and isolation. Not worth the cost.

But revolutions don’t happen because people want them. They don’t happen because the middle class is comfortable with the idea of killing the rich. They happen because it is impossible for anything else to happen, because the contradictions within the system can find no other resolution than revolution and because water must flow downhill. They happen because the middle class, paralyzed with indecision by their own moral turpitude, watch in horror as revolutionaries, armed and organized, overcome through battle, defection, and grit the armies of the ruling class and institute a new political order.

One of the most populous revolutions in modern history was the Iranian one, and it’s estimated about 6% of the population participated. The October revolution? Less than 2%.