this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)

Socialism

5200 readers
23 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
0
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Nice argument, can you back it up with a source?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

NATOpedia says "nearly 400 military interventions" for the US, listing this as the source.

China's is likely referring to the Korean war or the Vietnam war. So it should probably be 2 ig, though for Korea China was firmly on the right side of history.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I like how this has a table of many wars and their outcomes but I commend you for actually giving a source Edit: I didn't check if they initiated the conflicts, so the source might actually prove your point kinda right but I'm lazy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

You know what? Most liberals wouldn't even have acknowledged that much, you have my upvote.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

China is state run capitalism. So a tale of two flavors of one system?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Neither country is state-run capitalism. And anyway, state capitalism is an oxymoron when a state has fiat monetary sovereignty—which the US and China do. Such a state has no need to make a profit, which is foundational to capitalism, because it can and does create as much money as it pleases. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can take Alan Greenspan’s.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

China is not state run capitalism, but I guess western libs will never stop repeating it in face of all evidence to the contrary.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

All this shows is that these two countries disagree fundamentally on how to conduct diplomacy.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Do you think this is because the leadership is magically nicer for some reason, or because their political/economic system is better able to stay out of conflict?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

And the respective political systems of these two countries obviously play no role in this.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

It also overlooks that China has historically been conquered by outside forces as its leadership grew weak. And the Communist party was having enough trouble internally feeding its people and causing issues like the "break four olds" period that there was little ability to wage effective war.

Let's also not forget the the communists literally aided the Japanese in the rape of Nanking as it helped to undermine the GuoMinDang.