darkernations

It was an interesting video to watch and I can see similarities in user interface design in other parts of the world. I will likely be watching the other videos in the channel. Thank you for sharing.

However, it still feels like a liberal understanding; maybe the youtuber was trying to avoid using the word socialist or aiming for brevity but if that is the case the analysis still feels incomplete.

For example, the idea of user interface design because individuals in China are inherently "collectivist" but why? Saying indviduals choosing design principles that are "collectivist" in their environment and therefore choose this in their phone UIs is a lack of an explanation; this just amounts to a type of a circular logic. What has happened over the past century to promote this "culture" (even if we pretend the presumption is true that design principle aesthetics is homegenised across china)? It appears ironically an individualised take on collectivist culture.

I do agree there are collectivised cultures in socialist nations but if you look at say the special economic zones - there are plenty of chinese liberals in these centres and their preferences for western individualised aesthetics. However what is, let's say the culture-system, that promotes collectivism? (Answer: socialism)

It appears that a large portion of analysis from the west considers collectivism as some sort of inherent individual trait belonging to come exotica of peoples rather than maybe a phenonemon borne out of political economic systems and their interactions with other politicsl economies. There is an idealism it is an individual trait that is more inherent in some ethnicities than others. For example, does India have "collectivised" cultures? And where they do not, why not? I put collectivised in quotes not because it is not real but because it feels like a western explanation for hordes of others acting in a borg-like manner. We are individual but they are a collective.

Another area that the video explored; the idea that chinese people preferred leapfrogging technology to mobile over desktop. Again, why? What was going on in their material conditions that they could not afford the desktop/laptop to begin with? Again the answer purported is an individualised take; indvidual preferences backed up by a supply-demand explanation.

This is not a comment on the technology provided, in a socialist country all-in-one apps are amazing (in a capitalist country this would just be another monopoly for rentier extraction).

A more dialectical approach would do wonders. My critique is essentially a criticism of orientalism. It should be noted the youtuber concludes that designers watching this should be more empathetic in their design choices for their audience/clients.

The Democrats deserve Trump as president; it is clear that they are more keen on keeping the genocide going than winning the election. Their USP is meant to be that they will ensure a more equitable distrubution of the imperial loot and they fail at even doing that.

Dripping water drilling through rock.

We were never going to win them over even on their own terms - they are so virulently racist and fascistic; the malignancy need to be eliminated with the chemotherapy that is socialism. Let their tears nourish the revolutionary proleteriat.

I wonder if China will pull critical supply chains (or just threaten) to the west before it gets to a hot war. I'm not sure how the west including the US will sustain any large enough manufacturing and production without critical inputs from the global south.

But then again they may be just MAD enough to do it:

Israel isn't crazy, it's just MAD https://thecradle.co/articles-id/26203

1. Serve the People - The Eradication of Extreme Poverty in China (80 min read): https://thetricontinental.org/studies-1-socialist-construction/

2. Understanding China: socialism with chinese characteristics, from Geopoltical Economy Report (under 30 min if watched in 2x speed): https://youtu.be/mgcyqkEOhQc

3. Why Socialism by Albert Einstein (20 min read): https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

4. A condensed summary of Marx's Capital (20 min): https://redsails.org/capital-v1-summary/

5. Why Marxism (30 min): https://redsails.org/why-marxism/

The US is maybe too big for high-speed rail... under capitalism.

FE:

Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends.

These were interesting reads; thanks!

I did not they were implicated in manufacturing consent for racheting up the cold/hot wars against Russia.

Everyone will not agree.

Westerners aren’t helpless innocents whose minds are injected with atrocity propaganda, science fiction-style; they’re generally smug bourgeois proletarians who intelligently seek out as much racist propaganda as they can get their hands on. This is because it fundamentally makes them feel better about who they are and how they live. The psychic and material costs are rationally worth the benefits. As for those anti-imperialists who don’t participate in this festival of xenophobia — and here I include myself — we have our own elitist consolation: we accept the tragedy of masses of gullible sheeple falling for cunning propaganda because having overcome it flatters our own intelligence. The more we condemn society’s stupidity, the smarter we feel in comparison.

https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

He has good insights; his articles on his blog, his takes on Geopolitical Economy Report (podcast/youtube) and his books (especially Superimperialism) are all important during these times. However, he does appear to draw a false distinction between industrial and finance capital, and as MLs we need to be aware of producerism (about 30 min, the whole thing is an excellent read):

https://socialistmag.us/2024/01/07/producerism-socialism-and-anti-imperialism-for-fools/

A critic of Hudson, J.W. Mason argues that while there is merit and insight to Hudson’s work on finance capitalism, Hudson appears to overstate his view that finance capital and industrial capital are in an antagonistic relationship with one another. Mason gives an example of August Belmont (no relation to Trevor Belmont, the vampire slayer), a land speculator who owned a company that was developing the first subway system in New York City. The company, under the control of Belmond, would extend transit service to a land already owned by Belmon and Belmont would later sell the land at a higher price than original price since its value has been augmented by having a transit service. Mason uses this example to argue that Belmont occupies two positions: a finance capitalist and an industrial capitalist. As someone who uses a corporation to build the first subway system in New York City, Belmont appears as an industrial capitalist. In contrast, as someone who purchases a land only to sell it off at an inflated price, thanks to extending a transit system to a land he happens to own, Belmont appears as a finance capitalist. But these two positions that Belmont occupies aren’t antagonistic to one another, but rather they are two sides of the same coin. Mason uses this example to make the point that finance capital and industrial capital aren’t necessarily antagonistic to one another, but they are two sides of the same coin: capital.

We should read MH with a critical eye; the same we read anything else.

We should also not fall into the pitfall as some liberals and dismiss everything somebody says if they not appear to have the same ideological framework as us (which will sharpen as we learn) - whether it is art or non-fiction - as that would be a non-dialectic and unscientific approach.

I am amazed how some people can produce the volume of work they do; may it be a source of inspiration for the rest of us of what can be acheived by the human condition.

Their accusations are confessions.