I think it’s not fair to complain about “censorship” when the decentral nature of the platform is made to avoid it. Especially not when you haven’t contributed to the codebase. You can open your own nstance at any time.

avoid critizing the dominant ideology

You’re free to criticize liberalism on .ml all you want.

1. That number is not adjusted for inflation
2. The Bundesbank says that Germany is already likely in a recession
3. GDP is not the only measure of the economy. In fact it’s a really bad one

No, which is why I have a default position of suspicion towards the words of my own officials. Because they’re people, just like me, no better, no worse. They can make mistakes, exercise poor judgement, change their minds, etc etc.

That is not dialectical thought. While I agree that individual politicians could change their mind, it’s not how nation states operate. Nations have interests. The individual decision making of a politician stays in bounds of the interest, otherwise they get replaced. You seem to see history as an aglomeration of decisions of individuals aka great man. I don’t subscribe to great man theory/your ideology.

Not just national power, but expanding national power over people who were not part of your nation.

Any state uses it’s instruments of power to expand their influence and follow their interests. When they open embassy in another country why are they doing it? When their state media is broadcastingy why are they doing it? When they curb other state media l, why are they doing it? Recognizing another region? It’s to expand their interests and influence…

It seem to me that you’re a no nations no borders type?

Does a selection process give you the power to understand their secret minds, or do you simply think they have no secrets?

Let me ask you your question backtto you. Do any citizens have any more insight on the inner workings of their leaders than outside observers then?

In western societies there’s an emphasis on democracy as a process. In China they see democracy when the outcome is in the interest of the majority. Which there undeniably is.

Yes, national power is exactly what we’re talking about. Exercising it over a broad area, of people who did not before fall under your control, is empire-building. Or, imperialism. Power + new lands/people = imperialism.

No, were talking about imperialism which you conflate with instruments of national powet. Congratulations under your definition everything any nation does is imperialism.

Opening a new embassy? Imperialism Creating a state news outlet? Imperialism Economic Relations? Imperialism

Not useful in terms of analysis.

Oh come now, the decisions of a country are made by its leaders, not every single member of its political party. Otherwise that would be true democracy, and unbelievably cumbersome and impractical.

What is democratic centralism?

I would describe it as an influence or informational or perhaps espionage empire. You can have a military empire, where people do as you say or you kill them, yes? You can have an economic empire, where you use economic coercion instead of military. Or, in the modern day, you can control through another form of power–control in the information space. While propaganda is certainly nothing new, it has reached a degree of power we’ve never seen before. Or so I’m arguing, anyway.

What you are describing is not imperialism, you’re describing instruments of national power. (Military, Diplomacy, Economy, Information). Which can be used for imperialism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_power

As I say there’s more and less useful definitions of imperialism. I prefer Lenins as it’s still very relevant. Even if you might not like him, I’d recommend reading “Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism”. You seem to be intellectual and interested in the topic and will benefit from having read it, even if you don’t plan on adopting it.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Only a human or group of humans can be.

When I say that hegemony is the dominant ideology’ it can only be held by a group of people. what you’re describing is a change in hegemony. You see informational warfare coming in. In some sense even our discussion is a symptom of that.

In this new way of looking at imperialism

It’s instruments of national power

Do Chinese citizens have any more insight on the inner workings of their leaders than outside observers?

The CPC is the largest political body in the world with ~100M members. Roughly one in 15 Chinese is a member. So yeah I’d say so. For you to get a better understanding I recommend reading: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners - Roland Boer Also people not only seem to trust, but are also satisfied https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/

Imperialism is empire-building. That’s the root word imperial, of-an-empire. It’s authority exerted over other people, foreign lands. Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great both worked on imperial projects, back when it was more commonplace. Hegemony is somewhat similar, though implies the empire is uncontested by other powers. The Mongols had a hegemonic empire. Napoleon, while being imperial, did not have a hegemonic empire, as the British and Russian empires contested and eventually defeated him.

You’re giving me history examples and not answering my question. I still don’t follow how “Subjecting other to their control” captures “the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades.”. Can you please elaborate if you don’t?

Hegemony is somewhat similar, though implies the empire is uncontested by other powers.

Hegemon is not only the state, but the dominant ideology. So when you say “the new, informational-based methods of attack that” it says to me that you see changes in hegemony aka people having a different ideological framework than the dominant one. And the different ideological framework comes via (foreign) information.

China’s system is opaque.

It’s not a coincidence why it’s opaque (to you).

Without allowing independent observation, aka transparency, there is just no point.

Wild if true

I’m simply not willing to give them any extra faith.

This aligns with US foreign policy

I was not accusing you of saying it, was I?

True, ugh.

I think it’s a very useful definition of imperialism, actually.

No, because you rob you make the term imperialism meaningless. Why have “authority” and “imperialism” as words, when they basically define the same thing?

Also I don’t follow how “Subjecting other to their control” captures “the new, informational-based methods of attack that have become so common in just the past couple decades.”. I believe you’re mixing things up with “hegemony”. Can you please elaborate if you don’t?

I am well aware that some communist thought tries to equate imperialism with global capitalism, making them identical. This is actually less useful imo.

It’s not equating imperialism with global capitalism. It’s saying that Imperialism is a stage of capitalism.

You don’t think exerting authority over foreign people is functionally a form of imperialism, in basic principle?

Not that’s just a product of imperialism.

Anyone that tries to subject others to their control is practicing imperialism, in the modern form anyway. It used to mean something else.

“Subjecting others to their control” is not a useful definition of imperialism. Also, I believe you’re mixing it with the definition of “authority”.
Also there’s a reason that it’s not commonly defined as where you have finance capital shaping the states foreign policies in order to export surplus capital, secure commodities and cheap labor in foreign countries

It’s certainly not just the US

I agree, a variety of other global north countries engage in it too.

It’s not “both sides-ing” to assert that no position should be immune to criticism.

Not sure where you get that I’m saying this. Please carefully reread my comments and let me eat my own words when you find it and I might be able to clear up the misunderstanding. What’s I’m saying is this:

• If you haven’t researched a topic enough, why voice opinion or skepticism?
• It’s valid to have skepticism, but then why not research it instead?
• If you believe to have done your research, back it up with your information sources in order to contribute more to the discussion than your blank skepticism

Otherwise you’re functionally indistinguishable as a concern troll.

Also regarding China: They’re definitively not above criticism, but when you do, it better be substantiated.

Not if my suspicion applies to imperialists as well

I hope you’re talking about the US

It’s not trolling if it helps keep you safe in an online world.

Chuds are also only asking questions and being skeptic when talking about lgbt and trans issues, right?

Dude none is saying you shouldn’t be suspicious and none is saying you should be applying trust universal to any country. I generally agree with your statement.

Voicing your suspicion however, when you’re uninformed is not contributing to anything and makes you either a concern troll or lapdog for imperial interests.

Again, I’m not forming an opinion yet

Enlightened Centrist I see.

These ideas are not harmful, they simply question your faith I suppose

Or spreading misinformation or unjustified mistrust

you seriously asking me to provide evidence of any Chinese military research facilities?

I guess it’s silly to ask that in deed. I’m not denying that they aren’t doing military research, but these are usually within the country. You’re still implying that they are doing arctic facilities to do military research, with nothing but a gut feel and no evidence whatsoever. Apart from the enlightened stance that they could be and nothing else. Which goes back to my original point that anything can be dual use.

just the words of the governmental body

And of course (what you conventiently omit) past examples which I provided.

My goalpost there has been pretty consistent. I’m not tossing any accusations whatsoever

In deed you are consistent, in holding the default position that aligns with the current hegemon the US: China Bad.

Since I am not an expert on the subject matter

Then why are you concern trolling? No research, no right to speak.

No, not anything. Studies on, oh, let’s say emperor penguins would be difficult to militarize. Or, atmospheric studies using ice cores. But many things, yes. Hand-waving them away and tossing casual insults about it is silly regardless.

Can you point to any chinese research facilities doing military research to hold this type of skepticism?

Also the argument for anything can be a national security concern goes more like: Hey you have a research station? My nation security is violated because you could be doing military research and spying Hey you have a civilian port and are producing X amount container ships a year? My national security is violated as you could easily turn these into naval battle ship production facilities Hey you’re stockpiling food? My national security is violated as in the event of war you could be feeding your soldiers

You know what also would have saved lives, and reduced tensions?

Not expanding NATO.

Do we have invitees accounts of that, or just the word of a governmental body?

The word of a governmental body that has been consistent in their foreign policy and also accounts of other research projects: Why Some Scientists Choose China’s Space Station for Research - NYT Also the station is opened not even a month…

I see you moving goal posts. You’re not even doing basic research and implying that there’s no invites for international cooperation going out. How about you back up your initial claim that they aren’t or at least edit your post?

National security is a legitimate concern

For rubes, as anything can be a national security concern. Anything can be used dualy (militarily and civilian)

Your comment implied they weren’t thats why I asked. Especially since the Chinese are in fact inviting foreigners as per their foreign ministry.

Though I’m now curious what the reasoning was for the ISS kick.

Iirc it was the same national security bs

The American stations, at least, are somewhat multinational, people from all over can go there. Perhaps they could invite foreigners to do work as well?

Where do you get the info that China isn’t inviting foreigners?

China’s Qinling Station in Antarctica, the country’s fifth research station on the continent, started operation on Wednesday. The research facility is expected to help enhance mankind’s scientific understanding of Antarctica, provide a platform for China to cooperate with other countries in scientific expeditions and promote peace and sustainable development in the region, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202402/1306895.shtml

Also American research sites aren’t somewhat open either. They kicked out the Chinese from the ISS…

“I wouldn’t read too much into it until they have a more permanent and sustainable presence in the region… It’s more symbolic than anything. At the moment, it does not represent any strategic pivot beyond the regions China wants to go,” he added.

…

Said Prof Ho: “While it is certainly possible for the Chinese to use these bases for strategic geopolitical purposes, I would not think the Antarctic is top of their list, given they have other domestic priorities like their economy to think about.”

…

But the White Paper does not constitute an official Antarctic policy and there is no telling when such a policy, serving as a guide for China’s actions, may be put out, said Associate Professor Liu Nengye at Singapore Management University’s Yong Pung How School of Law.

…

Since 2013, Beijing has proposed to establish an Antarctic Specially Managed Area around Kunlun station, which would allow China to maintain more stringent environmental protection of the surrounding space of potentially thousands of square kilometres. Such proposals have to be approved by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, which consists of 29 countries including Russia, the United Kingdom, the US and China.

While the Madrid Protocol permits such an area, the proposal received pushback from other governments, including the US, which questioned China’s motives.

There are currently seven such areas, of which two are managed by the US, one by Australia and the remaining four jointly managed by countries including Brazil, Poland, Chile and India.

owned

Tankies will post it things like this

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/18/coral-reefs-florida-dire-outlook