Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The US is an arms dealer empire. It's economic strength and power come from its ability to sell weapons. The military budget is pushing $1 trillion (and probably will exceed it with supplemental funding for the Iran boondoggle). Rumor has it the administration will be asking for $1.5 trillion in the next Budget. That is a staggering and utterly unsustainable level of spending. Most of that is going to defense contractors.

The US doesn't want to live in a multipolar world. It wants to remain the hegemonic global superpower, basically to make a handful of really wealthy people even more wealthy at the expensive of everyone else.

So do I believe the US wants to treat China like an enemy that "needs" to be degraded? Absolutely. Do I think it should be that way or has to be that way? Absolutely not. But that is a minority position in US political circles. One thing the Republicans and Democrats are united on is the US imperialist project.

You have a handful of candidates like Graham Platner who think the path forward with China is one of cooperation not competition [1]. The Democratic Party, just like the Republican Party, hates this kind of rhetoric. That's what we're dealing with.

Part of selling that is convincing everyone is that China is or wants to do the exact same imperialism that the US is doing. What's China actually doing? The Belt and Road Initiative [2] where China basically sues its massive trade surplus to go around the world and build ports, airports and roads and to fund mines, farms, power plants and oil and gas. All on significantly better terms than the World Bank and IMF offer [3], so much so that Africa is considered "lost" to US interests in favor of China.

Fun fact: the United States Africa Command is headquartered in Germany [4]. Why? Because no African country wants it. It's one region where the US only has a handful of bases (eg Djibouti, Kenya).

When the country that produces most of the world's weapons is telling you that there's some big military threat that can only be solved by selling more weapons I just ask: consider the source.

[1]: https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2028936316285546537

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative

[3]: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/chinese-and-world-bank-len...

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Africa_Command

You have to be corrected on a few critical things. The US' power doesn't come from it making so many weapons. The structure of the government. The principles it stands for. The geographic perfection it lucked into. The allies it has (which, despite appearances, are still there.) The economic influence it has. The human talent it has soaked up from around the world as people moved to the US.

China can't replicate any of those things in the next 100 years. They are also handicapped by their ideology, which weakens their capacity to work the necessary logic for critical outcomes. They've tried and failed to achieve some kind of belt and road initiative to make up a bit of the difference in their supply chain dependencies. They've tried and failed to clone so many of our technologies, but what gets promoted are the ones they've succeeded at.

One of the admirals in the Pacific said something along the lines of (paraphrasing), "China is complaining that we're trying to contain them. My question to them would be, 'well, do you need to be contained?'"

China constantly contradicts itself about its ambitions. What you need to understand, from all this stuff you've been writing in this thread, is that China is no longer China. That great history, so much of its critical culture from the past. It's all trashed. China is now communist. It's now what communism wants, not what China wants or needs. Taiwan isn't about reunification with a brother, it's about communists crushing democracy.

If you look back at World War 2, it was in large part caused by communism. Comintern believed that communism could not co-exist with capitalism, so communism would have to be established globally. This threatened Japanese and German sovereignty. Granted, the Japanese and Germans had their own ideological problems, but just the threat of global communist expansion was enough to start a race for global resource control.

We downplay this about WW2, but if you want to understand anything about US national strategy, it is that we have been hedging our resource control against a potential flaring up of global communist ambitions again.

Now what is China doing? They're building the largest military in history that has no use other than expanding. Xi Jinping is purging his military like Stalin did before he invaded Poland and Finland.

The contradiction about communist ideology is that it is anti-western and anti-imperialism, but the success of communism is that it has to become western to suck less and it has to manufacture a psychological empire to succeed. Western "empires" have largely been a result of good fortune in water access. The US is the absolute pinnacle of that. Russia and China are worse off and since they are at a disadvantage there, the alternative is psychological expansion.

China is trying to make up the difference by using a massive population, but the entire logic around it is weak. China is easy to choke off and scale down. It would go the same way World War 1 and World War 2 went, except with more turmoil in each other's countries. It's easier now than ever to project power from inside enemy's countries than to need to send ships and missiles thousands of miles to reach them. The issue is that, China is more fragile in this regard than the US is in every regard despite all their social controls.

> The US' power doesn't come from it making so many weapons. The structure of the government. The principles it stands for.

This is high school propaganda. It's classic "they hate us because of our freedom" nonsense.

What principles? America was established on white supremacy, slavery, genocide, religious intolerance and exploitation. The government we formed was by and for wealthy white slaveowners.

Do you know when the last slave ship survivor died? It was 1940. Slavery survived in practice well beyond Emancipation. Forced servitude existed up until 1941 [1] and that only happened because of the propaganda threat from World War 2.

You're right about the geographical "luck" (other than, you know, the whole genocide part of it).

> [China is] also handicapped by their ideology

No, they're not. The reason the US goes after communist and socialist governments so vehemently is because any success threatens capitalism, not the other way around. If these systems were all doomed to fail, why can't we simply serve as a good example? Why do we need to militarily intervene, overthrow governments and starve countries that dare do anything different? Don't you find that odd?

China has transformed itself over recent decades and brought ~800 million people out of extreme poverty in the last century. All while living conditions and infrastructure crumbles in the West.

> One of the admirals in the Pacific said something along the lines of (paraphrasing), "China is complaining that we're trying to contain them. My question to them would be, 'well, do you need to be contained?'"

I don't know what point you think you're making with this. It can just as easily be used to justify imperialism because "we don't like anyone else succeeding". What kind of argument is that? If anyone needs to be contained, it's the US military, actually.

> China is now communist.

This isn't really true in practice. Sure it's the Chinese Communist Party and you may see labels like "socialist/communist transitional state" but what China really is is a command economy [2]. Chinese people have seen their standard of living change massively in their lifetimes. What do we do? Further concentrate wealth in the hands of the 10,000 richest people because it matters that Jeff Bezos has $210 billion instead of $200 billion.

> If you look back at World War 2, it was in large part caused by communism.

This is hitorically revisionist nonsense. Communism (if you define the USSR as such) saved Europe by defeating Nazi Germany at terrible cost. Stalin tried to warn Britain and France about Hitler and form an anti-Hitler alliance. Britain and France refused.. Japan was imperialist. Germany was imperialist. WW2 started at near the peak of the British Empire. Communism didn't cause the Rape of Nanking or the Holocaust or Japanese internment in the US.

For the rest of it, all I can say is "read a book".

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_slavery_in_the_United_S...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy

You're making a lot of weak arguments that aren't based in real historical context.

Xi Jinping absolutely believes in Marxism-Leninism. You could argue there were reformers in past decades that held sway, but he doesn't want to see himself get replaced with a reformer.

There has never been a communist state, when we talk about communists we talk about movements that aspire to communism. Maybe the old CCP operated things more like a command economy, but today's China is more like planned mercantilism, which is a weaker regression from "capitalism" which is itself an inaccurate Marxist caricature of how regulated free markets actually work. The CCP leadership are very firmly Marxist-Leninist.

Industrialization amplified power potentials of trade and production, which did leave Japan and Germany operating below their potentials, but communism threatened them both. Look at the first actions Japan took and who made those decisions and what they were concerned about. Look at the first actions the nazis took in Germany, look at who they allied with Japan against, look at the book Hitler wrote about the threat he saw, look at who he labeled and what he did with them.

Russia is the largest country on Earth, by accident? No, because it expands its empire. China is huge, because it's never expanded its empire, it was just born that way? No, it has taken over adjacent regions and expanded its culture. It even tried to expand into Russia, but Russia threatened to nuke them.

Italian fascists and German nazis were a direct reaction to communists psychological imperialism. Marxist global expansion is itself a contradiction, because they hate imperialism, and yet aim to achieve the same goals. Communist International in the USSR was a prime enemy that Japan and Germany allied against. The US got Stalin to dissolve Comintern to try to deflate German and Japanese motivations, but also because the US was very anti-communist. We just saw Germany and Japan as the more immediate threats to the world.

Russia couldn't have beaten Germany without aid being shipped in from the US constantly.

What the US sees right now is the threat of another world war caused by communism.

Personally, looking at the kind of things you write, I think you should step way back, forget everything you've been taught and instead focus on the fundamentals. Go back into history and just understand the basic behaviors of countries, like they are organisms. How trade, industry, economy, military, geography, psychology, culture, communication, transportation, demographics, power imbalances, etc all contribute to the various behaviors and outcomes. Then you can say, ok, there are all of these details, but how many of the details are just....details and not the trend?

The threat that China poses is unmistakable. They have the warped ideology, societal repression, information control, massive state propaganda, most rapid military build-up in history, they have the largest global network of spies in history, they're threatening almost all of their neighbors (not just Taiwan) and so on. The list just keeps going.

If you think the US should simply sit back and watch it unfold without pushing back at all...yeah, we're not that naive.

> Xi Jinping absolutely believes in Marxism-Leninism.

Good. It also doesn't make China Communist, let alone establish that "Communism = bad" as you assert.

> ... which did leave Japan and Germany operating below their potentials, but communism threatened them bot

Are you really saying that Japan and Germany had to do Imperialism and the Holocaust because there was a Communist movement in their countries? Really? That's one of the silliest things I've ever read.

> Italian fascists and German nazis were a direct reaction to communists psychological imperialism.

Fascism is capitalism in crisis. Fascism and imperialism are the ultimate forms of capitalism. "The threat of a more equitable distribution of wealth made us kill millions" is the biggest pro-capitalist cope.

> What the US sees right now is the threat of another world war caused by communism.

Most (if not all) wars since 1945 were instigated by or materially supplied by the US. Saddam Hussein was our puppet until he wasn't. We even looked past him using chemical weapons on Kurds and feigned indignation only when he turned on us. Weird. We them fueled the Iran-Iraq war for 10 years killing more than a million. We then starved the Iraqis for a decade before killing millions more of them in the so-called "War on Terror" when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 all while ignoring Saudi Arabia who materially supported 9/11. We even covered for the Saudi involvement.

The world would be a demonstrably better place without the US.

> The list just keeps going.

I once heard a quote that the only thing Americans know about is WW2 and they don't know much about that. You're making that point. Repression? You mean like locking up and deporting them for saying "Free Palestine"? Oh wait, that's us.

History will judge the US as the Evil Empire, with or without your DARVO.

You're ignoring things I already stated, such as communism is an aspiration. So of course China is not realized communism, because communism has never been realized at the national scale. The people in charge however, are absolutely communists.

Do you know why Hitler blamed the Jewish people and had them separated out? He blamed the Jewish Bolshevik revolutions in Germany for causing Germany to lose World War 1. Hitler's actual belief was that Bolshevism was a Jewish mechanism to achieve global control. Bolshevism is born out of Marxism and is essentially communist. The "headquarters" of communism was Comintern in Russia. Many of the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia and elsewhere were Jewish. Marxism also comes from Karl Marx, who was Jewish.

This is why he put Jewish people in concentration camps, because he believed with conviction that they were a threat to German sovereignty. This is also why he planned from the very beginning to attack Russia, even while temporarily allying with them. Japan also saw Marxist revolution inside China as a threat to its sovereignty, but it ended up fighting both the communists and the anti-communists.

Obviously many atrocities were committed in these wars. We are lucky that the US saved Russia and China, because they are much weaker adversaries than an expansive Germany or Japan had they conquered their respective regions.

We didn't start World War 1, but we helped finish it. We didn't start World War 2, but we helped finish it. We didn't start the Korean war, the communists did backed by Russia. We didn't start the Vietnam war, but it probably started similarly.

We didn't put Saddam Hussein in power and he was never our puppet, but Iran was a much greater threat than Iraq was and that's why we provided him weapons when he was fighting Iran. Saddam Hussein was afraid of the Islamic revolution and saw it as an existential threat. There were border fights even beforehand. Saudi Arabia also saw the Islamic revolution in Iran as essentially the next Hitler. The reason that war started, was because Iran was trying to export its Islamic Revolution into Iraq, which is the same thing it's been doing again in recent years. Yes, Saddam eventually became a problem for us, but it's more nuanced than you present it.

There are a lot of details around 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan that maybe you aren't aware of, but I don't feel like going into them at present.

Both Marxist movements and Islamic movements have these kinds of extreme radical qualities about them that countries feel the need to defend against. When a country has any sort of power, it gains some capacity to export its way of thinking through investing people, funding and even hardware into that goal.

China is simultaneously threatening to export its ideology in psychological warfare and expand militarily.

I guess you'll never believe any of this, anything else I say or research any of this objectively to decide if it has merit. I can't fix that, that's up to you.

> Do you know why Hitler blamed the Jewish people and had them separated out?

Yes, Hitler did blood libel [1], a tradition continued by Donald Trump [2].

> He blamed the Jewish Bolshevik revolutions in Germany for causing Germany to lose World War 1

Are you arguing Hitler was right? Or that it was a useful tool and a lie? Because you've blamed the Communists for WW2. Multiple times. This makes me think you've been hiding your power level and I'm usually pretty good at spotting that. I should've recognized it from blaming the Communism. It's specifically "cultural Bolshevism" [3]. That too has been recycled today as "cultural Marxism" [4]

> Bolshevism is born out of Marxism and is essentially communist. The "headquarters" of communism was Comintern in Russia. Many of the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia and elsewhere were Jewish. Marxism also comes from Karl Marx, who was Jewish.

I get it now [5].

> We didn't put Saddam Hussein in power and he was never our puppet,

He was our foil against Iran. We gave him weapons to fuel the death count of the Iraq-Iran war. We didn't care when he used nerve gas on the Kurds. All of that is established historical fact.

> I guess you'll never believe any of this

No, I don't buy into neo-Nazi conspiracy theories. You are correct.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

[2]: https://www.axios.com/2023/12/30/trump-poisoning-the-blood-r...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th...

[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_power_skinhead

Racism was clearly an important aspect of Hitler's motivations and there is an important reason why. The reason racism is important, is because of communism. It would be outrageous to simply discard communism as if it was irrelevant, when these revolutions necessarily inflame these qualities in a society.

Communist revolution was not simply some kind of economic restructuring demand from workers. It is about eradicating religion and revolutionizing culture which in old countries is often tied to the culture of a genetic line of people. That is how inflammatory these Marxist revolutions are, that they bring rise to voices who want to reinvigorate a race and defend religion.

Marxist movements tend to redefine multiple angles of a people's identity. That's why there were also many similarities in Japan's fight against communism and its racial attributes. That's why you also see racial and religious qualities in the US rejection of Marxist tampering in culture today, though they are vastly overstated. Basically information moves so fast now, it's easier for people to see how dumb Marxism is if they weren't indoctrinated young, so plenty of reasonable people reject it without needing religious or racial angles fueling it. Despite that, it still spreads.

I do blame communists for World War 2, in combination with the power imbalances and massive opportunities that industrialization surfaced. Germany and Japan both believed they had larger potential in that environment, but communism gave them the legitimate enemy they needed to justify expanding. Essentially, global communism is about controlling all the resources and leveraging them, so any country that wants to survive outside of communism has to race for resources.

This isn't a neo-Nazi conspiracy theory, it's just history. It's a matter of history that there was an intention to expand communism globally. Look up Comintern if you've never heard of it, which advocated for world communism.

Religion and race are absolutely useless gobshite whose only physically observed function is making people kill each other, coming from this throughly capitalist person.

It's funny you say Marxism is something thats hard to imbibe unless indoctrinated from childhood, why did you leave out religion from this, marxism is merely a faulty economic system. Religion is a fundamentally wrong and violently wrong system thst encompasses the entire universe. Religion is precisely what is the first and most fundamental thing that comes to mind ehich absolutely requires brainwashing from childhood to consistently propagate.

Think of it in evolutionary terms. There is physical evolution, but there's also mental evolution, moral evolution, legal evolution and so on.

We also see education as being useful, yet education seems to not teach many critical things which we often leave up to parents. Yet, many parents do not fully teach essential morals or lessons. It wasn't that long ago that the only real kind of formal education was a sort of religious education.

Religion in a way, carries forward crystallized values that people felt were important enough. You can look at all the religions around the world and identify the various elements of how those people behave. Is the way they behave useful, logically?

Not everyone is a scientist or a computer programmer, many people do not invest heavily in their minds. We might think that religion only served a purpose 500+ years ago, because it was an inverted solution to a surveillance state, letting people police themselves from within their own minds when external surveillance apparatus was basically not sufficiently viable.

I would argue some, but not all religions, still offer value as they bring forward crystallized behaviors that serve an actual purpose.

We've all seen how easy it is for people to get manipulated, become violent, etc. That seems to happen even if they aren't religious. So, if the people who are most susceptible to manipulations are pre-manipulated into a positive format that encourages them away from violence, that doesn't sound useless.

It's true that religion has been involved in many wars, but not all of those wars were for religious ends, even if religion was used. If religion wasn't used, it might have been something else. Societal structures and law enforcement have advanced a lot since then.

No, stop trying to pull out of your bs. You said communism is something that can only exist if indoctrinated into in childhood, in a comment where you whined about religions feeling "threatened" while pointedly ignoring the elephant in the room. Just answer me a simple question in a Yes or a No. Does religion survive if it isn't indoctrinated into as a kid?

Why not, if religion wasn't available, we'd wrest one major weapon away from warmongers. They will have to search much harder to galvanize large groups of people to fight for nonsense reasons over. If they didn't have this strong identity ready made on a platter to tap into, things become much harder.

Religion is simply not worth the baggage, it posits and requires faith in the infinitely wrong. Values can be taught without religion, you don't need to be a scientist to have values. Everyone has values including atheists. I see no reason why we can't simply teach values minus religion. I don't see atheists who believe in the American constitution as a good system have by virtue of atheism any less support for it, as an example. For the tiny amount of good you may find religions have provided, on the scale of balance the bloodshed and negativity it has caused are simple far worse and not worth it. And even if you think in terms of some values religions might impart, its also again counterproductive. Almost all religions are very karen and nosy often violently so about lgbtq, so much for the values side of the equation. If a religion might be good for values, such a religion at least hasn't yet emerged.

That's not what I said.

Personally, I think you're lost in the very kind of generalizations and lack of precision that you seem to hate. You're becoming what you complain against. If you think people living that way is something to be eradicated, which you seem to, why have you become it in your own way? Is it because you're human and just as susceptible to these mistakes as anyone else?

Where did I say anything about eradication? I asked you an extremely simple question. Do you think religion survives without being indoctrinated into during childhood? Yes or No? You mentioned religion a lot and said communism doesn't survive if it hasn't been indoctrinated into, which may be correct but you ignored the elephant in the room right then and there in your own message: religion. I am not asking if you think religion is good or not. I asked a very simple question, does it survive without childhood indoctrination or does it not?

You are also making up crap about wanting "eradication" which I never wrote or said about. I simply stated facts about the vast ills religion has given us and very little to almost non-existent good. I showed you how religion is unrelated at best and an active hindrance to capitalism.

I simply gave a bunch of neutral facts. You seem for some reason unwilling to respond to any of it and falsely accuse me of "hate".

>Essentially, global communism is about controlling all the resources and leveraging them, so any country that wants to survive outside of communism has to race for resources.

I hate communism but why faslely single it out, global any group or system will want to control resources as much as possible. You seem extremely stupid to the point of believing nazism was about opposing communism fundamentally rather than antisemitism and racialism.

Again as an avowed capitalist, race is the opposite of good capitalism. I will gladly trade with anyone of any race.

Well, first you'd have to make a decent argument for why it shouldn't be singled out. You're having an immediate rejection of the idea, but why? Have you been configured to feel that?

I'm not arguing that racist motivations and beliefs didn't already exist, but the Bolsheviks were a very real cultural, economic and religious existential threat to German identity which massively amplified the validity and appeal of something like the Nazi party.

Are you arguing that's not true at all? I think that would be ahistorical.

Why would I be configured for anything, its common sense, any large powerful entity will be the same. If you think only communism attempts to control the world why is America playing oil games by invading venezuela?

It may have been a religious threat but that is not an existential threat. What do you think happens if suppose most Germans stopped believing in those fairy tales? Do they combust and die? Capitalism literally has no use for religion and nationalism. They are completely out of scope of capitalism, it is at best neutral about them, and in practice religion and nationalism are a hindrance to practicing free trade.

Of course nazis hated commies just as nazis hated any other alternative source of power, but that was hardly their main animating reason for the genocides. I don't need any "brainwashing" to know what nazis openly and proudly said about Jews and Slavs. Or what are you going to say, Poles were also "commies" which is why Germany attacked them? I think the nazi motivation part of your shtick is so beyond mentally ill it's not even worth bothering with.

I think you're a little too emotionally invested and it's preventing you from making a coherent argument.

Even if I explained the actual reasons for Venezuela, it doesn't seem like you legitimately want to know. You can be addicted to curiosity or you can be addicted to opinion, but it's hard to be both.

No you haven't explained shit for Venezuela. If you did you forgot to reply it to me, I see you have written it to someone else. There is nothing emotional about the simple fact that you are positing some utterly brain dead moronic crap out of your ass that basically goes against what nazis themselves proudly proclaimed and then whining and claiming "incoherence" instead of responding to any point.

Again its completely fucking irrelevant if you think its for a good cause or bad cause, you simply said communism wants to hoard and control everything for itself starving others.

We all know the real reason Venezuela was attacked for. Capitalism, communism it does not matter what system, anything powerful enough will want to control all resources for itself. I hate communism, I hate nazism but you give the stupidest non-reasons against it factors which are shared in any powerful system and not unique to it.

So, you think China is building the largest military in history because of "communism". Do you recognize Chinese people as warriors? Can you remember any pro-war Chinese folklore? Communism is a relatively new flavor in their culture.

And what exactly do you think China can't reproduce in 100 years?

I'm not necessarily saying that, only that it's not an unreasonable concern given the history. Venezuela (a communist country) with Chinese ties, was going to invade Guyana before we captured Maduro. Cambodia, a country with communist remnants and Chinese ties was attacking Thailand. China has a long-standing threat to take Taiwan. It already took Tibet and helped try to take communist control of Korea.

Do you think if you were Japan, South Korea or any of those other countries, you would be sitting comfy on the belief that China has good intentions for them?

So, no, I am not _certain_ that is what China is doing with its military build up. Only that, I see it as a possibility that we can't sleep on.

Your argument about whether Chinese people are pro war isn't as relevant in a country like China as it might be in some democracy, but even in democracies war still occurs even if the population is anti-war. In China, it's just even less relevant, because they have strict social control. You could say the relevance has other angles, like more of the population has to be dedicated to enforcement and repression which takes some of that capacity away from military duties.

China can definitely reproduce a lot of technologies, but if they confirm again that they are a critical threat then there is a lot more we can do to slow their progress if necessary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com