I hate that even socialists make this argument. The amount of people who are like “China is economically developing these regions because imperialists need to do that” when they are obviously doing more than building a few one way train lines to haul goods. People who make that argument also tend to agree the west is imperialist but then don’t ever seem to ask themselves why the west doesn’t economically develop such nations. The simple fact is, the west doesn’t do so because it’s not really necessary for imperialist extraction and China does because they aren’t colonizing the developing world.
My theory about “leftists” like this is that they cant conceive of Africans and other Global Southerners as anything other than children who don’t have their own agency. This also explains why they see any other “adult” country that engaged with the global south as some sort of dangerous pedo.
Makes sense. Definitely fits with people being stuck in the western chauvinist, civil/savage colonial mindset of “I must know better inherently because I belong to [superior] identity group.” Not to say these people are necessarily conscious of these tendencies in themselves, but I think it’s safe to say it can be observed from the outside, to an extent.
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.
economically developing these regions because imperialists need to do that
I really want to take these people to West Virginia. If this were true, I wouldn’t have encountered at least 3 or 4 instances of half the road having fallen into the river valley below, while on a road trip to Matewan a couple years ago. Not to mention the rampant poverty, food deserts, and the commercial dominance of Dollar General.
They’d probably say something like “only the colonized countries need to be economically developed not the core” or “internal colonization is a myth, read settlers”. These people have the critical thinking skills of a shoelace.
Seriously, I’ve heard people try and argue colonies often have higher standards of living than their colonial masters which is one hell of a deranged statement.
I hate that even socialists make this argument. The amount of people who are like “China is economically developing these regions because imperialists need to do that” when they are obviously doing more than building a few one way train lines to haul goods. People who make that argument also tend to agree the west is imperialist but then don’t ever seem to ask themselves why the west doesn’t economically develop such nations. The simple fact is, the west doesn’t do so because it’s not really necessary for imperialist extraction and China does because they aren’t colonizing the developing world.
My theory about “leftists” like this is that they cant conceive of Africans and other Global Southerners as anything other than children who don’t have their own agency. This also explains why they see any other “adult” country that engaged with the global south as some sort of dangerous pedo.
They really do infantalize such nations to a massive extent. Definitely plays a role.
Makes sense. Definitely fits with people being stuck in the western chauvinist, civil/savage colonial mindset of “I must know better inherently because I belong to [superior] identity group.” Not to say these people are necessarily conscious of these tendencies in themselves, but I think it’s safe to say it can be observed from the outside, to an extent.
Parenti quote
The quote
– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.
I really want to take these people to West Virginia. If this were true, I wouldn’t have encountered at least 3 or 4 instances of half the road having fallen into the river valley below, while on a road trip to Matewan a couple years ago. Not to mention the rampant poverty, food deserts, and the commercial dominance of Dollar General.
They’d probably say something like “only the colonized countries need to be economically developed not the core” or “internal colonization is a myth, read settlers”. These people have the critical thinking skills of a shoelace.
Seriously, I’ve heard people try and argue colonies often have higher standards of living than their colonial masters which is one hell of a deranged statement.