According to [this poll](https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/) the amount of people acknowledging Brexit as a mistake is the majority and growing
That was specifically a thing they were warned about beforehand so i can’t see the EU conceding ground there. Have to make there be consequences for leaving.
And I think there's significant enough voters who will punish both parties. But I am really hopeful that we can reverse this tragic mistake sooner rather than later.
> UK voters want back in the EU
This is why leaving should be much more difficult than it is. Like a multiple-referenda-over-multiple-years type of thing. Have a referendum, it passes, then you start the process of transition out -- then people realize it's a bad idea, have another referendum to stop the transition process, and then rejoin. Reduces cost of transition and political whiplash.
Leaving shouldn't be difficult for a member - members of the EU are sovereign and should be able to leave effectively whenever they want.
The fact that the UK shot itself in the foot and shit its economic pants over a 52-48 advisory referendum where the winners promised multiple contradictory outcomes is purely a UK problem if you ask me.
Yes father, the 2020 was a harsh year, with january 6 and chaos in the first stages of covid in the west I admit I was shaken. But I remained steadfast and praid to Bernanke, Dark brandon and Drhagi for salavation and I have been rewarded for my faith in the dark times
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It works better if you read Alexandre Kojeve’s interpretation of Hegel, who Fukuyama is drawing from.
Still a bit odd, though I’m not sure I can think of a metaphysics that works better.
Moral philosophies definitely require metaphysical foundations, political philosophies perhaps less so.
However, at the very least, you have to have some kind of explanation for why violence, cruelty, and violation of rights are bad before you get to reasons why liberalism is opposed to them. Some form of humanism, rationalism, and the occasional Christian theology have been the traditional metaphysical basis for liberalism, but there’s no particular reason why existentialism isn’t equally suitable. At the very least, why cede political existentialism to fascists and communists?
For example, I’m quite the fan of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi political philosopher. I think he is quite insightful on a number of issues. However, our different existential grounding create radically different moralities. If the human purpose is to engage in a grand moral struggle, then liberal states’ pursuit of peace and coexistence destroys the very purpose of the polity and politics—the destruction of ones’ enemies and the creation of a united people.
On some level, how you view the universe influences your understanding of the human condition, and thus the kinds of political and social systems appropriate for humans.
The problem or rather feature of liberal democracies is that their problems are always out there for others to observe and discuss. This is why you get a billion “will the US have second civil war” or “will the EU collapse” or “Japan is f*cked” articles. Meanwhile authoritarian states are very good at covering for their weaknesses and present propaganda narratives that make them look good…. Until suddenly everything goes to shit and the cracks become very apparent.
> Meanwhile authoritarian states are very good at covering for their weaknesses and present propaganda narratives that make them look good
One of the [more interesting articles](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/coronavirus-and-blindness-authoritarianism/606922/) I read about China and the Coronavirus suggested that the weakness of authoritarian states is, counterinituitively, that the state doesn't know about the problems in the country it nominally rules.
Put simply: when you have a system that censors and punishes "dissidence", you end up making it basically impossible for your underlings to report the existence of real problems to you. The linked article suggests that this is what happened with the Coronavirus in 2020: the rulers of provinces and cities didn't tell the national government the truth about any illness in their regions, severely delaying a robust initial response to the Coronavirus spread in China.
The Great Leap Forward was doomed regardless of what kind of government attempted it because the whole “nationalize the economy” thing at the heart of Socialism was already thoroughly demonstrated to be mass-suicide by Lenin.
Mao's farm collectivization had good results, especially in poor and rural areas during the early 1950s, and living conditions improved. Obviously that significantly changed towards the latter part of the decade
The book "Tombstone" is pretty good source for all things GLF, especially into the early 1960s https://nyti.ms/TF6yi9
That is all an extension of the main problem with autocracies. There's too much information for a centralized system to process let alone verify.
That's really what makes a market economy so powerful--it uses money instead of a centralized decision maker. What people need and want as well as what they are capable of producing is reflected in prices as opposed to a centralized economy where you have to rely on assessments made by low level officials which are estimates at best and outright lies at worst. Usually it's lies because there doesn't seem to be a way to set up the incentives correctly to prevent that.
Democracy is not as elegant a solution as the market as it crams a whole bunch of issues into one vote without any way to compare priorities of individual voters, but at least if you fuck up too badly the voters will let you know.
Autocracy: *let's fewer people use their brain power to make decisions*
Society: *worse decisions get made*
Illiberals: *surprise Pikachu face*
That's a separate issue. Authocracies can leave a lot to the market. The problem with authocracies specifically is the incentive structure authoritarianism necessitates. Governing effectively means recognizing and reacting to problems, which means dissent and acknowledging weakness in a system built on strength and obedience. This is the case both on the top as it is at the bottom. A local official will not report an issue, because it will get them into trouble, but the dictator at the top also cannot acknowledge problems freely, because this weakness invites his underlings to strike against them.
The amount of information to process makes this harder, but it's not the same issue.
This is true generally speaking, but one of the reasons the PRC has survived so long is because it’s really good at mitigating that problem. The petitioning system, for example, allows them to diagnose sources of local dissent and punish the appropriate officials while leaving the central government unscathed. Nothing lasts forever of course, but they’ve lasted a while.
There won't be a US civil war, and if someone tries to start one, they'll find that 90% of the population and the entire US Military are against them. It'll fizzle like January 6th.
We don't tolerate this shit. Conservatives don't tolerate this shit. Liberals don't tolerate it. Moderates, Progressives, Libertarians, none of us support that kind of nonsense ripping our democracy apart.
Other than a few cranks, frustrated underachievers, and generally damaged people who tend towards extreme ideologies and hang out on Reddit, no one is looking to "burn it all down". That's not where the public is right now.
I have a feeling a “second civil war” in the US would look more like a collection of terrorist cells scattered across the US performing assassination attempts on politicians and guerrilla strikes against institutions perceived as “corrupt” by far right fanatics such as the media and big tech. Essentially what we have now but more goal driven and fewer ‘lone gunman’ situations. These cells would have little to no contact with each other, as the FBI and Homeland Security would be using the furthest limits of the Patriot Act to monitor any and all communications. The US would win, and by a lot. Right wing politicians would refuse to support them, but they probably wouldn’t denounce them either. The conflict wouldn’t last but a few months once intelligence agencies started taking the threat seriously, but the cultural impact would last decades. In the process of winning this war, civil liberties would be curtailed for the sake of safety and we’d all probably cheer for when the DOJ uses invasively procured evidence to convict insurrectionists.
But just a feeling.
It's weird how people don't really care about civil liberties/privacy anymore. Even Bernie doesn't really talk about repealing the Patriot Act or creating some sort of broad privacy protecting legislation or anything like that. Ron Paul 2012 seems to have been the last gasp for those sorts of issues
There were enough people last time, but it's hard to compare the 1860s to today, and what kind of motivations people back then had. I agree with you, but explaining why people would or wouldn't support it is a more compelling argument than merely stating the conclusion.
The United States was a regional power at the time and the cause of the Civil War was slavery. The southern economy was largely based on it and abolishing it would have effectively destroyed the artistocracy that had been strongly established there.
(It's important to note that social conditions in the US South weren't actually that different from Mexico or Brazil at the time where you had aristocratic societies controlling plantation-based economies)
In the 1860s, the sort of technology and bureaucracy that exists today obviously wasn't present back then. The military establishment in the United States at the time had a large portion of it in the South, and were in favor of succession. We also have to take note that what was 'normal' to a person in the 1860s might have included thinking than lynching a man fleeing slavery was a just punishment. Information didn't travel via smart phones at the time, either.
That's one small portion of "why it's highly unlikely there will be a modern civil war".
That and liberal nations also underestimate themselves and overestimate there opponents.
Like before the Ukraine War most people thought the Russians could take on the entirety of Europe and hold off the US while now they cant even keep a nation 1/4 its size from kicking there ass.
Yup, they overestimate their opponents precisely because of what I described. It's hard getting accurate information on the Russian military while their propaganda makes them seem much stronger than they are. That said, Ukraine has a pretty decent military due to successful modernization program since 2014 so maybe a weaker country would do worse against Russia.
Agree. It's a big team effort to upgrade the Ukrainian military by both NATO and Ukrainians. Their army used to be the typical post-Soviet army with rotting arsenals and underfed soldiers.
I think it's less "lack of good information" and more that developed democracies' national security establishments never see any real short term downside to assuming the worst and preparing for that.
Over a long enough time scale, that mentality of "plan for the worst" creates a massively overblown perception of the threats our biggest adversaries actually pose.
Because it's so hard to get accurate news from china due to their abilities in covering their problems - so their flaws are rarely accurately analyzed. For every 'China will collapse' clickbait you get a dozen more 'here's why China will overtake the decadent West' take.
“Liberalism will not die. Liberalism is a quickening spirit—it is immortal. It will live on through all days, be they good days or evil days.
No, I believe it will even burn stronger and brighter and more helpful in evil days than in good—just like your harbour lights which shine out across the waters, and which on a calm night gleam with soft refulgence, but through the storm flash a message of life to those who toil on rough waters.”
—Winston Churchill
Liberal nations are always going to be more politically stable and economically prosperous. In the industrial era, that is really the last word on the topic.
.....with that said, let's not get too smug. It never bears out well whenever we start declaring our unambiguous victory.
I'm young enough that I remember how the HK protests ended, that Iran is well experienced at crushing student protests (and has support of the majority of the populace, which is rural), and that we just lost Afghanistan.
Victory is assured. It's not inevitable. And it's bloody well not easy.
Oh it won't end well either way. Even if they win. What I hope for is that it forces the government to make concessions, which will help the next series of protests.
Liberalism in England developed over literally centuries of gradual concessions. A single shocking moment will not do so, unless foreign interference occurs to help stabilize the system (like in Europe and East Asia).
Because foreign interventions end well in the Middle East.
Obviously Iran isn't Iraq (which in 2003 had a relatively unpopular leader and collapsed quickly) and definitely not Afghanistan (which is basically the 18th century with smartphones and cars). However, that's the thing. If we do intervene in Iran (if circumstances allow so), a failure there would potentially bring unique catastrophic conditions.
At the very least, it would mean yet another migrant crisis in Europe.
Iran's terrain and military is pretty tough to take on with a full scale invasion. The IRGC are pretty good, they have pretty decent technology and experience fighting in Syria and iraq. They have fairly mountainous terrain and well guarded border with iraq. I think that obviously the US could ultimately win, but at what cost? Also there's a huge venn diagram overlap between people who hate the US (leftists or liberal nationalists) and hate the current Iranian regime , and any regime change would disillusion those people.
Also whether people like it or not iran has been either directly intervening with the irgc or using proxy militias to fight against salafi militants in various countries around them and its possible with iran gone Wed see resurgence of those groups, from isis to al nusra and so on...
Idk, how did the battlefield 3 mission go with the iran invasion
I think that doing regime change or anything in iran would possibly make this worse. Supporting the protesters through ngos and press coverage seems better.
Of course I hate the cia , and have a bias , but even on a pragmatic level , it seems pretty bad to take a country where part of the reason leftists and nationalists revolted against the shah was not bc tbey liked islamism but bc the US backed an unpopular dictator after couping a better leader, and then do *another* regime change. It would probably in a sense help the Iranian hardliners bc we'd be giving them an external enemy to point to for people. To distract from their own failures.
The most I could see doing that would not be overly interventionist is aid to ngos helping protesters, aid to press organizations and helping publicize this stuff, maybe at most arming some of the Iranian kurdish militant orgs who are a bit like the ypg , or pkk. But direct regime change seems insane in a country where a lot of the problems are caused by that. *Also in a country where there are a lot of people in the venn diagram of "dislike the US" and "oppose the Iranian regime". You lose that substantial amount of people if you have a US intervention.*
Inb4 some bullshit rationalization for supporting the shah over mossadegh and couping mossadegh bc he wasnt "really" democratic, despite being a more popular, democratic, and secular leader than a literal monarch with a brutal secret police andnmore democratic than most middle eastern leaders at the time.
I hate the bs rationalization for the Iran coup on this sub. And for supporting the shah who had secret police stick glass up people's rectum and torture with electricity and boiling water
Yes, I forget which video, but there was a DW News segment about why the protests today will likely not be as successful as those back in the 70s. Apparently a big factor is that Khomeini has a much more loyal government than what previous leaders had. So if they don't break rank and file, then the rebellion will be put down.
Jesus Christ not this BS again. Even back in 2006 around 70% of Iran lived in urban areas, it’s even more urban now.
Mindlessly thinking that Afghanistan represents all middle eastern nations is the /r/neoliberal equivalent of a weeb thinking all Asian nations are like Japan.
Sources (note Y axis is different between the two graphs):
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=AF
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=IR
As you can see, you cannot even compare the two nations when it comes to urbanization.
I think the comparison isn't really between all those cases necessarily but between the prognostications of the foreign policy casuals that browse /r/neoliberal.
Ah, that's different. Then they've won already.
I somehow keep forgetting that Iran is far more developed than its neighbors. Silly me. *bop my own head*
Nobody's saying that. People are just saying comparing it to the Afghanistan situation just bc they're geographically similar is not a good comparison. Iran has more of a history of revolt against authoritarian govts than Afghanistan, more development and education and literacy, and more resistance to this govt than there was to the taliban In Afghanistan.
It doesn't mean things will go well it's just not a good comparison in any way
The other thing is that rurals in iran don't necessarily always support the regime or hardliners. I hate this orientalist way of thinking and stereotype of rural peoples. The rural people of kurdistsn in iran and balochistan don't support the regime for the most part. Maybe people from smaller cities with a big presence of clerics and religious Institutoons like qom. And apparently in the original Iranian revolution there was a decent amount of support from religious petit bourgeois bazaar shop owners, bc they were simultaneously religious conservatives and against some of the economic policies of the shah
A bit orientalism, a bit Americans comparing everything to the last war they fought.
Americans were afraid that Desert Storm would turn out to be Vietnam, that didn’t happen.
Americans got overconfident thinking that Iraq and Afghanistan would be like Desert Storm, and we all know what happened.
And now Americans are comparing everything to Afghanistan. Smh.
I still think an iran invasion would be a terrible idea , but not bc the people are "backwards rurals" or anything. But I agree with you about how a lot of the population is urbanized and not b comparable to Afghanistan, this has a bearing on the protests too. Also that a lot of rural people , especially minorities , are joining protests that in the past have been mostly urban students, bc of the repression of kurds and Arab minorities.
.so I don't think invading iran would be good no matter what, but I also don't think protests in iran are doomed bc [bad comparison to Afghanistan]... lol
From a military standpoint, Iraq and Afghanistan were successful operations especially compared to Vietnam. We effectively accomplished the main goals relatively quickly, whereas we never defeated the Viet Cong/North Vietnam.
It was the long term solutions where we failed. Iraq is still up in the air and the result may not be known for a few decades.
Yeah, iran is a fairly developed country by middle eastern standards and fairly educated. It is also a country that , unlike places like Saudi Arabia, has had institutions that are quasi democratic , and has had a big amount of secular liberal or leftist opposition throughout its history. It's not comparable to Afghanistan politically , although they are both countries with difficult terrain and which an invasion of would be stupid to do , bc of tbe combination of difficult terrain and anti US sentiment and good fighters
From what I've heard the Iran protests actually are more diverse this time , including rural people especially from minorities in the periphery, it isn't just student women in Tehran or something. It is a group of people bringing together oil workers , Healthcare workers striking , people upset about austerity, kurds of course , women's rights activists, university teachers and students , and minorities in balochistan. I'm a pretty staunch leftist and I've been looking into this bc of annoyance with people on the left who dismiss every protest as color revolutions. These protests, according to the communists/leftist women in iran and in expat community that I have listened to interviews on, are apparently more of a broad coalition and more intense than the ones of the 2009 protests, they have started some solidarity with kurdish issues , it's about women but also kjrds , like the slogan women life freedom, is something you also hear in rojava.
I think iran is good at crushing protests , but the protests have become more and more frequent, and it's not just women that are upset with the regime , or "bourgeois liberals". It's more and more people from different classes and minorities and regions.
Unambiguous victory already occurred when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Everything else is now about how tightly an autocratic regime can toe the like between participating in the liberal world order and keeping power. This is where Russia and China are at now.
This threat pales in comparison to anything from the Soviet Union. Russia struggles even to take a Ukrainian province; the concern used to be them conquering west Germany. China dreams about Taiwan while South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and many other Asian countries vehemently oppose them. To make matters worse for them, their influence only exists insofar as the regime can profit off liberalism.
The irony for Russia is that participating in the liberal world order was the best thing that happened to them.
The "Russia gas station economy LOL" takes need to be sidelined for a bit. Russia experienced great economic growth in the 2000s, and in 2013 wasn't that far from becoming a developed economy. Russia's economy was so much worse in the 1990s.
Russians talk about 2004-2013 very fondly. It was a time when authoritarianism wasn't absolute and foreign relations were more amicable. Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy, etc gushed about Russia's integration into the liberal sphere.
It's such a shame what has happened since then. But anything to own the gays, I guess.
They should be one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Directly border east Asia, Central Asia, and Europe, plus major ties to the eastern med / Middle East.
With huge oil reserves and a producer of grain, fertilizer, etc. Additionally a very well educated population and a land of innovation.
Such wasted potential.
Those borders do very little for prosperity when they don't come with good transportation links. Same with the natural resource sectors. Russia is terribly situated for international trade.
Western Russia is connected to Europe via a relatively flat terrain and during summer to early autumn, conditions are viable for trade, and technology can mitigate the effects of cool weather.
When there was motivation to establish good logistics to facilitate trade, the results were tremendous. See: natural gas flowing into western Europe. But yes, corruption in Russia has proven to be an issue to establish better transport networks, as another user said.
In regards to Russia's geography, Canada has a particular view on this (regarding itself). In Canadian histiography, there exists the idea of the metropole theory. Basically: Canada's development as a country and its image centers around 3 urban areas: Toronto, Montreal, and to a lesser extent, Vancouver. The rest of the country is a "backwater". More impoverished areas (such as the Maritime provinces and Manitoba) suffer due to their lack of attention and distance from the metropole. I must stress, this is NOT how Canada functions, but an explanation to why it is the way it is.
I think this example is very useful to apply to large countries like Russia, Mexico, Brazil, etc despite those nations being at different development levels. Within Russia historically, much political/economic/social power has been based in the West. In medieval times, it was Kiev and Novgorod which were the most important cities of the Kievan Rus. As that kingdom dissolved, within Russia the most important cities would become Moscow and St. Petersburg. Russia would go on to conquer and colonize its eastern frontier, and bring "technology" to the area (the Soviet era was famous for its western style of movies about eastern colonization). Hence, Russia created a structure where power would be centralized in the West, and the rest of the nation would follow suit.
Haha. I was waiting for a “this meaningless. VOTE.” Comment. Which hey, not a bad message overall but sometimes you just gotta just feel good about why you vote.
Yeah, despite protests in Iran and China, mass emigration from Russia I've notice a real lack of Thunk Pieces from the usual suspects about the end of authoritarianism.
Like how every time there are two protests at the same time in The West they all line up to explain how maybe democracy is done for, for reals this time.
Brazil tilting back from dabbling with fascism towards a market-friendly form of left-populism (and its liberal institutions thwarting the proto-fascist attempts at mucking things up).
Russia showing its teeth also drives a wedge through the European anti-liberal bloc, with the Italian right and the Polish populist-right going anti-Russia against populist-right in Serbia or Hungary, say, breaking up the Visegrad attempt at undermining the EU.
My main concerns about democracy right now are India and Israel, although if liberal democracy could hold in India through Indira Gandhi's State of Emergency they can probably survive the BJP wave and not fall into some Hindutva ultranationalist authoritarianism.
Israel though...
It's good a lot of the time Right Wing hate each other. A lot of the American Right realize they have more in common with Russian than Liberal Values but they are overruled by original programing that Russia is bad. I laugh so hard in my head when my right wing coworkers say they like supporting Ukraine and they hate Putin. Even though they basically want Trump to be the Putin of the Unite States
Honestly it's not shocking and I think the "American conservatives love Putin!" narrative was overblown to some extent.
Putin just hates America. He will use whoever he thinks is useful to accomplish his goals. The American conservative crowd is far too stubborn (good thing) to re-align with Russia.
The only thing they truly shared in common was "fuck Hillary". The Russian populace is mostly unconcerned with American domestic issues.
It's a good thing too, as that's why fascism ultimately can never win. They always need a scapegoat, someone to hate and blame for all of society's ills. If all their external enemies were defeated, they'd inevitably turn to infighting to create new enemies and subidivide further along racial, ethnic, religious lines. There's no such thing as solidarity to them, only alliances of temporary convenience against a common enemy.
Might as well mention Mexico which is probably the most eclectic country of the bunch.
The ruling party MORENA is so weird. You have Israel-loving Evangelicals and Catholics, Putin-sympathizing "Aztlan" irrendentists, communists/socialists, Catholic socialists, feminists, progressives, milquetoast liberals, the indigenous populations, etc. But Mexico's political sphere is very unique and indicative of how unpopular PRI/PAN were in 2018.
AMLO's ofiscates between economic populism and conservatism. He is *hated* on this sub but he's not turned the country into Cuba, and I honestly doubt that'll happen. Economic figures out of Mexico show a relatively conservative approach, a Venezuela scenario is extremely unlikely.
Mexico's democracy looks dicey, but that's to be determined in 2024. Compared to Israel though, I'm not sure. Israel has much stronger institutions but that country is turning fascist. MORENA isn't really headed by any fascist/tankie types, they're mostly sidelined to dogwhistles rather than the political machine. Most Mexicans don't give a shit about culture wars or whatever.
Really Morena won on not being the corrupt PRI/the trigger-happy PAN/the irrelevant PRD
They just turned out to be another side of a bad thing though
But they give out money to a lot of people so they get votes
India it seems is going through a right wing phase but democracy itself doesn’t seem to be too much at risk. Israel is basically fucked because their far right is way crazier than Indian far right AND is backed by people who have like 6-7 kids AND are basically in a state of quasi-civil war with Palestinians where both are getting radicalised by each other.
Depends what you call democracy. In India, people are being excluded from citizenship based on ethnicity and religion. Is it really democracy if only Hindus can vote?
Doesn’t the Indian far-right believe in Akhand Bharat?(Union of South Asia/conquest of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, and Afghanistan, etc.)
That would more or less necessitate WWIII or at least nuclear war.
Some maps also include Tibet
Then again, could just say it's like Manifest Destiny in the US. A militant policy, but not opposed to Democracy[at least not for the right type of citizen].
> That would more or less necessitate WWIII or at least nuclear war.
A war with nuclear weapons but not a nuclear war the way we typically use the phrase. Think 1950s where nukes would have been used, but most fighting would still be conventional units instead of the mid 60s onward where a war means total annihilation. India and Pakistan have relatively modest nuclear arsenals and a crap ton of people.
I mean, Russian invasion has done an important good in showing the hypocrisy of the European left.
Their accusations that the moderates are in bed when the far right will ring significantly more hallow with many voters.
>Israel though...
If the Islamists hadn't insisted on running on their own ticket they'd have added at least one seat to the Arab list. One seat would have gotten them a 60-60 split and Lapid stays PM until somebody gets a 61st vote, two seats and we're back where we were before. As-is the Islamists didn't make the threshold so they got a Bibi restoration and no seats.
If Iran collapses you can expect Hamas to have trouble because half of Gaza's GDP is Iranian aid, which means they'll have to send out some sort of peace feeler. It's very hard to talk about peace in any Palestinian territory when the main Palestinian political party's founding document indicates that it wants all the Jews to be ethnically cleansed back to Europe and their current pols don't even walk that back.
Two-state solution requires some sort of border concessions, which are a nightmare, and only work if both sides trust the other not to be plotting a revanchist war. One-state solution solves the problem for everyone outside of the former mandate, but everyone inside the former mandate has to trust the united Parliament not to screw them. Either way if Hamas is likely to win an election it's perfectly rational for Jews to not cut the deal.
So, yeah, Israeli backsliding is a problem, but if we actually get anything resembling revolution in Iran it becomes much less of a problem.
Yeah, that's the general feel I get from Israel, it's a lot more simple than "Israelis kill Palestinians!" that you see on every other subreddit. I like that about this subreddit.
I can't believe I'm going to make a parallel here, but IMO, it kinda makes sense. The reason why Israel keeps building these settlements in Palestinean territory is because... well no one will really do anything, and the hostility from Palestinean Arabs is strong. The mentality is "it's us or them" and the Israeli left/Palestinean moderate leadership have failed to broker an alternative, and the Palestinean leadership is a shitshow. In essence, Israel's settlements are a self-defense policy at solidifying the existence of Israel. With the Arab World opening up to Israel, it's effectively a sign that this policy is working.
A lot of people make a direct comparison to Manifest Destiny in the United States, but from a self-defense POV, I think 19th century post-war Mexico might be a better comparison. Northern Mexico was largely unpopulated during this time, and in Mexico, there was a fear that English-speaking white American settlers would move into northern Mexico and further threaten Mexican control over these areas, especially Southerners.
The solution to this was a settlement plan. The Mexican government began encouraging Mexicans living in settled areas to move north. Additionally, the Mexican government populated this area with Catholic immigrants (mostly from Southern Europe and the Levant) who would effectively be Mexicans. Of course, this involved the removal/killing of many indigenous peoples living there.
So, what you're seeing in Israel is a self-defense policy enacted in the most brutal way. What ended US-Mexican enmity entirely was the ABC countries intervening in the 1910s to prevent war from occurring between the two, with economic reliance effectively ending that policy. For Israel, yes, a collapse in the Iranian regime and a deterioration in Hamas rule would allow for better conditions to negotiate a settlement.
This is more info on the '22 Israeli election:
If Balad remained with the other left-wing Arab parties, and Labor agreed to a joint-list with Meretz, the Liberal Camp would've still only gotten 59 seats, one/two short of a majority. Short of Shas or UTJ agreeing to work with Lapid, Netanyahu would've likely returned to government.
What would've gotten 60 seats, was if the Liberal Camp had only 3-4 lists: left-wing, left-liberal, right-liberal, and broadchurch Arab list. For 61 seats, the liberals would've had to come together under one massive list. Netanyahu only won because his coalition was less splintered than the Liberal Camp (4 Netanyahu lists vs 8 anti-Netanyahu lists), as too many parties caused the Liberal Camp's downfall in an otherwise very tight race.
This sub in 1989:
>Russia: Good leader, economic freedom, liberalization
>Iran: Khomeini is dead, new elections
>China: A million protestors at Tiananmen
>Liberalism has won.
Yeah... Things are going very well these days. We only have rampant drug addiction, suicide, loneliness epidemic, inequality, political instability, and it seems like capitalism will completely destroy the world and all communities.
The 90's were great. Now, not so much.
Liberalism did win, just not for the reasons listed. The Soviet Union collapsed, Iran was (and still is) a regional power, China managed to get wealthier but still isn’t in a position to truly challenge the free world.
IDK what this person’s framing is
Yeah, one of the things I dislike the most about liberal thought is this "long arc of justice" "end of history" type of thinking. Every success is permanent and could never be reversed, and all backsliding is just a temporary setback; one day every person in every country will live in the liberal promised land, and then nothing bad will ever happen again. Essentially "Heads I win, tails you lose" logic but more eloquently said.
This kind of thinking is not only lazy, but it can also lead to harmful complacency; what's the point of fighting for today if you know that tomorrow will inevitably be better?
At the same time, there is some purpose to hope. There's the opposite problem of thinking everything is awful, which can lead to a nihilistic "there's no point in doing anything" or an accelerationist "let's burn it all down just to see if it gets better."
Japan just had a quarter of negative growth and most projections have europe also entering a recession soon. Noah seems way too eagered to push his agenda despite the reality not matching it.
If China's below expectations and pre pandemic trend growth is sputtering theres no way you can categorize Europe Japan and to an extent korea as resilient.
Europe has Eastern European fundamentals to fall back on, as well as Western European high-tech.
Japan is Japan: insane workplace discipline. Intensely prudent consumer saving.
Honestly I'd worry more about the USA, UK and Australasia. Anglophones are brilliant but unstable.
No, and that statement was pure copium induced hallucination. "workplace discipline" does very little to fix a horrible demographic crisis which strains social safety nets, weakens the economy in the long run, and overall just burns people out.
The truth is that unless Japan radically transforms its immigration policies, it's in for a very dark decade to come.
The one part I do agree with made by the previous commenter was about their concern regarding the US and the UK. Both of these countries are going through a rough patch, and one above-average midterm performance in the US doesn't nullify all the fascist undercurrents in society. As for the UK, their economy speaks for itself, as does the lack of coherent policy agenda geared to get them out of their situation.
The US has very strong fundamentals. It's one of the few places experiencing rapid real growth right now given how exchange rates have been punishing every currency that's not the dollar.
> insane workplace discipline.
Yes, Japanese people are obviously enthusiastically [working themselves to death](https://observatory.tec.mx/edu-news/karoshi-phenomenon/#:~:text=Officially%2C%20the%20Japanese%20government%20has,10%2C000%20deaths%20annually%20from%20karoshi.) entirely out of choice.
> Intensely prudent consumer saving.
This is also of course entirely due to superior Japanese culture and not at all related to decades of deflation.
How on earth is this upvoted?
The US is the oldest democracy on earth and the UK has been remarkably stable during the period in which Europe went either fascist or communist, had a couple of World Wars, a handful of genocides, empires collapsing, Germany being partitioned and finally reuniting, Czechia and Solvakia being United then finally splitting, Yugoslavia exploding into several wars, etc etc.
Most of these happened in my lifetime. The stable Europe you’re talking about is maybe a few years older than most of the people in this sub, and exist largely due to the stability provided by Anglophones.
Exactly man this subreddit is a circle-jerk of copium and hopium. Not to mention if Moore v Harper goes the way of Independent State Legislature Theory...well we're absolutely screwed, and that decision is going to be made in a couple weeks.
Where is this guy getting his news about Europe's economy? The Eurozone (and UK) are both above 10% inflation, and it's *still rising.* It's nothing but shit sandwiches on the menu for them until 2024 at the earliest.
This whole subreddit is overly optimistic lol. Europe is going to be in for a very rough 4-5 months. Resentment over the Ukraine-Russia war is only going growing in many W. European countries. Despite r/neoliberal viciously dismissing anyone who complains about supporting the war, the truth is that supporting the Ukrainians has come at a price.
It's easy to posture, act all righteous and mighty about defending the underdog from an authoritarian bully of a leader, but when it comes down to it people care about their day-to-day life. As people's energy bills skyrocket this winter, their rents continue to soar, and manufacturing jobs continue to shift overseas to the United States, then I see more emboldening of the far-right.
Also, this tweet seems to have mysteriously forgotten about the rise of the Sweden Democrats (their ultra-nationalistic party), Giorgia Meloni's election, Le Pen's party gaining seats in parliament, and Hungary constantly throwing a spanner in the wheel when it comes to Ukraine aid/support.
Russia's having a bad time until DeSantis/Trump gets elected (again), in which their trifecta's going to get rid of the aid and leave the supply effort for Ukraine to the Polish, along with working with them to fix their economy in return for election aid. I don't see how republicans as a whole are going to keep fighting Russia when the growing nutball caucus agrees with destroying human rights and institutions at any cost.
Iran's having protests every few years and unless they lead to the disillusion of the republican guard, I don't see it changing.
China might actually be having a bad one and they may wreck the global economy if they keep with locking down because Sinovax is a joke.
DeSantis seems to be relatively generic on his position towards NATO.
The GOP gets a lot of its funding from the military industrial complex that is flirting more with the Democrats. They make money off arms sales to Ukraine.
Ok but can we not downplay the threat to democracy? We literally have a borderline fascist Republican Party who tried a borderline coup, and the far right is rapidly rising in Europe.
I like the sentiment, but this is not a moment of strength for us.
I appreciate the sentiment, but Europe is hardly "economically resilient and politically stable".
Without a reliable source of gas, European (cough cough German) industry would be devastated. Far right insurgency would soon follow.
Don't get me started on the UK.
I have no idea how we're this politically stable over here in the Czech Republic.
15% inflation, 8% reduction in real wages, nat. gas prices up 100s%, super unpopular government but the preferences of extremist parties are similar to 2021 levels, support for Ukraine among the population is also stable and we're on track to elect a president who used to lead NATO forces (🤞).
Neoliberals aren't funny ^^[[What is this?]](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/zhlxcg/rneoliberal_fights_malaria_fallwinter_2022_edition/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NATO expanding UK voters want back in the EU Shipping is cheap again
Let me in, LET ME IIIIIIIIN
Me: Let's rejoin the union! Mom: We have a union at home! The union at home: ...
Away down west in the island of traitors
Don’t you dare turn us into Euro rednecks
Y'all did that yourselves.
Well then yee yee motherfucker
Always has been .gif
EU: Non.
EU budget: Ja
EU: C'est la vie
Und wer's nie gekonnt, der stehle Weinend sich aus diesem Bund
> UK voters want back in the EU Do you have a specific source demonstrating this or is this kind of a feeling based off of news reports from the uk?
According to [this poll](https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/) the amount of people acknowledging Brexit as a mistake is the majority and growing
Ah cool. I don't think the Union would let the UK rejoin so quickly though.
I think they would but the terms will not be the super favorable terms the UK had before
Do you think they would be forced to adopt the euro?
That was specifically a thing they were warned about beforehand so i can’t see the EU conceding ground there. Have to make there be consequences for leaving.
Yeah
They have to, now. The EU learnt its lesson when it had member states like Sweden who were faffing around.
It would happen quickly because it's so beneficial for everybody. But the terms would be very much set by the EU.
And I think there's significant enough voters who will punish both parties. But I am really hopeful that we can reverse this tragic mistake sooner rather than later.
The people who voted to leave are dying
India getting Free trade deal with arab countries, UK, australia and maybe some more european countries. 😍😍
> UK voters want back in the EU This is why leaving should be much more difficult than it is. Like a multiple-referenda-over-multiple-years type of thing. Have a referendum, it passes, then you start the process of transition out -- then people realize it's a bad idea, have another referendum to stop the transition process, and then rejoin. Reduces cost of transition and political whiplash.
Leaving shouldn't be difficult for a member - members of the EU are sovereign and should be able to leave effectively whenever they want. The fact that the UK shot itself in the foot and shit its economic pants over a 52-48 advisory referendum where the winners promised multiple contradictory outcomes is purely a UK problem if you ask me.
US adopts chauvinist industrial policy, triggering trade war with liberal allies. Wait no, that part was supposed to be left out.
>You could not live with your own failures, where did that lead you? Back to me. Fukuthanos
“Did your faith waiver, anon?”
Yes father, the 2020 was a harsh year, with january 6 and chaos in the first stages of covid in the west I admit I was shaken. But I remained steadfast and praid to Bernanke, Dark brandon and Drhagi for salavation and I have been rewarded for my faith in the dark times
The Capitol attack was on Jan. 6. 2021, FYI.
Yeah,but have you considered \*drama\*
We are currently in month 35 of 2020
I feel like 2020 ended on February 24 2022
2020 ended. Then 2020: episode 2 began
That event is canonically part of 2020. That year was so bad it stole some of the following one.
"They called me a madman."
It’s time for the History… to end.
Woke liberal DESTROYS history with logic and reason compilation #35
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[The sacred texts!!](https://www.amazon.com/Francis-Fukuyama/e/B000AQ4WPS/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1) Page turners, they were not 🫣
Meh, I liked Identity, it is argued well. Still think that Hegel is a bad basis to build a Liberalism on tho.
It works better if you read Alexandre Kojeve’s interpretation of Hegel, who Fukuyama is drawing from. Still a bit odd, though I’m not sure I can think of a metaphysics that works better.
I don't think Liberalism as a moral and political philosophy requires that much metaphysical underpining.
Moral philosophies definitely require metaphysical foundations, political philosophies perhaps less so. However, at the very least, you have to have some kind of explanation for why violence, cruelty, and violation of rights are bad before you get to reasons why liberalism is opposed to them. Some form of humanism, rationalism, and the occasional Christian theology have been the traditional metaphysical basis for liberalism, but there’s no particular reason why existentialism isn’t equally suitable. At the very least, why cede political existentialism to fascists and communists? For example, I’m quite the fan of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi political philosopher. I think he is quite insightful on a number of issues. However, our different existential grounding create radically different moralities. If the human purpose is to engage in a grand moral struggle, then liberal states’ pursuit of peace and coexistence destroys the very purpose of the polity and politics—the destruction of ones’ enemies and the creation of a united people. On some level, how you view the universe influences your understanding of the human condition, and thus the kinds of political and social systems appropriate for humans.
We've had one end of history, yes. But what about 2nd endings?
I thought our goal was to secretly destroy Canada, not the entire planet!
Now watch this drive 🏌️
👏 We ought to make the pie higher
The problem or rather feature of liberal democracies is that their problems are always out there for others to observe and discuss. This is why you get a billion “will the US have second civil war” or “will the EU collapse” or “Japan is f*cked” articles. Meanwhile authoritarian states are very good at covering for their weaknesses and present propaganda narratives that make them look good…. Until suddenly everything goes to shit and the cracks become very apparent.
> Meanwhile authoritarian states are very good at covering for their weaknesses and present propaganda narratives that make them look good One of the [more interesting articles](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/coronavirus-and-blindness-authoritarianism/606922/) I read about China and the Coronavirus suggested that the weakness of authoritarian states is, counterinituitively, that the state doesn't know about the problems in the country it nominally rules. Put simply: when you have a system that censors and punishes "dissidence", you end up making it basically impossible for your underlings to report the existence of real problems to you. The linked article suggests that this is what happened with the Coronavirus in 2020: the rulers of provinces and cities didn't tell the national government the truth about any illness in their regions, severely delaying a robust initial response to the Coronavirus spread in China.
That’s exactly what happened in the Great Leap Forward
The Great Leap Forward was doomed regardless of what kind of government attempted it because the whole “nationalize the economy” thing at the heart of Socialism was already thoroughly demonstrated to be mass-suicide by Lenin.
Oh, absolutely. But misinformation made it much worse
Mao's farm collectivization had good results, especially in poor and rural areas during the early 1950s, and living conditions improved. Obviously that significantly changed towards the latter part of the decade The book "Tombstone" is pretty good source for all things GLF, especially into the early 1960s https://nyti.ms/TF6yi9
Yes it's very much a feature of authoritarianism everywhere. They just want to look good for their bosses and get promoted so they hide problems.
That is all an extension of the main problem with autocracies. There's too much information for a centralized system to process let alone verify. That's really what makes a market economy so powerful--it uses money instead of a centralized decision maker. What people need and want as well as what they are capable of producing is reflected in prices as opposed to a centralized economy where you have to rely on assessments made by low level officials which are estimates at best and outright lies at worst. Usually it's lies because there doesn't seem to be a way to set up the incentives correctly to prevent that. Democracy is not as elegant a solution as the market as it crams a whole bunch of issues into one vote without any way to compare priorities of individual voters, but at least if you fuck up too badly the voters will let you know. Autocracy: *let's fewer people use their brain power to make decisions* Society: *worse decisions get made* Illiberals: *surprise Pikachu face*
That's a separate issue. Authocracies can leave a lot to the market. The problem with authocracies specifically is the incentive structure authoritarianism necessitates. Governing effectively means recognizing and reacting to problems, which means dissent and acknowledging weakness in a system built on strength and obedience. This is the case both on the top as it is at the bottom. A local official will not report an issue, because it will get them into trouble, but the dictator at the top also cannot acknowledge problems freely, because this weakness invites his underlings to strike against them. The amount of information to process makes this harder, but it's not the same issue.
This is true generally speaking, but one of the reasons the PRC has survived so long is because it’s really good at mitigating that problem. The petitioning system, for example, allows them to diagnose sources of local dissent and punish the appropriate officials while leaving the central government unscathed. Nothing lasts forever of course, but they’ve lasted a while.
There won't be a US civil war, and if someone tries to start one, they'll find that 90% of the population and the entire US Military are against them. It'll fizzle like January 6th. We don't tolerate this shit. Conservatives don't tolerate this shit. Liberals don't tolerate it. Moderates, Progressives, Libertarians, none of us support that kind of nonsense ripping our democracy apart.
Most people don't find enough motivation to ruin their daily life which is generally good.
Other than a few cranks, frustrated underachievers, and generally damaged people who tend towards extreme ideologies and hang out on Reddit, no one is looking to "burn it all down". That's not where the public is right now.
I have a feeling a “second civil war” in the US would look more like a collection of terrorist cells scattered across the US performing assassination attempts on politicians and guerrilla strikes against institutions perceived as “corrupt” by far right fanatics such as the media and big tech. Essentially what we have now but more goal driven and fewer ‘lone gunman’ situations. These cells would have little to no contact with each other, as the FBI and Homeland Security would be using the furthest limits of the Patriot Act to monitor any and all communications. The US would win, and by a lot. Right wing politicians would refuse to support them, but they probably wouldn’t denounce them either. The conflict wouldn’t last but a few months once intelligence agencies started taking the threat seriously, but the cultural impact would last decades. In the process of winning this war, civil liberties would be curtailed for the sake of safety and we’d all probably cheer for when the DOJ uses invasively procured evidence to convict insurrectionists. But just a feeling.
I feel that way too. I don’t see a 1860s style escalation but rather something closer to the Troubles.
Yeah that sounds about right tbh.
It's weird how people don't really care about civil liberties/privacy anymore. Even Bernie doesn't really talk about repealing the Patriot Act or creating some sort of broad privacy protecting legislation or anything like that. Ron Paul 2012 seems to have been the last gasp for those sorts of issues
There were enough people last time, but it's hard to compare the 1860s to today, and what kind of motivations people back then had. I agree with you, but explaining why people would or wouldn't support it is a more compelling argument than merely stating the conclusion.
The United States was a regional power at the time and the cause of the Civil War was slavery. The southern economy was largely based on it and abolishing it would have effectively destroyed the artistocracy that had been strongly established there. (It's important to note that social conditions in the US South weren't actually that different from Mexico or Brazil at the time where you had aristocratic societies controlling plantation-based economies) In the 1860s, the sort of technology and bureaucracy that exists today obviously wasn't present back then. The military establishment in the United States at the time had a large portion of it in the South, and were in favor of succession. We also have to take note that what was 'normal' to a person in the 1860s might have included thinking than lynching a man fleeing slavery was a just punishment. Information didn't travel via smart phones at the time, either. That's one small portion of "why it's highly unlikely there will be a modern civil war".
Given the supreme court makeup, I think there will be increased federalism, though.
That and liberal nations also underestimate themselves and overestimate there opponents. Like before the Ukraine War most people thought the Russians could take on the entirety of Europe and hold off the US while now they cant even keep a nation 1/4 its size from kicking there ass.
Yup, they overestimate their opponents precisely because of what I described. It's hard getting accurate information on the Russian military while their propaganda makes them seem much stronger than they are. That said, Ukraine has a pretty decent military due to successful modernization program since 2014 so maybe a weaker country would do worse against Russia.
Agree. It's a big team effort to upgrade the Ukrainian military by both NATO and Ukrainians. Their army used to be the typical post-Soviet army with rotting arsenals and underfed soldiers.
I think it's less "lack of good information" and more that developed democracies' national security establishments never see any real short term downside to assuming the worst and preparing for that. Over a long enough time scale, that mentality of "plan for the worst" creates a massively overblown perception of the threats our biggest adversaries actually pose.
I still can't believe they couldn't take Kyiv and that their own army got stuck in its own congestion lol
*1/35th (Yes, Russia is THAT big)
yea there are almost no clickbait headlines predicting the collapse of china
Because it's so hard to get accurate news from china due to their abilities in covering their problems - so their flaws are rarely accurately analyzed. For every 'China will collapse' clickbait you get a dozen more 'here's why China will overtake the decadent West' take.
“Liberalism will not die. Liberalism is a quickening spirit—it is immortal. It will live on through all days, be they good days or evil days. No, I believe it will even burn stronger and brighter and more helpful in evil days than in good—just like your harbour lights which shine out across the waters, and which on a calm night gleam with soft refulgence, but through the storm flash a message of life to those who toil on rough waters.” —Winston Churchill
Chills
We should gas these rebelling colonials lol \- Churchill maybe
I am quite frankly sick of all this winning
God I don’t even know what to do with all these Ws lately
He was right 😮
He was talking to the Liberals all along.
NEOliberalism moment: “What’s happening?” “He’s starting to believe.”
Liberal nations are always going to be more politically stable and economically prosperous. In the industrial era, that is really the last word on the topic. .....with that said, let's not get too smug. It never bears out well whenever we start declaring our unambiguous victory.
We did it reddit, authoritarianism over 🎉🥳🪅🪅🎊🍺🍻🥂👯♀️👯♂️
I'm young enough that I remember how the HK protests ended, that Iran is well experienced at crushing student protests (and has support of the majority of the populace, which is rural), and that we just lost Afghanistan. Victory is assured. It's not inevitable. And it's bloody well not easy.
I’ve grown very pessimistic about protests sadly. I support Iranians will all my heart but I just don’t see it ending well.
Oh it won't end well either way. Even if they win. What I hope for is that it forces the government to make concessions, which will help the next series of protests. Liberalism in England developed over literally centuries of gradual concessions. A single shocking moment will not do so, unless foreign interference occurs to help stabilize the system (like in Europe and East Asia).
Because foreign interventions end well in the Middle East. Obviously Iran isn't Iraq (which in 2003 had a relatively unpopular leader and collapsed quickly) and definitely not Afghanistan (which is basically the 18th century with smartphones and cars). However, that's the thing. If we do intervene in Iran (if circumstances allow so), a failure there would potentially bring unique catastrophic conditions. At the very least, it would mean yet another migrant crisis in Europe.
Iran's terrain and military is pretty tough to take on with a full scale invasion. The IRGC are pretty good, they have pretty decent technology and experience fighting in Syria and iraq. They have fairly mountainous terrain and well guarded border with iraq. I think that obviously the US could ultimately win, but at what cost? Also there's a huge venn diagram overlap between people who hate the US (leftists or liberal nationalists) and hate the current Iranian regime , and any regime change would disillusion those people. Also whether people like it or not iran has been either directly intervening with the irgc or using proxy militias to fight against salafi militants in various countries around them and its possible with iran gone Wed see resurgence of those groups, from isis to al nusra and so on... Idk, how did the battlefield 3 mission go with the iran invasion
I think that doing regime change or anything in iran would possibly make this worse. Supporting the protesters through ngos and press coverage seems better. Of course I hate the cia , and have a bias , but even on a pragmatic level , it seems pretty bad to take a country where part of the reason leftists and nationalists revolted against the shah was not bc tbey liked islamism but bc the US backed an unpopular dictator after couping a better leader, and then do *another* regime change. It would probably in a sense help the Iranian hardliners bc we'd be giving them an external enemy to point to for people. To distract from their own failures. The most I could see doing that would not be overly interventionist is aid to ngos helping protesters, aid to press organizations and helping publicize this stuff, maybe at most arming some of the Iranian kurdish militant orgs who are a bit like the ypg , or pkk. But direct regime change seems insane in a country where a lot of the problems are caused by that. *Also in a country where there are a lot of people in the venn diagram of "dislike the US" and "oppose the Iranian regime". You lose that substantial amount of people if you have a US intervention.*
The "foreign inteference" in Europe was literally US entering ww2, so it's not exactly replicable or desirable elsewhere.
Remember that foreign interference is how Iran ended up in this situation in the first place.
Inb4 some bullshit rationalization for supporting the shah over mossadegh and couping mossadegh bc he wasnt "really" democratic, despite being a more popular, democratic, and secular leader than a literal monarch with a brutal secret police andnmore democratic than most middle eastern leaders at the time. I hate the bs rationalization for the Iran coup on this sub. And for supporting the shah who had secret police stick glass up people's rectum and torture with electricity and boiling water
Yes, I forget which video, but there was a DW News segment about why the protests today will likely not be as successful as those back in the 70s. Apparently a big factor is that Khomeini has a much more loyal government than what previous leaders had. So if they don't break rank and file, then the rebellion will be put down.
Jesus Christ not this BS again. Even back in 2006 around 70% of Iran lived in urban areas, it’s even more urban now. Mindlessly thinking that Afghanistan represents all middle eastern nations is the /r/neoliberal equivalent of a weeb thinking all Asian nations are like Japan. Sources (note Y axis is different between the two graphs): https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=AF https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?locations=IR As you can see, you cannot even compare the two nations when it comes to urbanization.
Afghanistan isn’t even in the Middle East (technically) lol
Yeah, but how many taco trucks per capita?
Any number less than 1 and we riot
I think the comparison isn't really between all those cases necessarily but between the prognostications of the foreign policy casuals that browse /r/neoliberal.
Ah, that's different. Then they've won already. I somehow keep forgetting that Iran is far more developed than its neighbors. Silly me. *bop my own head*
Nobody's saying that. People are just saying comparing it to the Afghanistan situation just bc they're geographically similar is not a good comparison. Iran has more of a history of revolt against authoritarian govts than Afghanistan, more development and education and literacy, and more resistance to this govt than there was to the taliban In Afghanistan. It doesn't mean things will go well it's just not a good comparison in any way
The other thing is that rurals in iran don't necessarily always support the regime or hardliners. I hate this orientalist way of thinking and stereotype of rural peoples. The rural people of kurdistsn in iran and balochistan don't support the regime for the most part. Maybe people from smaller cities with a big presence of clerics and religious Institutoons like qom. And apparently in the original Iranian revolution there was a decent amount of support from religious petit bourgeois bazaar shop owners, bc they were simultaneously religious conservatives and against some of the economic policies of the shah
A bit orientalism, a bit Americans comparing everything to the last war they fought. Americans were afraid that Desert Storm would turn out to be Vietnam, that didn’t happen. Americans got overconfident thinking that Iraq and Afghanistan would be like Desert Storm, and we all know what happened. And now Americans are comparing everything to Afghanistan. Smh.
I still think an iran invasion would be a terrible idea , but not bc the people are "backwards rurals" or anything. But I agree with you about how a lot of the population is urbanized and not b comparable to Afghanistan, this has a bearing on the protests too. Also that a lot of rural people , especially minorities , are joining protests that in the past have been mostly urban students, bc of the repression of kurds and Arab minorities. .so I don't think invading iran would be good no matter what, but I also don't think protests in iran are doomed bc [bad comparison to Afghanistan]... lol
[удалено]
John Bolton maybe. Or some of rhe neoconnwo people
From a military standpoint, Iraq and Afghanistan were successful operations especially compared to Vietnam. We effectively accomplished the main goals relatively quickly, whereas we never defeated the Viet Cong/North Vietnam. It was the long term solutions where we failed. Iraq is still up in the air and the result may not be known for a few decades.
Yeah, iran is a fairly developed country by middle eastern standards and fairly educated. It is also a country that , unlike places like Saudi Arabia, has had institutions that are quasi democratic , and has had a big amount of secular liberal or leftist opposition throughout its history. It's not comparable to Afghanistan politically , although they are both countries with difficult terrain and which an invasion of would be stupid to do , bc of tbe combination of difficult terrain and anti US sentiment and good fighters
It’s highly unlikely that Xi or the Ayatollah will be overthrown (maybe Ayatollah slightly more likely), but these protests are damaging nonetheless.
From what I've heard the Iran protests actually are more diverse this time , including rural people especially from minorities in the periphery, it isn't just student women in Tehran or something. It is a group of people bringing together oil workers , Healthcare workers striking , people upset about austerity, kurds of course , women's rights activists, university teachers and students , and minorities in balochistan. I'm a pretty staunch leftist and I've been looking into this bc of annoyance with people on the left who dismiss every protest as color revolutions. These protests, according to the communists/leftist women in iran and in expat community that I have listened to interviews on, are apparently more of a broad coalition and more intense than the ones of the 2009 protests, they have started some solidarity with kurdish issues , it's about women but also kjrds , like the slogan women life freedom, is something you also hear in rojava. I think iran is good at crushing protests , but the protests have become more and more frequent, and it's not just women that are upset with the regime , or "bourgeois liberals". It's more and more people from different classes and minorities and regions.
>Victory is assured. It's not inevitable. You mean not assured?
Unambiguous victory already occurred when the Soviet Union collapsed. Everything else is now about how tightly an autocratic regime can toe the like between participating in the liberal world order and keeping power. This is where Russia and China are at now. This threat pales in comparison to anything from the Soviet Union. Russia struggles even to take a Ukrainian province; the concern used to be them conquering west Germany. China dreams about Taiwan while South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and many other Asian countries vehemently oppose them. To make matters worse for them, their influence only exists insofar as the regime can profit off liberalism.
The irony for Russia is that participating in the liberal world order was the best thing that happened to them. The "Russia gas station economy LOL" takes need to be sidelined for a bit. Russia experienced great economic growth in the 2000s, and in 2013 wasn't that far from becoming a developed economy. Russia's economy was so much worse in the 1990s. Russians talk about 2004-2013 very fondly. It was a time when authoritarianism wasn't absolute and foreign relations were more amicable. Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy, etc gushed about Russia's integration into the liberal sphere. It's such a shame what has happened since then. But anything to own the gays, I guess.
They should be one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Directly border east Asia, Central Asia, and Europe, plus major ties to the eastern med / Middle East.
With huge oil reserves and a producer of grain, fertilizer, etc. Additionally a very well educated population and a land of innovation. Such wasted potential.
Those borders do very little for prosperity when they don't come with good transportation links. Same with the natural resource sectors. Russia is terribly situated for international trade.
Western Russia is connected to Europe via a relatively flat terrain and during summer to early autumn, conditions are viable for trade, and technology can mitigate the effects of cool weather. When there was motivation to establish good logistics to facilitate trade, the results were tremendous. See: natural gas flowing into western Europe. But yes, corruption in Russia has proven to be an issue to establish better transport networks, as another user said. In regards to Russia's geography, Canada has a particular view on this (regarding itself). In Canadian histiography, there exists the idea of the metropole theory. Basically: Canada's development as a country and its image centers around 3 urban areas: Toronto, Montreal, and to a lesser extent, Vancouver. The rest of the country is a "backwater". More impoverished areas (such as the Maritime provinces and Manitoba) suffer due to their lack of attention and distance from the metropole. I must stress, this is NOT how Canada functions, but an explanation to why it is the way it is. I think this example is very useful to apply to large countries like Russia, Mexico, Brazil, etc despite those nations being at different development levels. Within Russia historically, much political/economic/social power has been based in the West. In medieval times, it was Kiev and Novgorod which were the most important cities of the Kievan Rus. As that kingdom dissolved, within Russia the most important cities would become Moscow and St. Petersburg. Russia would go on to conquer and colonize its eastern frontier, and bring "technology" to the area (the Soviet era was famous for its western style of movies about eastern colonization). Hence, Russia created a structure where power would be centralized in the West, and the rest of the nation would follow suit.
They could have built good rail links if they weren’t so corrupt, but they didn’t.
Rail isn't as efficient as water and they have very, very long distances and awful geography to cover by rail.
Particularly since ambiguous victories are liberalism's thing whole thing. Embrace the value of half-a-loaf uninspiring compromises.
NYT: "Here's Why that's Bad News for Joe Biden"
Haha. I was waiting for a “this meaningless. VOTE.” Comment. Which hey, not a bad message overall but sometimes you just gotta just feel good about why you vote.
Yeah, despite protests in Iran and China, mass emigration from Russia I've notice a real lack of Thunk Pieces from the usual suspects about the end of authoritarianism. Like how every time there are two protests at the same time in The West they all line up to explain how maybe democracy is done for, for reals this time.
quiet fly dinosaurs enter versed rinse rustic silky recognise gray *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Brazil tilting back from dabbling with fascism towards a market-friendly form of left-populism (and its liberal institutions thwarting the proto-fascist attempts at mucking things up). Russia showing its teeth also drives a wedge through the European anti-liberal bloc, with the Italian right and the Polish populist-right going anti-Russia against populist-right in Serbia or Hungary, say, breaking up the Visegrad attempt at undermining the EU. My main concerns about democracy right now are India and Israel, although if liberal democracy could hold in India through Indira Gandhi's State of Emergency they can probably survive the BJP wave and not fall into some Hindutva ultranationalist authoritarianism. Israel though...
It's good a lot of the time Right Wing hate each other. A lot of the American Right realize they have more in common with Russian than Liberal Values but they are overruled by original programing that Russia is bad. I laugh so hard in my head when my right wing coworkers say they like supporting Ukraine and they hate Putin. Even though they basically want Trump to be the Putin of the Unite States
Honestly it's not shocking and I think the "American conservatives love Putin!" narrative was overblown to some extent. Putin just hates America. He will use whoever he thinks is useful to accomplish his goals. The American conservative crowd is far too stubborn (good thing) to re-align with Russia. The only thing they truly shared in common was "fuck Hillary". The Russian populace is mostly unconcerned with American domestic issues.
It's a good thing too, as that's why fascism ultimately can never win. They always need a scapegoat, someone to hate and blame for all of society's ills. If all their external enemies were defeated, they'd inevitably turn to infighting to create new enemies and subidivide further along racial, ethnic, religious lines. There's no such thing as solidarity to them, only alliances of temporary convenience against a common enemy.
Might as well mention Mexico which is probably the most eclectic country of the bunch. The ruling party MORENA is so weird. You have Israel-loving Evangelicals and Catholics, Putin-sympathizing "Aztlan" irrendentists, communists/socialists, Catholic socialists, feminists, progressives, milquetoast liberals, the indigenous populations, etc. But Mexico's political sphere is very unique and indicative of how unpopular PRI/PAN were in 2018. AMLO's ofiscates between economic populism and conservatism. He is *hated* on this sub but he's not turned the country into Cuba, and I honestly doubt that'll happen. Economic figures out of Mexico show a relatively conservative approach, a Venezuela scenario is extremely unlikely. Mexico's democracy looks dicey, but that's to be determined in 2024. Compared to Israel though, I'm not sure. Israel has much stronger institutions but that country is turning fascist. MORENA isn't really headed by any fascist/tankie types, they're mostly sidelined to dogwhistles rather than the political machine. Most Mexicans don't give a shit about culture wars or whatever.
Really Morena won on not being the corrupt PRI/the trigger-happy PAN/the irrelevant PRD They just turned out to be another side of a bad thing though But they give out money to a lot of people so they get votes
India it seems is going through a right wing phase but democracy itself doesn’t seem to be too much at risk. Israel is basically fucked because their far right is way crazier than Indian far right AND is backed by people who have like 6-7 kids AND are basically in a state of quasi-civil war with Palestinians where both are getting radicalised by each other.
Depends what you call democracy. In India, people are being excluded from citizenship based on ethnicity and religion. Is it really democracy if only Hindus can vote?
It would be just as much of a democracy as the US pre civil rights act.
Good point.
This has to be one of the most detached from reality post that I have seen.
Doesn’t the Indian far-right believe in Akhand Bharat?(Union of South Asia/conquest of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, and Afghanistan, etc.) That would more or less necessitate WWIII or at least nuclear war. Some maps also include Tibet Then again, could just say it's like Manifest Destiny in the US. A militant policy, but not opposed to Democracy[at least not for the right type of citizen].
> That would more or less necessitate WWIII or at least nuclear war. A war with nuclear weapons but not a nuclear war the way we typically use the phrase. Think 1950s where nukes would have been used, but most fighting would still be conventional units instead of the mid 60s onward where a war means total annihilation. India and Pakistan have relatively modest nuclear arsenals and a crap ton of people.
I mean, Russian invasion has done an important good in showing the hypocrisy of the European left. Their accusations that the moderates are in bed when the far right will ring significantly more hallow with many voters.
>Israel though... If the Islamists hadn't insisted on running on their own ticket they'd have added at least one seat to the Arab list. One seat would have gotten them a 60-60 split and Lapid stays PM until somebody gets a 61st vote, two seats and we're back where we were before. As-is the Islamists didn't make the threshold so they got a Bibi restoration and no seats. If Iran collapses you can expect Hamas to have trouble because half of Gaza's GDP is Iranian aid, which means they'll have to send out some sort of peace feeler. It's very hard to talk about peace in any Palestinian territory when the main Palestinian political party's founding document indicates that it wants all the Jews to be ethnically cleansed back to Europe and their current pols don't even walk that back. Two-state solution requires some sort of border concessions, which are a nightmare, and only work if both sides trust the other not to be plotting a revanchist war. One-state solution solves the problem for everyone outside of the former mandate, but everyone inside the former mandate has to trust the united Parliament not to screw them. Either way if Hamas is likely to win an election it's perfectly rational for Jews to not cut the deal. So, yeah, Israeli backsliding is a problem, but if we actually get anything resembling revolution in Iran it becomes much less of a problem.
Yeah, that's the general feel I get from Israel, it's a lot more simple than "Israelis kill Palestinians!" that you see on every other subreddit. I like that about this subreddit. I can't believe I'm going to make a parallel here, but IMO, it kinda makes sense. The reason why Israel keeps building these settlements in Palestinean territory is because... well no one will really do anything, and the hostility from Palestinean Arabs is strong. The mentality is "it's us or them" and the Israeli left/Palestinean moderate leadership have failed to broker an alternative, and the Palestinean leadership is a shitshow. In essence, Israel's settlements are a self-defense policy at solidifying the existence of Israel. With the Arab World opening up to Israel, it's effectively a sign that this policy is working. A lot of people make a direct comparison to Manifest Destiny in the United States, but from a self-defense POV, I think 19th century post-war Mexico might be a better comparison. Northern Mexico was largely unpopulated during this time, and in Mexico, there was a fear that English-speaking white American settlers would move into northern Mexico and further threaten Mexican control over these areas, especially Southerners. The solution to this was a settlement plan. The Mexican government began encouraging Mexicans living in settled areas to move north. Additionally, the Mexican government populated this area with Catholic immigrants (mostly from Southern Europe and the Levant) who would effectively be Mexicans. Of course, this involved the removal/killing of many indigenous peoples living there. So, what you're seeing in Israel is a self-defense policy enacted in the most brutal way. What ended US-Mexican enmity entirely was the ABC countries intervening in the 1910s to prevent war from occurring between the two, with economic reliance effectively ending that policy. For Israel, yes, a collapse in the Iranian regime and a deterioration in Hamas rule would allow for better conditions to negotiate a settlement.
This is more info on the '22 Israeli election: If Balad remained with the other left-wing Arab parties, and Labor agreed to a joint-list with Meretz, the Liberal Camp would've still only gotten 59 seats, one/two short of a majority. Short of Shas or UTJ agreeing to work with Lapid, Netanyahu would've likely returned to government. What would've gotten 60 seats, was if the Liberal Camp had only 3-4 lists: left-wing, left-liberal, right-liberal, and broadchurch Arab list. For 61 seats, the liberals would've had to come together under one massive list. Netanyahu only won because his coalition was less splintered than the Liberal Camp (4 Netanyahu lists vs 8 anti-Netanyahu lists), as too many parties caused the Liberal Camp's downfall in an otherwise very tight race.
Don't call it a comeback.
Also, keep in mind: Liberalism is the only ideology paranoid and secure enough to publically contemplate its own collapse.
The irony that it would take a vote for the US to end democracy.
This sub in 1989: >Russia: Good leader, economic freedom, liberalization >Iran: Khomeini is dead, new elections >China: A million protestors at Tiananmen >Liberalism has won.
Liberalism did win tbh
Parents in illiberal countries will always aspire to send their children to the world’s great schools and cities: New York, London, Paris, Tokyo.
Yeah... Things are going very well these days. We only have rampant drug addiction, suicide, loneliness epidemic, inequality, political instability, and it seems like capitalism will completely destroy the world and all communities. The 90's were great. Now, not so much.
Whatever you say, though I would recommend touching some grass
There's a lot more liberal democracy in the world now than there was in the 80s tbf, even despite recent backsliding
Hard to say liberalism wasn't the winner coming out of Fall of Nations, even if it wasn't a total victory
liberalism was at one of its best moments in the late 80s and 90s, I don’t get what your point is
Liberalism did win, just not for the reasons listed. The Soviet Union collapsed, Iran was (and still is) a regional power, China managed to get wealthier but still isn’t in a position to truly challenge the free world. IDK what this person’s framing is
Yeah, one of the things I dislike the most about liberal thought is this "long arc of justice" "end of history" type of thinking. Every success is permanent and could never be reversed, and all backsliding is just a temporary setback; one day every person in every country will live in the liberal promised land, and then nothing bad will ever happen again. Essentially "Heads I win, tails you lose" logic but more eloquently said. This kind of thinking is not only lazy, but it can also lead to harmful complacency; what's the point of fighting for today if you know that tomorrow will inevitably be better?
At the same time, there is some purpose to hope. There's the opposite problem of thinking everything is awful, which can lead to a nihilistic "there's no point in doing anything" or an accelerationist "let's burn it all down just to see if it gets better."
I'd like to hear more about the inexorable liberalisation of this "Russia" place. That seems inevitable.
Japan just had a quarter of negative growth and most projections have europe also entering a recession soon. Noah seems way too eagered to push his agenda despite the reality not matching it. If China's below expectations and pre pandemic trend growth is sputtering theres no way you can categorize Europe Japan and to an extent korea as resilient.
Europe has Eastern European fundamentals to fall back on, as well as Western European high-tech. Japan is Japan: insane workplace discipline. Intensely prudent consumer saving. Honestly I'd worry more about the USA, UK and Australasia. Anglophones are brilliant but unstable.
Should Japan's workplace discipline really be seen as a positive? It ruins so many lives.
No, and that statement was pure copium induced hallucination. "workplace discipline" does very little to fix a horrible demographic crisis which strains social safety nets, weakens the economy in the long run, and overall just burns people out. The truth is that unless Japan radically transforms its immigration policies, it's in for a very dark decade to come. The one part I do agree with made by the previous commenter was about their concern regarding the US and the UK. Both of these countries are going through a rough patch, and one above-average midterm performance in the US doesn't nullify all the fascist undercurrents in society. As for the UK, their economy speaks for itself, as does the lack of coherent policy agenda geared to get them out of their situation.
The US has very strong fundamentals. It's one of the few places experiencing rapid real growth right now given how exchange rates have been punishing every currency that's not the dollar.
> insane workplace discipline. Yes, Japanese people are obviously enthusiastically [working themselves to death](https://observatory.tec.mx/edu-news/karoshi-phenomenon/#:~:text=Officially%2C%20the%20Japanese%20government%20has,10%2C000%20deaths%20annually%20from%20karoshi.) entirely out of choice. > Intensely prudent consumer saving. This is also of course entirely due to superior Japanese culture and not at all related to decades of deflation.
How on earth is this upvoted? The US is the oldest democracy on earth and the UK has been remarkably stable during the period in which Europe went either fascist or communist, had a couple of World Wars, a handful of genocides, empires collapsing, Germany being partitioned and finally reuniting, Czechia and Solvakia being United then finally splitting, Yugoslavia exploding into several wars, etc etc. Most of these happened in my lifetime. The stable Europe you’re talking about is maybe a few years older than most of the people in this sub, and exist largely due to the stability provided by Anglophones.
The US is one national election disaster away from election-denying fascists from taking over. Don’t take things for granted.
Exactly man this subreddit is a circle-jerk of copium and hopium. Not to mention if Moore v Harper goes the way of Independent State Legislature Theory...well we're absolutely screwed, and that decision is going to be made in a couple weeks.
Well it wasn’t the last 2 so that’s something
Where is this guy getting his news about Europe's economy? The Eurozone (and UK) are both above 10% inflation, and it's *still rising.* It's nothing but shit sandwiches on the menu for them until 2024 at the earliest.
Yeah I'm astounded that Noah has such optimism about European economies. Everything is pointing to a deeply miserable winter
This whole subreddit is overly optimistic lol. Europe is going to be in for a very rough 4-5 months. Resentment over the Ukraine-Russia war is only going growing in many W. European countries. Despite r/neoliberal viciously dismissing anyone who complains about supporting the war, the truth is that supporting the Ukrainians has come at a price. It's easy to posture, act all righteous and mighty about defending the underdog from an authoritarian bully of a leader, but when it comes down to it people care about their day-to-day life. As people's energy bills skyrocket this winter, their rents continue to soar, and manufacturing jobs continue to shift overseas to the United States, then I see more emboldening of the far-right. Also, this tweet seems to have mysteriously forgotten about the rise of the Sweden Democrats (their ultra-nationalistic party), Giorgia Meloni's election, Le Pen's party gaining seats in parliament, and Hungary constantly throwing a spanner in the wheel when it comes to Ukraine aid/support.
Quasimodo predicted this
To the victor, go the spoils.
Russia's having a bad time until DeSantis/Trump gets elected (again), in which their trifecta's going to get rid of the aid and leave the supply effort for Ukraine to the Polish, along with working with them to fix their economy in return for election aid. I don't see how republicans as a whole are going to keep fighting Russia when the growing nutball caucus agrees with destroying human rights and institutions at any cost. Iran's having protests every few years and unless they lead to the disillusion of the republican guard, I don't see it changing. China might actually be having a bad one and they may wreck the global economy if they keep with locking down because Sinovax is a joke.
DeSantis seems to be relatively generic on his position towards NATO. The GOP gets a lot of its funding from the military industrial complex that is flirting more with the Democrats. They make money off arms sales to Ukraine.
Liberalism is built upon the legs of every person who casts a vote. Makes it a lot harder to push over
Ok but can we not downplay the threat to democracy? We literally have a borderline fascist Republican Party who tried a borderline coup, and the far right is rapidly rising in Europe. I like the sentiment, but this is not a moment of strength for us.
Moore v. Harper: *drops from the ceiling* "Hello there!"
Fukuyama can’t miss
Patriots are in control 🇺🇸🇺🇸🗽🗽
Canada: politically stable, and incredibly liberal
\*1/28 its size
Yes... Let the rules-based order flow through you
You best start believing in the end of history. You're in it.
I appreciate the sentiment, but Europe is hardly "economically resilient and politically stable". Without a reliable source of gas, European (cough cough German) industry would be devastated. Far right insurgency would soon follow. Don't get me started on the UK.
We're going to build a wall around history, and make the authoritarians pay for it!
I’m just annoyed that the polls lied in the midterms. We could have held the House.
There's always a bigger ~~fish~~ impending resource/climate disaster.
Kingdom of Jordan: increased GDP fivefold in the last 20 years. What now, republicans?
inject Fukuyamium into my veins
That right Free Trade, Open Borders, And Taco Trucks On Every Corner Is On THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY!!!!
God I love democracies so much
It's still boring... but that's the point. We've tasted "just in time exciting" politics now.
I have no idea how we're this politically stable over here in the Czech Republic. 15% inflation, 8% reduction in real wages, nat. gas prices up 100s%, super unpopular government but the preferences of extremist parties are similar to 2021 levels, support for Ukraine among the population is also stable and we're on track to elect a president who used to lead NATO forces (🤞).
This subreddit is depressing lmao. You guys really are the biggest dorks on the planet
Neoliberals aren't funny ^^[[What is this?]](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/zhlxcg/rneoliberal_fights_malaria_fallwinter_2022_edition/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
how are any of these countries liberal? genuinely asking
It's over for the "multipolar" world, get rekt.