Anyone else see the Left becoming increasingly like the villains of Ninteen-Eighty-Four in how they behave, rather than in the common idea of an all-powerful and ever-watching state machine? Seeing their utter joy at people on the right being assaulted makes me think of the idea that the only joy will be from an enemy's defeat.
Anyone else see this with the current violent rhetoric of the Left being all that drives them? Not that their energy from their hatred of their enemies (traditional family, Western civilisation, etc.) is new, but it seems to have taken a far more sinister and personal mood now.
His non fiction stuff is amazing, his adventures in Catalonia tell a lot about the old Hard European left but for me The Road to Wigan Pier is the most concise explanation of why hard left movements will fail in Britain (and thus the West)
John Johnson
Yes. I am in my 30s and so I remember back when we though the Republicans wanted to become like the 1984 bad guys, but then after 8 years of Obongo it became clear to me that Democrats want surveillance AND for you to need to rely on government for your basic life needs. Republicans want surveillance so you WON'T NEED to rely on government for your basic life needs. This was a tough red pill to swallow yet it is irrefutable if you look at Obama and Hillary's policies, they actually serve to destroy the small business.
Ryder Sanchez
>Anyone else see the Left becoming increasingly like the villains of Ninteen-Eighty-Four in how they behave, rather than in the common idea of an all-powerful and ever-watching state machine? 1984 is about the all-powerful and ever-watching state machine villains on the right.
>Anyone else see this with the current violent rhetoric of the Left being all that drives them? Who on the left is violent? Sup Forums keeps blaming Antifa for what Black Bloc did at Berekely, but that's just ignorance
Not that their energy from their hatred of their enemies (traditional family, Western civilisation, etc.) Liberals stay married longer and they built western civilization. America's republic is a liberal democracy established by our liberal founding fathers.
Noah Russell
IngSoc were literally Socialists, and remember that Orwell saw first hand in Spain what happens when Communists hijack the cause of the Proles.
America seems, form the outside, a lot more like us that you seem to admit, where both sides are of the same colour but a different shade. Either way (until Trump, it seems though it's too early to say) you don't get what you actually voted for.
This is why I was commenting more on his characterisation of the kind of people that would support and create the culture of the Party, which was obviously influenced by his own experiences, since he hated the upper class class-less who would still look down on the people they were meant to champion.
Camden Bailey
More like the right (at least the Trumpist on Sup Forums) are becoming increasingly cult like in devotion to their Dear Leader
Jackson Moore
Those are just immigrants from r/the_donald. Sup Forums before the election always supported Trump as a means to an end, or as a middle finger to the established politics. Much for the same reason we support anti-EU campaigners. There are flaws to be highlighted with this (the people who don't get the joke and form a cult of personality), but reverence for Trump as is largely tongue-in-cheek as using a cartoon frog as a symbol.
Daniel Wood
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I know it." --Eric Blair
Hudson Baker
It's lucky that the modern left don't believe in democracy then, isn't it? Can you not get the anti-democratic message that they put across in their chant of "this is what democracy looks like"?
Nathaniel Robinson
>IngSoc were literally Socialists, You've never read anything by George Orwell, have you? When he wrote 1984, he already knew the Soviet Union was not socialist. The Communist party in Spani at the time was corrupt and labeled Orwell a "fascist".
Lincoln Jenkins
>It's lucky that the modern left don't believe in democracy then, isn't it? The left aare great believer in democracy. They seem to think almost 3 million more Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
But that's not how we elect a president.
Joshua Torres
US has never been real democracy
Parker Morales
Orwell wrote against Stalinism. Today's SJWs are more like latter-day Maoists of the Cultural Revolution, otherwise known as Red Guards. But the essential aspect of thought control runs throughout Marxist governments, whether Stalinist, Maoist, or SJWist.
Leo Ross
They labelled anyone they didn't like a fascist, because associated them with the enemy, even if they (like Orwell) was on the side of the workers. What Orwell understood was that Socialism inevitably gives way to the Communism that was seen at that time.
>almost 3 million more Americans Alleged Americans. How can you possibly have a democracy in which the Demos are uncountable? Besides, it's still democracy as it's decided on making sure the largest extent possible of people get their wishes heeded. The state structure was maintained and the EC was created for that reason. Democracy doesn't always meant a 1-1 vote.
Besides, they did the same thing during Brexit as well, which was a 1-1 referendum.
Julian Harris
That may have been intent, but looking at it as left or right is childish. It is globalist versus nationalists, and 1984 resonates with choices that the left has made, and attempted to accomplish in the name of globalism.
Don't get me wrong, leftists are commie faggots that should be brought to heel. They're doing that to themselves well enough on their own.
Bentley Lopez
>1984 is about the all-powerful and ever-watching state machine villains on the right. 1984 is about the soviet union and clones. it was forbidden and mostly even unknown in the east, I've only read it in 1990. that's how much the communists in power worried we'd recognize the patterns. two minutes hate against goldstein is against trotsky, big brother is stalin etc.
Chase White
>US has never been real democracy America's form of government is republic America's type of governance is democracy.
The founding fathers established 3 distinct democratic institutions in the Constitution.
Hunter Collins
I think Orwell would be suprised at the turn left wing politics has made, initially left wing politics are meant to appeal to the everyman, the labourers, craftsmen, and tradesmen. But recently its labelled these people as "part of the problem" and as the leftists estrange themselves further from the people they're supposed to represent and move closer to marginal minorities (transgenders homosexuals etc) they push their demographic towards the right, hence almost everything we saw in 2016.
Zachary Rogers
Not really but I do see them acting like it's supposed to describe Trump.
Hunter Myers
The left has been living the tenets of the rules on the barn from Animal Farm for about thirty years now.
Cameron Diaz
Isn't 1984 and Animal Farm meant to be warnings about the extreme left?
Lucas Peterson
1984 features something called "Newspeak" which is a new language where certain words have been removed, including negative words, so that people cannot talk about the horrible conditions under the government.
>banning words >controlling thought through language
That's political correctness.
Alexander Flores
>Left becoming increasingly like the villains of Ninteen-Eighty-Four
What are you talking about? Socialists were aways like that.
In order to implement socialism ideologues need to monopolize state violence and institutionalize political control. There is no other way but imposition simply because socialism is unnatural.
Aaron Martinez
Correct, it uses terms like doubleplusungood instead of descriptive words like terrible or awful, however if you read the appendix it is a short part about newspeak that refers to it and the party in the past tense, implying eventually the proles have enough and revolt, or that one of the other supernations btfo oceania.
Joseph Evans
1984 was about communism, mostly Stalin, and imperialism. Most people forget about the imperialism aspect.
Charles Lewis
>Orwell wrote against Stalinism. All the Trotksyites knew Stalin hijacked the party of Lenin. With Stalin in charge there would never be a stateless society. Blair was quite literally a Trotsky anarchist
>Today's SJWs are more like latter-day Maoists of the Cultural Revolution, otherwise known as Red Guards That's absurd. They have nothing to do with each other.
>But the essential aspect of thought control runs throughout Marxist governments, whether Stalinist, Maoist, or SJWist. Perhas, but Eric Blair concerned himself primarily with the fascism of far right totalitarian governments.
Jordan Scott
It's not so much the violence as it is the attack on language and history
>Illegal aliens are now "undocumented" immigrants (newspeak) >Scrubbing references to Islam from counter-terrorism documents >Media under-reports crimes committed by minorities and foreigners >This founding father owned slaves, so lets remove his name from campus >Rewriting/removing history; Hamilton, BF1, removing confederate flags >Philosophers removed from college curricula because they're white >Politicians talking about having to remove "implicit racial bias" (thoughtcrime)
Elijah Hughes
There is also "thought crime" in 1984, which is similar to political correctness.
Another aspect of SJWism that is not as apparent in 1984 is the classification of certain thought into forbidden categories, such as "hate speech," "racism," "homophobia," "misogyny," "xenophobia," etc. This reminds me more of the classification of certain thought as "heresy" under the control of the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages.
Remember that in 1440 was invented the printing press, thus democratizing publishing and taking away control of the press from the Church, and then in 1517 was the start of the Protestant Reformation.
Now the Internet has further democratized publishing, and we have a resulting reformation of thought and the backlash against it from the powers that be who used to control publishing. :^)
Michael Evans
>What Orwell understood was that Socialism inevitably gives way to the Communism that was seen at that time. He was a Trotskyite liberal. Blair knew that the Communism that was seen at that time was not communism and that's why he hated it.
>Alleged Americans. Bring your proofs of voter impersonation and I'll be convinced. Make baseless accusations and I'll laugh at you. Your choice.
>Besides, it's still democracy as it's decided on making sure the largest extent possible of people get their wishes heeded. That was my point. The largest number of voters didn't get their political will expressed.
Anthony Cruz
Interesting point, its worth noting that in the book it seems that there is complete social equality in the elite class of the party, its mentioned that race or gender has no impact on whether an individual is brough into the highest tier, also an interesting comparison between the party and the modern left is the lack of interest in wealth but obsession with power.
Dylan Wood
>It is globalist versus nationalists, Hahahaha. You think "globalist" is the opposite of "nationalist". Globalism is generally economic in nature. It's the transnational corporations moving resources around to meet local needs.
Global government has been around since Pax Romana. It may sound like the antonym of nationalism, but that is not "globalism".
Charles Johnson
>Red Guards en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards_(China) Red Guards were a fanatic student mass paramilitary social movement mobilized by Mao Zedong in 1966 and 1967, during the Cultural Revolution.
the Cultural Revolution Group directed the Red Guards to attack the 'Four Olds' of Chinese society (old customs, old culture, old habits and old ideas).
Attacks on culture quickly descended into attacks on people.
The most gruesome aspects of the campaign included numerous incidents of torture, murder, and public humiliation.
>Struggle Sessions en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session A struggle session was a form of public humiliation and torture used by the Communist Party of China in the Mao Zedong era, particularly during the Cultural Revolution, to shape public opinion and to humiliate, persecute, or execute political rivals and class enemies.
In general, the victim of a struggle session was forced to admit to various crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the victim until he or she confessed.
Angel Young
>leftists are commie faggots that should be brought to heel. That's exactly what the government of Oceania thought in Orwell's 1984 novel.
Camden Ramirez
There is nothing worse seeing the right exploit Orwell for their own laissez-faire agenda. Read his essay "On Nationalism". It's available through a simple google search. Animal farm and 1984 were critiques of authoritarian co-option of popular movements, not a repudiation of left-wing politics.
Anthony Ross
And another one, pic related.
Robert Adams
Orwell wrote about doublethink, which is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.
It sounds like he didn't just write about it; he also practiced it.
Aiden Reyes
>But recently its labelled these people as "part of the problem" and as the leftists estrange themselves further from the people they're supposed to represent and move closer to marginal minorities (transgenders homosexuals etc)
That's the opposite of what has happened. Society is more accepting of homosexuals and gay marriage. Society approves of medical marijuana. More people understand abortion is a woman's natural right. It's not decadent to exercise your freedoms
The "right" realizes that they are the party of impending irrelevance. More brown people thatn white being born. Society shifting left. That why you basement-dwelling pud-pullers are working as hard as you can 6 hours a day, 4 days a week to fabricate false narratives, fake news, manufactured memes and other contrived crap to give you a safe space for your fragile feelings.
You're all doomed and you know it.
Robert Russell
To what extent do people really accept fags and abortion, and to what extent are they just falling prey to political correctness so that they go along with it to avoid being called names and shamed in a Maoist struggle session?
Samuel Perry
You can't implement socialism without authoritarian leaders simply because enforcing collectivization demands violence
Samuel Howard
Although your post is pretty well written and structured its fairly obvious that you're only doing it to seek a negative response. That being said I actually agree with your last statement but i would broaden it to both the left and the right being doomed (as they exist now)
Colton Davis
>Liberals stay married longer and they built western civilization. America's republic is a liberal democracy established by our liberal founding fathers.
This is retarded logic, modern conservatives are more liberal than the founding fathers. Modern liberals are social liberals.
Levi Fisher
That's not actually true. Democratic socialism worked wonderfully well in the Nordic countries pre-migrant crises. Lets not forget that the Nordic countries had extremely successful democratic socialist governments for nearly a century until the globalists and Islamism started fucking with them.
Let's not forget Democratic Socialism has a free market economy, with increased social security nets. The standard of living in Nordic countries where this was implemented is/was extremely high for a very very long time. With none of the Gulags of the USSR. There simply wasn't any of this violent socialism you're speaking of there.
In fact, the success of democratic socialism in Sweden, combined with the gulaging of the redguard Finns allowed Finland to nationalistically unite on both the right and the left(the white guards won against the reds in the finnish civil war) and effectively combat against the USSR in the Winter and Continuation wars.
The quote says it right here: he's against any authoritarian government, and for democratic socialism specifically.
He's also written about the failures of socialism in the UK, I believe, whereby some socialists don't/didn't actually give a shit about workers rights--they just hate the rich.
tl;dr
Most forms of socialism suck, but Democratic Socialism's successes are too large to ignore. You basically have to have cognitive dissonance to ignore it's successes in the 20th centuries for the nordic countries.
Jose Green
This user has the correct answer.
Easton Taylor
There is something worse. For example when some dipshit is trying to change interpretation of some work of art or literature, by bringing up everything author of said art ever said or said to believe. Despite the fact that it has NOTHING to do with said work.
Its like trying to discredit St. Peter's Basilica because Michelangelo didn't actually like the fucking church. Moronic.
Gabriel Cox
I do not even agree with Orwell on a socialist federation of European states, I do however think that it is disingenuous to twist his words int o political messages that he would never have supported were he alive today. Orwell was a socialist. This is a fact. Supporting socialist policies to a lesser or greater extent and a socialist form of government are two entirely separate things. Opposing the latter does not mean you can't consistently support the former. Capitalist policies can, like socialist policies, be carried out by both authoritarian governments and democratic governments. What is true for both, is that whether they be capitalist or socialist policies, they tend to work best when implemented by consent and not by force. All modern western states are mixed-economies. They borrow from both ideologies for a reason. In that sense, they actually mirror the kind of pragmatic thought associated with the ideals of Orwell more than anything else.
Eli Stewart
They are a culture of victimhood and outrage, it has subsumed them. They will have a hard time presenting themselves as legitimate in 2020 after all this fucking rioting.
Lincoln Kelly
This "democratic socialism" of Scandinavia may be a canard.
They never had to pay the full price of a national defense because the United States, as part of NATO and also as an individual military force in the word, provided a shield of safety under which they could exist without defending themselves.
Thus what seems to be "democratic socialism" in Scandinavia may in fact be "subsidism," where extra money for social programs was available because the American taxpayer was subsidizing their defense. Without such subsidization, Scandies would have had to pay way more for defense, and there would not have been as much extra money for social programs.
It's similar to how children have lots of extra money for luxuries like comic books and candy because their parents pay for the necessities of food and shelter.
Trump has said he's going to make European states pay more into NATO, so we may see a collapse of the fake democratic socialism in those countries.
Robert Ortiz
You don't impose socialists policies without the State enforcing the policy on people. For that they need to legitimize the monopoly of violence. If you don't accept the tax extortion you are going to jail. You simply don't have the choice but to pay the government you hard earned money so they can implement all socialists policies. Welfare states are bankrupt and they will be third world countries in 40 years. The only reason they could sustain year after year increasing budget deficits is because they were able to amass a ridiculous amount of wealth in the first place (from 1500-1900). They ruled world commerce just like the US rule today.
Welfare policies can't be sustainted for many generations. And socialism can't be implemented without forcing the people to pay for it.
Isaiah Richardson
The irony is that Orwell was a democrat, but I agree with you, OP.
Lucas Collins
Except Northern Europe was and is capitalistic since socialists in power never nationalized means of production. It had socialistic policies, but the most important part of the country - economy, was and still ruled by private capital. You cant just put socialist badge on everything you like leaf. There's actual criteria that needed be met in order to qualify for socialistic regime.
Thomas Sanchez
>Capitalist policies can, like socialist policies, be carried out by both authoritarian governments and democratic governments
the difference is that capitalism is a natural evolution of human society while socialism is artificial and can't exist without state sponsorship
Ian Anderson
His critique of "authoritarians" is also the entire fucking point that leads us to the modern left. Only a lunatic would say that Sweden has libertarian socialism right now.
Jaxon Ramirez
>Trannies, forced pronoun laws and gay marriage Men are women.
>our violence against trump is justified. We have to keep fighting for peace and tolerance. War is peace.
>hate speech is not free speech. the patriarchy is trying to oppress us. Freedom is slavery.
> there is no biological difference between sexes or races. We are all the same. The science should be ignored. It is hate speech and we need to be strong to stand up to the intolerance. Ignorance is strength.
Men are women... supporting gay marriage and forcing people to use gender pronouns (NYC and Canada), or risk being charged with a crime... being arrested and criminally charged for tweets (Canada)...
We are there. 1984 is actually happening.
David Cox
Now wait for some imbecile to come and say that "Orwell was actually left-wing", like it an argument against what you said.
It's a hybrid system of government. You don't get to deconstruct the meaning of social democracy whenever you like just because you disagree with it personally. It's an agreed upon political concept which exists whether you like it or not.
Finland isn't a part of NATO, so it wasn't supported by the US as strongly as any NATO country, and yet, after 2 wars and giving the red beast a bloody nose(look at the death tolls in the 2 wars I mentioned), it managed to maintain it's independence(albeit losing some small amounts of territory). It also adopted the Nordic model, and was never a part of NATO, so your argument doesn't necessarily hold up there. After false promises of foreign aid in the winter war, the fins learned to fend for themselves(albeit they allied with Nazi Germany in WW2), and yet still, social democracy worked.
I also think that the "murrica world police" argument is grossly underrating social democracies successes.
You make it seem like this model was forced upon the Nords, when in fact, it was something that the general populace wanted. People were fine with accepting these taxes, because the social trust levels in Scandanavia were traditionally high and they all agreed that this collective taxation was for the common good. But really, such anti-socialist arguments coming from Brazil or the US isn't surprising at all. You seem to deny any of it's successes whatsoever, be it in Canada(currently being raped by globalism as mentioned above) or the Nordic countries.
Brayden Martin
Its not a socialism unless it means of production controlled by the people(government). Ignoramuses can agree on anything they want to, i don't care. I also don't care for definitions that invented on the fly to suit political agenda.
Julian Watson
>it was something that the general populace wanted
I never said they didn't wanted. I know they willingly moved from classical liberalism to a welfare state. What I'm saying is that this decision is immoral because they are burning their countries wealth and trowing debts to the next generations to pay.
I'm not denying the nordic success. But I'm denying that it comes from the welfare state. They were already rich and industrialized countries before socialism took over.
Your countries are not being raped by globalism, but by asian efficiency. Welfare states can't compete with east asian countries as they are getting richer and you poorer. That is probably the largest world wealth transfer since the 1600's
Levi Reed
Orwell was a leftist you fucking idiot.
The government in 1984 is pretty redpilled desu, authoritarianism is the only way for us to BTFO minorities and force people to accept Christian values. The tactics they employ are an example to follow for keeping society in check. We know democracy was a failure, we must proceed to the next phase.
Orwell described himself as a "democratic socialist" and joined Anarcho-Socialist militias in Catalonia to fight fascism. They used the same red and black flag that today's antifa uses. He was literally Antifa.
Wyatt Kelly
Listen Vlad, just because your country got royally raped by your own socialist revolution doesn't mean social democracy doesn't exist. Fuck off to your Gulag.
The richest of the east asian countries is China, by far, no? And do you know anything about China? For one, it's a communist led state(so there goes part one of your anti-socialist commentary), and secondly the state might be rich but the people living in it are stunningly, back breakingly poor. It's virtually the only country to have a higher female to male suicide rate in the world, because life as a woman there is so absolute shit. Life in China for the average citizen is absolute fucking trash, and anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or uneducated. Life is shit in China.
So, basically, what you're arguing for is that because the West doesn't have dirt cheap labor available via absolute poverty anymore, and because the huge bulk of the population isn't retardedly oppressed like in China that we're not succeeding anymore? Right...
And no, our countries ARE being raped by globalism, not asian efficiency. It's globalists like Harper and Trudeau who massively increased immigration(look at the numbers pre-2003 if you don't believe me), who caused massive housing price increases(via chinese cadre immigration here), and globalist capitalists who took all their production to east Asia where they could get dirt cheap labor because of the intolerably inhumane and horrible working conditions/wages that they get paid in special economic zones. This destroyed our working class(alongside automation and deals like NAFTA; a globalist free trade deal) and now is starting to cause social unrest due to way too many immigrants. Sup Forums is pro-trump and anti-globalist for a reason, because it's fucking up our countries, and it has nothing to do with asian efficiency. If anything, it has everything to do with asian poverty.
Ayden Foster
You must be new here. This has been going on for some years now.
Luke Mitchell
BTW, our business men taking production to asia for dirt cheap labor is exactly what Yuri Besmenov warned us about in his ideological subversion commentaries. How our businessmen were buying the ropes for which they'll be hanged with by massively impoverishing the populace and giving it all the reason in the world to endorse revolutionary marxist-leninism(a shit tier system). Rather than supporting business in their own countries...How is that a good thing again?
Xavier Russell
No
Cameron Nguyen
>richest of the east asian countries is China By absolute numbers, yes. But I'm talking about all east asian countries growing annually +5% like Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, etc
>it's a communist led state China is as communist as the Democratic Republic of Congo is a democracy. Chinese tax rates are around 17% of the GDP, they have no welfare state, no regulations, nada. They are pretty much as capitalist as you can get. State Capitalism for that matter.
>and secondly the state might be rich but the people living in it are stunningly The wealth transfer is gonna take decades. I'm not saying that next year east asia will became richer than the west.
Immigration is gonna kill your country, but that is only the symptom not the ill itself. At this point the decadence of your society is irreversible.
Maybe you and I will live to watch the accession of east asia in the world scenario, but we definitely will watch the self destruction of the first world
>business men taking production to asia for dirt cheap labor Business do that because you guys want cheap products. Most of the consumers don't care if its made by a 8 years old chinese kid, since its 2 dollars cheaper than the one being made home. Tradesmen are only supply the demand.
Jonathan Rogers
I'm almost done with Road to Wigan pier, its ok. Its easy to read at least.
The thing that I keep thinking of is what a fucking cunt George Orwell is. He is constantly looking down on these working class and disgusted with them yet pines that he wants to help them, and asserts his moral high ground over people just like him, writers and upper class of society that don't 'care' about miners...yet he cannot hide his disgust for all of humanity basically.
Julian Martin
There was nothing contradictory in Orwell's support for socialism.
A lot of us today may view it as contradictory because we ourselves have been subjected to doublethink propaganda on the subject our entire lives.
Orwell joined Anarcho-Socialist militias in Catalonia to fight fascism. The term "Anarcho-Socialist" itself may seem contradictory to many Americans today, but Anarchism and Socialism were synonymous as the same political movement in Pre-WWII Europe.
The one point that I think best helps people who have been indoctrinated on the meaning of these two terms is this: Communism, as described by every single communist thinker (Marx, Engels, Trotsky, et al.) is a STATELESS society. It is the abolishment of the state. Or as Lenin described it, "The Whithering Away of the State".
Now, doublethink has been implemented by several different parties, and Orwell saw this start to happen and spoke out against it. Specifically, he saw this happening in Soviet Russia, which claimed to be a "Socialist Republic" when it was in fact closer to a fascist state or "state capitalism". Orwell said the USSR did not resemble socialism in any form, and was simply an authoritarian state that contradicted socialism.
In the US, a different movement appeared a bit later (in the 70s), spearheaded by American intellectuals to rebrand "anarchism". Rothbard himself bragged about stealing the term "libertarian" from the leftists (the initial usage of the term was by French communist and self-described "libertarian" Joseph Déjacque in 1861), Rothbard admitted the term "libertarian" has been a polite term for anarcho-communists but has now been "stolen by our side". Rothbard also coined the term "Anarcho-Capitalist" and made the case that anarchism was not merely a leftist ideology, it could also be adopted by the right-wing. His new "anarcho-capitalism", unlike anarchism, relied on a system and legal code of institutions to enforce property claims.
Kayden Moore
>China is as communist as the Democratic Republic of Congo is a democracy. Chinese tax rates are around 17% of the GDP, they have no welfare state, no regulations, nada. They are pretty much as capitalist as you can get. State Capitalism for that matter.
It's still led by the cadres, it still has Gulag-like detention camps AFAIK, it still bears the 1984-esque state control. It still has a single party with no democratic elections. It's still dominated by the communist party. They aren't democratic socialists.
>Business do that because you guys want cheap products. Most of the consumers don't care if its made by a 8 years old chinese kid, since its 2 dollars cheaper than the one being made home. Tradesmen are only supply the demand.
Bull fucking shit. They do that because they want their profits to be maximized by profiting off human suffering. Nothing more, nothing less. And we let them get away with it. And because we do, it's going to cause our society to decline and maybe even revolt into shit tier communism. The rich are doing this, not the market.
>The wealth transfer is gonna take decades. I'm not saying that next year east asia will became richer than the west. Immigration is gonna kill your country, but that is only the symptom not the ill itself. At this point the decadence of your society is irreversible. Maybe you and I will live to watch the accession of east asia in the world scenario, but we definitely will watch the self destruction of the first world
There's no arguing the west is in decline and that Brazil, China and etc will rise to become major powers soon--but for the most part the Cadres don't want wealth transfer to occur. If that did happen, they'd lose their cheap source of labor which all the western capitalists make a huge profit off of in SEZs. A thriving middle class in China probably wouldn't want a Communist government, for obvious reasons--why would they ever want that to happen?
And it seems like they have plans to further expand their welfare state, just btw...
In the 80s, there was also the existence of the "iron ricebowl" which was a saying to represent the reliable, but overall crappy system of social support they previously had.
