this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
81 points (97.6% liked)
Asklemmy
53542 readers
782 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Exactly. So it wasn't that they ignored navigating, it was that their hegemony took priority.
I guess my point is they used to have a lot more power in China than they do now. It didn't have to be this way, the oil billionaires and automobile CEO could have found a way to monopolize renewables and EV technology at home too. They just operated off of fear and laziness instead of bravery and industriousness.
I'm glad they didn't; the morally bankrupt and depraved lengths to which American capitalists will go to for profit is slowly killing this world and they're in full knowledge of that fact.
They can afford the finest talent money can buy and I bet that China's primacy had little impact on their plans. I also bet that's why they opted to delay instead of deny China; it doesn't matter anymore.
I mean it's the classic revolutionary's dilemma -- does bringing the system down, which causes incredible amounts of death and suffering for the poor, worth it in the long run? IMHO it never is, because the system always finds the most painful and evil ways to go down, with no guarantee the next system is any better.
Ideally the system itself improves over time like we saw happen in the 20th century in a lot of other countries, and social democracy takes over peacefully. But sometimes the capitalists won't let that happen and insist on a tragic and violent decline instead.
The system didn't improve itself peacefully throughout the 20th century bro wtf are you smoking
Yes but there's different levels of violence. Some countries had more violent deadly revolutions than others. Maybe India is the main example, yes too many people died but it wasn't on the level of some other revolutions and wars.
I think your whole pov is confused. You want the system to improve itself peacefully but acknowledge to some extent that's not what improved it before. You don't want a proper revolution but instead small incremental improvements yet don't seem to understand the way things are now is a logical result of how our current system is structured. Tbh your viewpoint here just seems kind of naive.
Well what I want doesn't matter because I have no power. Are you saying peaceful gradual change never works at all? I agree it's not working in the US at all. But ultimately it's because that what those in power want. It would be a lot better if they allowed peaceful improvements, like has happened in other countries, that's what I'm saying. There's also plenty of "proper revolutions" that end up with rich getting richer and poor getting poorer.
there are living, breathing examples of better systems out there.
Yes of course, doesn't mean the leaders of the faction who win the civil war will install them.