US to send $375 million in military aid to Ukraine, including medium-range cluster bombs - Lemmy
lemmy.ml
The U.S. will send Ukraine an undisclosed number of medium-range cluster bombs and an array of rockets, artillery and armored vehicles in a military aid package totaling about $375 million, U.S. officials said Tuesday. Officials expect an announcement on Wednesday, as global leaders meet at the U.N. General Assembly, [https://apnews.com/article/biden-un-general-assembly-ukraine-israel-gaza-4e4e839c3cdd4edd7543aea84af2346f] and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy [https://apnews.com/hub/volodymyr-zelenskyy] uses his appearance there to shore up support and persuade the U.S. to allow his troops to use long-range weapon [https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-long-range-missiles-6bd6af3d74ebbf6225330e476173575f] s to strike deeper into Russia. The following day, Zelenskyy meets with President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in Washington.
  • GarbageShoot [he/him]
    ·
    4 hours ago

    What would you have had the PRC do? Poverty has been dramatically decreased to outright eliminated in the PRC

    Extreme poverty has. Poverty is still widespread, and as I already indicated, a lot of the extreme poverty (not all of it) is a problem the Dengists made for themselves: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2023.2217087

    thanks to Deng's strategy of inviting foreign Capital

    The man himself said that he will have failed and capitalism will have been re-instated in China if there emerges a new Chinese bourgeoisie. I think that I've seen this mentioned to you before.

    I'm curious about the actual viability of re-collectivized commodity production like Nanjie pioneered. I think Vietnam (which I would broadly regard as even more revisionist) has some interesting farming collective stuff and I've been meaning for the longest time to read about the Tae'en system in the DPRK.

    Don't smear my comments with bad-faith interpretations. The CPC has openly stated numerous times that Dengism was Marxism-Leninism applied to the time of Deng, and has served its purpose, so that now Xi Jinping Thought can represent Marxism-Leninism applied to modern conditions.

    You know as well as I do that in common speech "Dengism" means SWCC, which was established in Deng's time and which Xi, in his plodding speeches almost bereft of actual content, constantly reaffirms as the path Deng rightly put China on.

    Deng served a vital role, and while he made miscalculations and errors,

    What would you call his major errors?

    Just as we know that Mao and the Gang of Four served their purposes as well

    I'm quite interested to learn what you think of as being the purpose served by the Gang of Four, since most of them came later than what you mention as the accomplishments of Mao and them.

    But really, going point by point is probably worthless, and you have my endorsement to ignore everything I said (though check out that link), I guess what I'm most curious about is, concretely, what actually separates China from a capitalist system? Surely it's not just proportion of SOEs, or fucking Bismark was a socialist. "The dictatorship of the proletariat" is going to be your answer, but I ask, "What separates China's 'DotP' from a liberal democracy?" Surely, it's not just their anti-corruption measures or then Deng really did destroy socialism and I guess Xi re-established it.

    I don't know, it just looks to me like a state where the power is held by public businesses rather than private ones in order to keep its sovereignty. To be clear, I'd like to see it otherwise, I get no satisfaction from what I say and it was nice cheering for the emerging dominant power thinking that it was not merely historically progressive but actually represented major progress in world socialism, but ultimately I realized that it was mainly what I wanted to believe and soon came to see Deng as being just a massively more competent Khrushchev, who had the refinement in his approach to praise Mao while in practice being everything that Mao had warned China he was for many years.

    • Cowbee [he/him]
      ·
      3 hours ago

      But really, going point by point is probably worthless

      I agree. Each point could be an entire conversation in and of themselves. I am not trying to dismiss your concerns or the points you raise.

      I guess what I'm most curious about is, concretely, what actually separates China from a capitalist system?

      The class that's in power. Is the US Socialist because it has a state-run Post Office? No. The PRC is led by the CPC, which has a bottom-up and top-down organizational structure via the mass line. It has a market economy that it carefully manages, prunes, and allows to develop to the point of "harvesting," where it increases ownership.

      Surely it's not just proportion of SOEs, or fucking Bismark was a socialist.

      Correct, it would be anti-dialectical to purely look at snapshots of ownership and not trajectories and class dynamics.

      The dictatorship of the proletariat" is going to be your answer, but I ask, "What separates China's 'DotP' from a liberal democracy?" Surely, it's not just their anti-corruption measures or then Deng really did destroy socialism and I guess Xi re-established it.

      The practice of Whole Process People's Democracy is a large factor, but it's ultimately the sum of its parts. The CPC is a DotP, what separates it is who is in power, the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. We see the effects of this in privitization vs nationalization, large infrastructure projects or private contracts, an improvement in real wages and democracy for workers or restrictions.

      So far, it appears that, especially in the last decade or so, these trends have been rapidly moving in the favor and direction of the Working Class, not the Bourgeoisie.

      I don't know, it just looks to me like a state where the power is held by public businesses rather than private ones in order to keep its sovereignty. To be clear, I'd like to see it otherwise, I get no satisfaction from what I say and it was nice cheering for the emerging dominant power thinking that it was not merely historically progressive but actually represented major progress in world socialism, but ultimately I realized that it was mainly what I wanted to believe and soon came to see Deng as being just a massively more competent Khrushchev, who had the refinement in his approach to praise Mao while in practice being everything that Mao had warned China he was for many years.

      China is an incredibly complex system, and I won't say your concerns aren't valid. I recommend reading The Long Game and its Contradictions and China Has Billionaires.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I'll be honest, I've looked at China Has Billionaires before and didn't think it was impressive, but I'll try actually reading both, if only because I appreciate you being nice to me.

        an improvement in . . . democracy for workers

        Could you expand on this point? Most of what you listed in that paragraph, and I think you'd even agree with me on this, belongs in the "this applies to Bismark" category of non-evidence. The part I quoted does not belong in that category, but I also am not familiar with worker democracy being on a positive trajectory in China and would consider that to be positive evidence.