the problems The West (TM) is facing are mostly due to late stage capitalism rather than sanctions against Russia
Edit for effortpost: the fact that late stage capitalism and impotent sanctions coincide is no coincidence. I find LSC a poorly defined term, considering that imperialism seems NOT be considered in the term but only internal indications, but I digress. These two developments, one of corruption from capital and crises developing and the other of sanctions having no benefit and only seeing blowback, are dialectically intertwined. Sanctions could work if western imperialism hadn't developed to an extent that all necessary labour can be done outside of the core for cheaper. But the efforts to maintain the standards of living and fight external pressure are resulting from the same process and the failures are inseparable also
I'd be willing to say:
mostly due to late stage capitalism
But I'm not sold on the imperialism aspect when both parties are doing it. Although I'd distinguish if they're doing it with the pen or with the sword. It'd be better without, but I sure do prefer the pen.
Meh, I disagree but this is too tangential from the rest of the thread for me to work too hard in a response. Not sure what you're even arguing tbh, except that peaceful imperialism is different and America does that. I think all facts point to that being absolutely false, even if the violence is done quietly and in a normalized fashion. I also just disagree that Russia here is Imperialist with a big "I" (different from having a empire, which is confusing often). I also have no idea what this has to do with whether sanctions are succeeding or failing or not. My point is only that the failure of the sanctions and the results of capitalism are from the identical source which is capitalism and the logic of that extended through imperialism to international relations
Edit for effortpost: the fact that late stage capitalism and impotent sanctions coincide is no coincidence. I find LSC a poorly defined term, considering that imperialism seems NOT be considered in the term but only internal indications, but I digress. These two developments, one of corruption from capital and crises developing and the other of sanctions having no benefit and only seeing blowback, are dialectically intertwined. Sanctions could work if western imperialism hadn't developed to an extent that all necessary labour can be done outside of the core for cheaper. But the efforts to maintain the standards of living and fight external pressure are resulting from the same process and the failures are inseparable also
Thanks for the edit.
I'd be willing to say:
mostly due to
late stagecapitalismBut I'm not sold on the imperialism aspect when both parties are doing it. Although I'd distinguish if they're doing it with the pen or with the sword. It'd be better without, but I sure do prefer the pen.
Meh, I disagree but this is too tangential from the rest of the thread for me to work too hard in a response. Not sure what you're even arguing tbh, except that peaceful imperialism is different and America does that. I think all facts point to that being absolutely false, even if the violence is done quietly and in a normalized fashion. I also just disagree that Russia here is Imperialist with a big "I" (different from having a empire, which is confusing often). I also have no idea what this has to do with whether sanctions are succeeding or failing or not. My point is only that the failure of the sanctions and the results of capitalism are from the identical source which is capitalism and the logic of that extended through imperialism to international relations