Archived link/paywall bypass: https://archive.is/VbSPI

Also, you would think a region once plagued by unrest and terrorism (fomented by our favorite imperialist power of course), now stable and prospering would be cause for celebration? No? Also about NEV subsidies, isn't this what all countries should be doing? Besides, the Global North has long subsidized industries when they chose to.

Related, China has become the number one scientific destination with the largest inflow of researchers outstripping the US, according to OECD data as reported (archive) by Science Business. I can't cite the OECD data since it seems to be behind a paywall, but I believe you can find it here.

China also leads the world with nearly half of all applications for international patents (46.8%), trademarks (48.3%), and industrial designs (53.8%).

Japan's science and technology ministry also conducted a study, as reported (archive) by Nikkei Asia, and found China leads the world in research papers. Both in quantity and quality.

A report by Clarivate substantiates this. This report also describes how China is not reliant with collaboration with the Global North for research, and that China is expanding research with Global South countries.

Despite all this, in the imperial core they still believe China can't innovate. All while China is out-innovating the Global North.

Economic growth itself is just a number, development is what matters. In addition and as a part of development I also specifically mentioned education and improvement of quality of life. You could add literacy, housing, levels of nourishment, and much, much more.

I won't argue about history or its interpretations with you now. Just consider the path to development wealthy capitalist countries took, which involved slavery, colonialism, genocide, brutal worker suppression, and perhaps the worse working conditions in history during industrialisation.

You may attribute many horible things to communist countries. I might argue much of this is exaggerated by the media of the anti-comunist country you live in. Even if it is all true, developed capitalist countries did the same to themselves, and other peoples around the globe.

Then consider the development communist countries have had compared to undeveloped capitalist countries. People can have better lives, that is what matters.

Individuals in struggling societies don't always atomize, many revolutions occurred due to degradation in conditions. When the cost of fighting for change is less than doing nothing you will fight, and you will fight with others, or else you will quickly fail and be forgotten.

Curious what your definition of facism is. With a few exceptions, communist inclined states have always lead to unprecedented economic development, education, improvement of quality of life, etc. If you take all cold war propaganda at face value, you can not deny the development seen in such states; when balanced by alleged atrocities, you see a stark contrast to colnialist nations that too committed atrocities but with little to show for it.

I find the surface level historical criticisms of communist states, even if applied at an equaly superficial level, is applied to capitalist states, you would find a staggering contradiction. Maybe you should read more. Add to your socioeconomic calculus the fact that no communist state benefited from the same starting point as colonizer countries, and try to be critical of this. Consider that none of these communist states had the benifits of colonization, and when compared to other developing countries did remarkably better.

The point is not about impact but intention. Evidently liberalism, for all its flaws, certainly has had a significant impact. The progressive forces 250 years ago where for the most part already proto socialists. Fundamentally liberalism has been reactionary, even in the case of feudalism and monarchy, liberalism has tended to air for maintaining monarchy; such as constitutional monarchies where one can find leberals having preference for this rather than republics. This can be observed in historical cases such as France where many liberals wished to maintain the monarchy, but the contradictions and progressive forces where too great. Rather than a progressive force, I would contend that liberalism tends to be reactionary to development and progressive forces. Today this can be seen in the liberal leaders of developing countries handicapping themselves and their sovereignty by maintaining economic relations to the benefit of the imperial core. See ECOWAS and 'preserving democracy' as of late.

Curious if you could elaborate. Authority is complicated. Perhaps you should read this relatively short text by Engels.

The point is that liberalism and facism are intrinsically linked. Liberalism does not seek to change the world and stems from philosophies instead seeking to explain it. Accordingly, liberalism is a philosophical justification for the capitalist status quo. As such, when contradictions in capitalism accentuate with time, such as those between classes, liberalism turns to fascism. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, because the liberal is a closet fascist when times are good; when class struggle poses a threat, it clamps down. You can see this throughout history.

That a poor, simplified explanation, but I hope it helps.

Even more amusing when you consider that DPRK has nukes, whereas Ukraine has only survived as a NATO proxy.

They are paleo conservatives.

They dislike the traditional right and liberals, and oppose interventionism. Simultaneously, they hold reactionary social views. On economics I haven’t heard them say much. Often times, they will mostly avoid social issues in their programs, and focus on mostly factual news—diplomatic, military, and economic.

I think the appeal for leftists is that they are ostensibly anti-imperialist, however they are still reactionary. In this regard though, they are still perhaps closer to criticizing capitalism accurately than some of the American “left”, since one of the most important elements of capitalism is imperialism.

In effect, it’s a bit like how a liberal might claim progressiveness on social issues, but be blind to imperialism. At the same time their social critique will be lacking and to various degrees superficial. Their critique of what we call imperialism is what might be called a critique of interventionism.

Accordingly, the Duran presents a view indirectly and sometimes directly critical of imperialism, which stems at least in part from the international relations theory that great powers weaken themselves when too interventionist. While they may not have a critique of capitalism in their analysis, they do cover both some of the internal rot in the imperial core, and present most of the critical developments of multi-polarization.

Since these developments are crucial, the Duran can be a decent source of news for some topics, on the condition that your familiar with their position. Perhaps since they have become increasingly resigned in support for the imperial core, and more supportive of anti-imperialist states for reasons other than ours, their content is more approachable for leftists.

Nonetheless, they are reactionary.

Also: language barriers and travel. Barley any non-Chinese sleek Chinese, sure it’s a difficult language to learn, but Chinese kids all study English from very early in their education. In China you can easily find foreign media with Chinese subtitles. How much Chinese media (including social media) do westerners consume?

If a Chinese person wants, they know how to, and can see western media. Many foreign movies are popular in China. Inversely, westerners have no idea about Chinese media, let alone Chinese culture, society, history, politics, etc.

A westerner would struggle to name a Chinese politician besides Xi; yet there are many who are influential. You can’t understand any countries politics by only knowing of their leader. Chinese history is many thousands of years old, yet Chinese kids also study western history and art, among other things.

I visited one of the most famous western (historical) art museums with a Chinese person, from the mainland, and they recognized as many prices of art as a person from that country would. This was in Europe (most Americans study art much less in their education).

Chinese people learn western languages, see western media, can travel to the west, and can study in their universities. Westerners largely do none of this when it comes to China. Even so, Chinese is a wonderful language, and China has incredible media, attractions, universities, etc.

In essentially all respects, westerners think they have a more accurate view of China because of their “democracy” and “free press”. Yet they are in reality so ignorant about China, that they are blind to the reality: westerners live in a box with one way mirrors looking back at them, they see their own atrocities in the reflection and project their crimes into others, yet those others can see the west clearly.