zeezee

uhm idk who's not familiar with Thiel but the blueprint of his "utopia" - "The Sovereign Individual" was literally co-written by no other than William Rees-Mogg a conservative house of lords cross-bencher who's also the father of two other conservative MPs that have served in the UK Parliament.

the 2014 reprint of the book has a foreword by Thiel, where he says that it's "the most influential book he had read"

so as usual the theoretical frameworks have been drafted in the heart of empire and implemented in the "land of the free"

The article you've linked says they've forgiven less than 5% of the total amount lended so not sure I'd classify that as "frequent"

Further, the PRC does not require austerity politics or otherwise giving up sovereignty over the recipients economy, they pay for infrastructural development.

I agree this is definitely a good thing but I want to acknowledge they do also directly profit from all this development - they're not doing it to help others for the socialist ideal but for strategic geopolitical goals

they just fundamentally don't have the same mechanics that force imperialism in the west, like huge private monopoly and falling rates of profit.

But they still operate in the same system which is why even their renegotiated loans never fall below the 2% inflation rate.

Idk I can understand critical support of China when it comes to challenging western imperialism I just don't agree with their approach of rejecting egalitarianism and enforcing material inequality as a means to supposedly reach communism

So you're saying that China didn't extend or take advantage of western debt traps for their own economic and geopolitical goals?

So

• Sri Lanka desperately needs $1.12 billion to avoid defaulting to Western bondholders
• China provides that cash immediately
• In exchange they get 99-year control of a $1.4 billion strategic asset
• Sri Lanka still owes them the original construction debt
• China now controls 70% of future port profits for a century (or two)

And look I'm not claiming that this crisis wasn't caused by western imperialism - but calling it a "trade" or "multilateral exchange" when China very obviously took advantage of a country in crisis for almost exclusively their own benefit is disingenuous.

Do you really see no issues with such predatory lending (irrespective of it being done by the IMF or BRI)?

Didn't Mao do the Cultural Revolution specifically to prevent (not that it was implemented well or that it worked) what he saw the USSR was becoming and wanted to prevent China from following in the same capitalistic footsteps?

As in do you believe the person who said

(2) The imperialist powers have forced China to sign numerous unequal treaties by which they have acquired the right to station land and sea forces and exercise consular jurisdiction in China, [17] and they have carved up the whole country into imperialist spheres of influence. [18]

(3) The imperialist powers have gained control of all the important trading ports in China by these unequal treaties and have marked off areas in many of these ports as concessions under their direct administration.[19] They have also gained control of China's customs, foreign trade and communications (sea, land, inland water and air). Thus they have been able to dump their goods in China, turn her into a market for their industrial products, and at the same time subordinate her agriculture to their imperialist needs

would approve of the belt and road debt trap or the actual 99 year lease China used to take over the port of Colombo in Sri Lanka ?

Or is it fine to exploit other countries if the people in your country benefit?

Even then you believe they're socialist when Deng Xiaoping says (and Xi repeats this "common prosperity" rhetoric) that

“Our policy is to let some people and some regions get rich first, in order to drive and help the backward regions, and it is an obligation for the advanced regions to help the backward regions.”

So you recognize the failure of neoliberal "trickle down" economics but refuse to accept that if the same capital accumulation happens in a "socialist" country its suddenly not a problem?

And you really think that Jack Ma and his family won't fight tooth and nail to keep their private jets and offshore million dollar houses instead of forgoing them voluntarily for the good of the socialist project? please..