It’s less about how good/bad the West is and more about your perspective being influenced by the West’s media sphere.
For most Western leftists, the only kind of revolution or movement they support are failed ones. The moment a movement actually succeeds and starts asserting control of it’s own resources, you can count on hearing all about its worst aspects, if not outright fabrications, while the positive things get minimized, ignored, or “but at what cost” 'd. On top of this is the fact that some people have some perfect rosy ideal that could never exist because it fails to account for real world problems with no easy answer that you’d have to contend with in practice.
The result is a completely backwards analysis where failures are idolized and successes are seen as cautionary tales. Y’all also seem to think you’re the first people in all of history to ever have the idea of “freedom good” occur to them. Which I mean, if you don’t, and your approach works, then what do you have to show for it?
Evil authoritarian China lifted 800 billion people out of extreme poverty over the last 40 years. It has gone from one of the poorest countries on earth to one of the most powerful, it has established an alternative economic sphere which gives non-aligned countries choices on who to deal with (while often forgiving the debts of poor countries). But some sources in the West say they persecute minorities, and do you actually apply an ounce of skepticism to those claims? Do you critically evaluate the pros and cons and come to a nuanced, realistic evaluation of the country? Or do you just knee-jerk accept it and condemn them, wholly and without question?
Say whatever you want about the west, it doesn’t automatically make authoritarianism good or better.
It’s less about how good/bad the West is and more about your perspective being influenced by the West’s media sphere.
For most Western leftists, the only kind of revolution or movement they support are failed ones. The moment a movement actually succeeds and starts asserting control of it’s own resources, you can count on hearing all about its worst aspects, if not outright fabrications, while the positive things get minimized, ignored, or “but at what cost” 'd. On top of this is the fact that some people have some perfect rosy ideal that could never exist because it fails to account for real world problems with no easy answer that you’d have to contend with in practice.
The result is a completely backwards analysis where failures are idolized and successes are seen as cautionary tales. Y’all also seem to think you’re the first people in all of history to ever have the idea of “freedom good” occur to them. Which I mean, if you don’t, and your approach works, then what do you have to show for it?
Evil authoritarian China lifted 800 billion people out of extreme poverty over the last 40 years. It has gone from one of the poorest countries on earth to one of the most powerful, it has established an alternative economic sphere which gives non-aligned countries choices on who to deal with (while often forgiving the debts of poor countries). But some sources in the West say they persecute minorities, and do you actually apply an ounce of skepticism to those claims? Do you critically evaluate the pros and cons and come to a nuanced, realistic evaluation of the country? Or do you just knee-jerk accept it and condemn them, wholly and without question?