4 ms·

> modern neo-colonial liberal democracy proponents What does this even mean?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
If you read about all the ways people justified shitting all over Africa in the 1800s (white man's burden, "we're going to civilize them", other garbage like that) you'll find some uncomfortably strong echoes in modern mainstream upper middle class viewpoints. That's what he's getting at. I think "neo-colonial" is a bad choice of wording because the word "colonial" comes with too much specific implication that is not quite relevant at present but the whole implied and unquestionable inferiority of other groups culture and methods of societal organization is very much alive and well.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  If that's what he means, I actually sympathise with the viewpoint (neoconservatism and neoliberalism intersect in US hegemony, something JFK specifically spoke out against), but am completely clueless as to how we got here from dreams under authoritarianism. (FWIW I've proposed some better wording for concepts in my original thread if they would help avoid derailment)
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Presuming authoritarianism to be this one thing was the starting point, a worldview shaped by neo-colonial "democracy or else" is my theory as to why the alternatives in types of government as seen from a western view point are either authoritarian, communist or democratic (even putin and dprk are democratic lol). In reality, putin's russia, dprk, china, vietnam, etc... are all different from each other. You can't be succesful like china by being communist alone for example or end up poor like nk simply because one family of dictators ruled over a few generations (the british monarchy of dictators ruled for over a millenium and had the largest empire ever).
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      British/english monarchy still has a few decades until its millennium (2066 and all that) but yes, "democracy or else" is remarkably reductive (I doubt the 2k+ representatives to this year's 二十大 went there if they weren't going to be voting on party business and positions, and on the other hand there are "good monarchies" just as in 1970 there were still "good fascists", so the categories might be worse than reductive; they could easily be mistaken). I would rather blame ignorance than malice: western viewpoints are oversimplified because by and large we westerners do not care to learn about the important distinctions to be made. However, I suspect that will slowly change over the course of this century. (In 1985, it only took the G5 to have enough corner to manipulate the exchange rate of the USD. Today it would probably take almost the entire G20 to do so.) Pushing my thumbs that it will change for the better.
      - 082349872349872 4y ago
        > ... do not care to learn ... Slogan: wars are God's way of teaching geography to Americans.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  "soft-imperialist" ?
- _8j50 4y ago
  You are right about the first part. Neo-colonialism is a word I chose because regime change and installment of a western friendly regime is the goal of the people I talk about. Including many on HN that think circumventing restrictions in other countries by legitimate governments is good because it supports some internal faction of that country more aligned with their views. The result would be a country open to western views and more open to trade and influence. Colonialism is when you install rulers of a country that are your subjects, essentially making that country a province and the goal being to "improve" and "civilize" that country to your standards and allow "trade" beneficial to you. Neo-colonialism isn't of course exactly that, but as you said, there are strong parallems which is why the term is used (and abused by some). The presumption that you get a say in what type of a government and what type of laws exist in a foreign country can only when you see yourself as part of a powerful force that can affect those changes and has the right to do so. If US and europe were broke 3rd world countries that don't have powerful militaries there wouldn't be all this talk about replacing governments in other countries and supporting by finance and technology revolutionaries that seek to install western friendly regimes in those countries. It is important to label it and call it out because since grade school we are indoctrinated to think this is the correct way. When there were terrible things happening in Syria, trump bombed them with popular support. When terrible things happen elsewhere like China, they're left alone because they can fight back. Preying on the weak and installing friendly regimes is a modern way of colonizing those deemed inferiror or uncooperative.
  - galfarragem 4y ago
    I suspect many of these "ex-colonies", by popular referendum - if they had this option - would choose to be a "province" again. People just want peace and prosperity. This doesn't mean that systematic abuses didn't happen in the past but contradicts clearly the thoughts of the enlightened elites.
    - _8j50 4y ago
      No, I know plenty of immigrants and they would not want to be subjugated again, but you sort of proved my point there. You fail to realize that even now, the reason many former colonies (US being an exception) do so poorly is because the post-colonial countries were formed by colonizers, their original countries were erased. Now, I blame them for not defending their homeland to begin with but my point is that to this day they fight against each other (and I know I am overly generalizing here) because mainly mistrust between each other. You maybe familiar with tutsi's and hutu's in rwanda for example, they did not trust tutsis because they feared subjugation. You think they would be ok with europeans subjugating them when they have civil wars because their neighbors might subjugate them? Colonialists were greedy, they could have made a lot if money just by trading and establishing trade routes. Everyone wants to profit. Their greed was they wanted it all and fast, because they developed superior militaries they used that power for greed.
dzink 4y ago
The last sentence of the article mentions Trump and it is likely triggering to some of his supporters. Neo-liberal is a term frequently used in that circle.
- _8j50 4y ago
  Oh ffs! I am not a trump supporter or a communist or a terrorist.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

If you read about all the ways people justified shitting all over Africa in the 1800s (white man's burden, "we're going to civilize them", other garbage like that) you'll find some uncomfortably strong echoes in modern mainstream upper middle class viewpoints. That's what he's getting at. I think "neo-colonial" is a bad choice of wording because the word "colonial" comes with too much specific implication that is not quite relevant at present but the whole implied and unquestionable inferiority of other groups culture and methods of societal organization is very much alive and well.

082349872349872 4y ago
If that's what he means, I actually sympathise with the viewpoint (neoconservatism and neoliberalism intersect in US hegemony, something JFK specifically spoke out against), but am completely clueless as to how we got here from dreams under authoritarianism. (FWIW I've proposed some better wording for concepts in my original thread if they would help avoid derailment)
- _8j50 4y ago
  Presuming authoritarianism to be this one thing was the starting point, a worldview shaped by neo-colonial "democracy or else" is my theory as to why the alternatives in types of government as seen from a western view point are either authoritarian, communist or democratic (even putin and dprk are democratic lol). In reality, putin's russia, dprk, china, vietnam, etc... are all different from each other. You can't be succesful like china by being communist alone for example or end up poor like nk simply because one family of dictators ruled over a few generations (the british monarchy of dictators ruled for over a millenium and had the largest empire ever).
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    British/english monarchy still has a few decades until its millennium (2066 and all that) but yes, "democracy or else" is remarkably reductive (I doubt the 2k+ representatives to this year's 二十大 went there if they weren't going to be voting on party business and positions, and on the other hand there are "good monarchies" just as in 1970 there were still "good fascists", so the categories might be worse than reductive; they could easily be mistaken). I would rather blame ignorance than malice: western viewpoints are oversimplified because by and large we westerners do not care to learn about the important distinctions to be made. However, I suspect that will slowly change over the course of this century. (In 1985, it only took the G5 to have enough corner to manipulate the exchange rate of the USD. Today it would probably take almost the entire G20 to do so.) Pushing my thumbs that it will change for the better.
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      > ... do not care to learn ... Slogan: wars are God's way of teaching geography to Americans.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
"soft-imperialist" ?
_8j50 4y ago
You are right about the first part. Neo-colonialism is a word I chose because regime change and installment of a western friendly regime is the goal of the people I talk about. Including many on HN that think circumventing restrictions in other countries by legitimate governments is good because it supports some internal faction of that country more aligned with their views. The result would be a country open to western views and more open to trade and influence. Colonialism is when you install rulers of a country that are your subjects, essentially making that country a province and the goal being to "improve" and "civilize" that country to your standards and allow "trade" beneficial to you. Neo-colonialism isn't of course exactly that, but as you said, there are strong parallems which is why the term is used (and abused by some). The presumption that you get a say in what type of a government and what type of laws exist in a foreign country can only when you see yourself as part of a powerful force that can affect those changes and has the right to do so. If US and europe were broke 3rd world countries that don't have powerful militaries there wouldn't be all this talk about replacing governments in other countries and supporting by finance and technology revolutionaries that seek to install western friendly regimes in those countries. It is important to label it and call it out because since grade school we are indoctrinated to think this is the correct way. When there were terrible things happening in Syria, trump bombed them with popular support. When terrible things happen elsewhere like China, they're left alone because they can fight back. Preying on the weak and installing friendly regimes is a modern way of colonizing those deemed inferiror or uncooperative.
- galfarragem 4y ago
  I suspect many of these "ex-colonies", by popular referendum - if they had this option - would choose to be a "province" again. People just want peace and prosperity. This doesn't mean that systematic abuses didn't happen in the past but contradicts clearly the thoughts of the enlightened elites.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    No, I know plenty of immigrants and they would not want to be subjugated again, but you sort of proved my point there. You fail to realize that even now, the reason many former colonies (US being an exception) do so poorly is because the post-colonial countries were formed by colonizers, their original countries were erased. Now, I blame them for not defending their homeland to begin with but my point is that to this day they fight against each other (and I know I am overly generalizing here) because mainly mistrust between each other. You maybe familiar with tutsi's and hutu's in rwanda for example, they did not trust tutsis because they feared subjugation. You think they would be ok with europeans subjugating them when they have civil wars because their neighbors might subjugate them? Colonialists were greedy, they could have made a lot if money just by trading and establishing trade routes. Everyone wants to profit. Their greed was they wanted it all and fast, because they developed superior militaries they used that power for greed.

dzink 4y ago

The last sentence of the article mentions Trump and it is likely triggering to some of his supporters. Neo-liberal is a term frequently used in that circle.

_8j50 4y ago
Oh ffs! I am not a trump supporter or a communist or a terrorist.