Western propaganda #2

However, today this Marxist theory of imperialism is commonly being rejected in large part, if not in its entirety, by self-proclaimed socialists in the West with a Eurocentric bias. Hence, the gap between the views of imperialism held by the Western left and those of revolutionary movements in the Global South is wider than at any time in the last century. The waning of U.S. hegemony has been coupled with the attempt of the United States/NATO to create a unipolar world order dominated by Washington. In this extreme polarized context many on the left now deny the economic exploitation of the periphery by the core imperialist countries.

Thus, we are now commonly confronted with such contradictory propositions, emanating from the Western left, as: (...) (5) imperialist nations can be judged primarily on a democratic-authoritarian spectrum, so that not all imperialisms are created equal; (6) imperialism is simply a political policy of aggression of one state against another; (7) humanitarian imperialism designed to protect human rights is justified; ( 8 ) the dominant classes in the Global South are no longer anti-imperialist;  (...) (11) China and the United States head rival imperialist blocs; (...)

Denial of the reality of imperialism in full or in part has a long history in the Western Eurocentric left beginning with the outright “social imperialism” of the Fabian Society in Britain, and reflected in the social chauvinism of all of the main European social democratic parties at the time of the First World War. However, with the resurgence of the Western left in the post-Second World War period, particularly in the 1960s and ’70s, Western socialists adopted a strongly anti-imperialist stance, backing national liberation struggles around the world. This began to fade with the waning of the anti-Vietnam War movement in the early 1970s. (...) the rejection by the Eurocentric left of the conclusion that countries of the capitalist core exploited those of the periphery, through higher rates of exploitation of workers in dependent countries, and the resulting appropriation of a large part of this enormous surplus by the imperialist countries at the center of the system.

It has long been argued by Eurocentric socialists that a higher rate of productivity in the Global North canceled out the wage differential between North and South to the point that the level of exploitation in the North was actually higher than in the South. However, this thesis of a higher rate of exploitation in the North has now been definitively disproven (..) study has shown that even when accounting for productivity/skill levels, which are now comparable in export manufacturing in the Global South and in the Global North (since the very same technology, introduced by multinational corporations, is utilized), the rate of exploitation is much higher in the Global South, with its much lower unit labor costs. Indeed, the current trend toward the outright denial of imperialism theory can be attributed in part to an attempt in the face of this growing evidence to avoid the reality of the center’s superexploitation of the periphery by abandoning the whole question of imperialism. At the root of the criticisms of economic imperialism emanating from Western Eurocentric circles has been the rejection of Engels’s and Lenin’s labor aristocracy thesis.

Another theoretical development characteristic of the Western Eurocentric left has been the adoption in stripped-down fashion of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, seen as a mere model of horizontal interimperialist conflict between great powers. Here, China and Russia are portrayed as constituting a single bloc (though representing very different political-economic systems), engaged in an imperialist rivalry with the triad of the United States, Europe, and Japan. (...) Imperialism, in this new view, is no longer associated primarily with the global exploitative role of the great imperial powers, such as the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan, which, making up the center of the capitalist world-system, have dominated the centuries-long history of imperialism. Rather, the characterization of imperialist states is extended to semiperipheral and emerging economies, now classified as imperialist or subimperialist, in the spirit of seeing imperialism primarily in horizontal rather than vertical terms.

The interimperialist argument [the one that is used to deny the existence of Western imperialism] today depends on presenting the People’s Republic of China as an imperialist (and straightforwardly capitalist) power in the same sense as the United States, disregarding the role of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and the whole Chinese road to development, as well as processes of unequal exchange. Yet, such attempts on the Western Eurocentric left to designate China as imperialist can come up with no more basis for this than to note the rapid economic growth of China; its expanding capital exports; its measures to enhance its own regional security (in the face of an encirclement by U.S. military bases and alliances); and its questioning of the imperial rules-based order under the domination of the United States and the West. We are led to believe that China is imperialist, since it “occupies significant maritime space” in its region; governs Hong Kong (no longer a British colony but returned to China); interferes in other countries via its Belt and Road Initiative aimed at promoting economic development; and has been known on occasion to use debt as a means of political-economic leverage.

More difficult still for those seeking to characterize China as imperialist in the classical sense is that rather than seeking to join the U.S.-dominated rules-based imperial order or to replace it with what could be considered a new imperialist order, Chinese foreign policy has been geared to promoting the self-determination of nations, while opposing bloc geopolitics and military interventions. Beijing’s threefold Global Security Initiative, Global Development Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative together constitute the leading proposals for world peace in our era. The People’s Republic of China has few military bases abroad, has not carried out any overseas military interventions, and has not engaged in wars at all except in relation to the defense of its own borders.

In sharp contrast to China, the United States over its history has intervened militarily in 101 countries, some of these multiple times. Since the Second World War, it has carried out hundreds of wars/military interventions/coups on five continents. These interventions have accelerated since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Today, in the context of a New Cold War, Washington is expanding its chain of military alliances explicitly aimed at insuring its military preeminence in every region of the world. The United States has 902 military bases abroad (with some four hundred of these surrounding China itself). The United Kingdom, acting as a junior partner, meanwhile, has 145 foreign military bases.

Well, one thing for certain is, China is a paper tiger. They have a large army, but they have no experience. Most of their systems are just copies of Russian stuff that they try to pretty up. wrote:

Telegram blocking Russian media in EU

Telegram channels of multiple major Russian outlets are now inaccessible across the bloc over alleged “violation of local laws”

According to media reports, the affected channels include such Russian majors as RIA Novosti, Izvestia, Rossiya 1, Channel One, NTV and Rossiyskaya Gazeta. While it was not immediately clear whether the bans are EU-wide, the restrictions have been reportedly rolled out in Poland, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy and the Czech Republic.

Hence why alternative to telegram is created, and Pavel and his assets confiscated in Russia. Ban telegram in Russia.

After Pavel Durov's arrest, Telegram handed over data on thousands of users to U.S. authorities, according to a report from 404 Media, referencing the company's Transparency Report.

In 2024, Telegram transferred data on 2,253 users in response to 900 official U.S. requests. The bulk of these requests came after Durov's arrest in France in August. Between January 1 and September 30, the messenger complied with just 14 requests, but the number of data disclosures sharply increased in the months following Durov's detainment at Paris airport on August 24.

Meanwhile, Telegram has ceased fulfilling requests from Russian authorities. The Moscow Times reports that since September 30, Telegram has not provided any user data to Russian officials. In the first nine months of 2024, the platform declined all Russian requests.

Previously, Telegram shared user data only in cases involving terrorism concerns. However, after Durov's arrest, it appears he was pressured to provide data in cases related to cybercrime, the sale of illegal goods, and online fraud.

It’s important to note that Telegram's refusal to cooperate with French authorities was a key point of contention during Durov's legal troubles in France.

https://www.404media.co/telegram-hands-u-s-authorities-data-on-thousands-of-users/

Just wanted to mention it. Kazakhstan will be next hot zone for Russia after Ukraine.