From https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3263878/chinese-scientists-report-world-first-they-cure-patients-diabetes-cell-therapy
In a related topic, most of us never saw chinese blockbusters https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_China (, and usually not movies from other countries)
But we're a democracy fighting for freedom while they're an evil dictatorship whose citizens are praying to be liberated.
Also(, it's (kinda )out of topic but on my mind currently), as Zak Cope pointed out in « The wealth of (some) nations », so called "communist" western political parties aren't internationalist/humanist :
And if the last communist countries can't realistically help other countries even more than they're currently doing because it may 'weaken them'&'cause their destruction', then they only have to make public declarations that, once certain metrics are realized ensuring their long-lasting survival, then measures of wealth equality among countries will then automatically be taken, it's not hard to do better than those/westerners/nationalists who aren't even trying(, on the contrary, i'm often remembering that Thomas Jefferson tried to prevent the publication of Ricardo's Principles in the u.s.a.(, Reinert 1996, p. 5) ; even if 'free trade'//protectionism and the principle of infant-industries is only a part of neo-colonialism, it's good to remember that « throughout the nineteenth century and up to the 1920s, the USA was the fastest growing economy in the world, despite being the most protectionist during almost all of this period »).
edit1 :
« Important as tariff protection may have been in the development of most NDCs[, Newly Developed Countries, from XVIIIth-century Britain to XXth-century Korea], it was — I repeat — by no means the only, nor even necessarily the most important, policy tool used by these countries in promoting infant industries. There were many other tools, such as export subsidies, tariff rebates on inputs used for exports, conferring of monopoly rights, cartel arrangements, directed credits, investment planning, manpower planning, R&D supports and the promotion of institutions that allow public-private cooperation. ». Zak Cope talked about colonial tribute, monopoly rent, and unequal exchange(, and value transfer, e.g., « For every dollar’s worth of goods exported from the Philippines in 1961, approximately five times as many hours of labour had to be invested as in a dollars worth of goods exported from Canada. »), while other authors added other factors(, as an other example, Lenin's (old )view is famous and his 5 points were updated here by 8 authors starting from scratch at each chapter with their own view). Their description of the causes/consequences/context aren't incompatible, nor are Jason Hickel's arguments, or Samir Amin, nor is adding our nationalism/'lack of humanism/good-will' in the balance, etc.
edit2 : (ITT : International Trade Theory)
« According to Maddison's estimate, throughout the nineteenth century the ratio of per capita income in PPP terms between the poorest NDCs (say, Japan and Finland) and the richest NDCs (say, the Netherlands and the UK) was about 2 or 4 to 1. Nowhere is this as big as the gap between today's developing and developed countries.
(...)
When in the late nineteenth century the USA accorded an average tariff protection of over 40 per cent to its industries, its per capita income in PPP terms was already about three quarters that of Britain ($2,599 vs. $3,511 in 1875).
(...)
Compared to this, the 71 per cent trade-weighted average tariff rate that India had just prior to the WTO agreement — despite the fact that its per capita income in PPP terms is only about one fifteenth that of the USA — makes the country look like a veritable champion of free trade. Following the WTO agreement, India cut its trade-weighted average tariff to 32 per cent, bringing it down to a level below which the USA's average tariff rate never sank between the end of the Civil War and the Second World War. »
i.d.k. but it's at least suspicious
And Israel can still bomb defenceless civilians under the absurd impossible goal of "destroying" anti-zionists, after oppressing them for almost a century, and being the main/only obstacle to (the unilateral palestinian loss of )a two-states solution(, along the 1967 borders obviously). It's apparently easy to switch from victim to tormentor when given the opportunity, i think that they're acting out of greed(, for more territory), not self-defense, they're not victims ; and, 3 generations later, we don't owe the current awful beings any "free pass" for the victims of ww2, nor do we owe anything to the current russians for the many soviet deaths. If they don't trust that allowing a palestinian state will ensure their safety, then they have a problem and need to find a solution, a world army is less far-fetched than overthrowing every neighbor that is still pro-palestinian, but are they even searching for a way to ensure their safety, and is it the real reason for their refusal ? A first step would be to publicly explain why they're refusing a "two-states solution" instead of assuming(, in secret like a good head of state, westerner or not,) that there's no answer to their objection, most of the world want to help them to make peace, it's not like in the case of Russia-Ukraine where the n.a.t.o. refuses to 'change their mind'/'abandon (the anti-russians/pro-western in )Ukraine'(, which would solve everything,) and nobody can 'do anything'/'force them', here there're more than one solution and it's mostly Israel that is refusing to go back to the 1967's borders among other things for reasons that can be solved if they share it with (tens of )thousands of researchers ready to debate and offer innovative/new options to solve their preoccupations/'causes of refusal'.
Here, i'm trying to add nuances to what i wrote, i guess that i don't have time to really argue on the Internet with people who'd disagree with me, yet the desire is still very much there, i don't like echo chambers :
We'll regret our current republic if times go 't/r'ough, since that usually means a more authoritarian governement.
Without robot-slaves, it'd also seem unavoidable that the wealthier will desire a higher rent to sustain a way of living and live above the peasants, if they need 10 times the peasant's salary to do so, then we'd tend towards 10% of (neo-)nobles and 90% of (neo-)peasants.
It's true that every(?) society of large enough scale was divided between the workers, (the soldiers, the clergy, ...), and the privileged class, who didn't have to work(, except for taking care of h.is.er fortune). One could argue that nobles of the past had more responsabilities than nowadays capitalists(, as well as an even more pronounced inequality in the face of the judicial system), but it'd be more interesting to know if technology will avoid the return to the "natural" order between the laborious class and the noble/annuitant one.
There's a future in which capitalism could still lead to a utopia, e.g. with robot-slaves, that'd make my/our fears wrong :
Despite what i wrote in this comment, better times are ahead, in particular thanks to these "robot-slaves", and while everyone wants more, i don't think we're evil to the point of refusing a mostly labor-free life to every human on earth if we have the capacity to do so.
Capitalism wouldn't announce an horrible future if we can still eat freely, if money/'renting your body/time' stop being a necessity, it could lead to some socialist ideals in a utopia.
I refuse to be cynical to the point of believing that the capitalists' greed would be more important to them than allowing technology to free wo.men from (the loss of their entire lives to )work.s they hate.
Perhaps will i be old enough to see that happening, i don't think that we're evil, and i dare think that nobody is, we could very well be allowed to live in a utopia, they don't hate their population.
Hence, i don't really care of what we're doing in our countries, if capitalists want to stay in power and enjoy their privileges, then so be it.
The solution to our fight against other countries, to our desire of security, to the threat of cultural hegemony, would be to be united in diversity, it's doable&desirable :
What's annoying is refusing to allow/'live with' countries that want to walk a different path, we need this diversity to think ouside the box, if every creation is a little birth then every synthesis is a little death.
We have to cohabitate, and while i'd prefer to live in a communist utopia like everyone on Lemmygrad, i wouldn't want capitalism(, royalism, etc.,) to disappear all over the world, it's their problem, and it's interesting to know how they'll evolve.
The usual counter-argument is that we have to coup/"convert" other countries because it makes us more secure, i don't think that cultural hegemony is the only way to prevent military invasions, and i'd go as far as to say that it's also not the only way to prevent covert operations and foreign propaganda, we need to have rules against them and a way to enforce them.
Capitalists would have to be certain that their privileges wouldn't be overthrtrown by a communist revolution for them to accept socialist countries.
Or perhaps that these "robot-slaves" will make useless this need for a superior monetary/social position, having your basic needs met should be enough for everyone, independent communities with their own rules could flourish in the "land of the free", who knows what the future has in store.
================================
If the only reason for the moderator to have deleted my comment is that it was confusing h.im.er as said in the modlog, then i hope that these titles quickly written will have solved the problem. If that really was the only motive for deletion.