Depends what you call "independant". Of course they're not gonna be 100% resource-sufficient and that's OK. But why would you have to choose under whose umbrella to hide? Can't an independent nation conduct partnership and trade with "both" sides (or more)? I mean if in your view humanity requires choosing a side between different colonial Empires, i'd rather not live in this world.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'm talking about politics. Most countries in the world have to deal with US in terms of funding politicians, spreading propaganda in the media, and economic coercion. Ultimately, when US doesn't get what it wants then they will fund protests, civil unrest, death squads, and coups in your country. Many books have been written on this subject. The Jakarta Method is a very good read on what happens to countries that try to be independent.

There is no such animal as an independent nation in the real world that we live in. Whether you choose to engage with reality or not is of course your choice.

edit: spelling

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There's a few semi-independent nations, although i agree colonial sabotage and psyops is definitely a thing. Whether you choose to continue with this imperialist status quo or not is of course your choice.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

All nations fall under some larger umbrella in practice. Meanwhile, whether large nations are going act the way they act is not my choice at all actually. The only choice an individual has is to engage with the facts.

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

OK so if we agree there's some things we're powerless in regards to, can we agree we should live our lives regardless of their positions and not try to accommodate their tyrannical desires in the name of defending the lesser evil?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Could you be specific what these tyrannical desires you're referring to are?

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Power. Do you think China's "Belt and Road" or USA's USAID is a humanitarian project? Historical colonization was also presented as a humanitarian project to civilize the "lower people". These empires are trying to get their hands on all the resources they can.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You're creating a false equivalence because evidently you can't comprehend the concept of mutually beneficial relationships between countries. Here are examples of what the results of China's investments look like in practice:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/01022021-chinese-investment-in-africa-has-had-significant-and-persistently-positive-long-term-effects-despite-controversy/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3745021

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/

USSR also had a positive relationship with states like Cuba and Vietnam where lots resources flowed out of USSR to help these countries develop. Quality of life there declined significantly after USSR fell.

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Quality of life there declined significantly after USSR fell.

I'm not saying otherwise. Just like in the Global North quality of life also significantly declined at the same period due to applying the same kind of neoliberal policies (though arguably in a less severe manner than was done in ex-USSR countries).

But you should probably realize that propaganda about philantropic foreign investment is a recurring trope of colonization. France famously prides itself on developing public school and roads/railways in all its former colonies as part of its "civilizing mission". I'm not saying China has such a bad record as France in Africa (dozens of millions of deaths and countless suffering), but they don't exactly have a good track record in other regions and i don't see any convincing argument emerging that Chinese neo-colonialism (eg. privatization of key infrastructure and resources by foreign companies) is any better than Western neo-colonialism.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I’m not saying otherwise. Just like in the Global North quality of life also significantly declined at the same period due to applying the same kind of neoliberal policies

I'm talking about countries like Cuba and Vietnam that were getting aid from USSR and weren't liberalized internally.

But you should probably realize that propaganda about philantropic foreign investment is a recurring trope of colonization.

What I'm pointing out is that China has a different economic system from the west, and at least so far the nature of their relationships has been quite different. The paper I linked above goes into the details of how these relationships work in practice and why the outcomes are positive.

The west is a military empire that dictates how countries subjugated by the west do their internal business, and topples governments that aren't friendly to the west. China has practically no foreign military presence and it does not meddle in internal affairs of the countries it does business with. It's a fundamentally different relationship.