u/khalid-khkhlhlh

I saw a few posts here in this sub which talking about how China won against the USA after the disastrous war against Iran.

Of course China won.

I am an Arab Muslim man. And I totally understand why.

While, the Americans and the Israelis were busy killing and slaughtering Muslims like me, China was investing in infrastructure and technology of other countries to build strong trade relations.

While, the Americans and the Israelis were busy making hateful propaganda in their media against Muslims like me, China was busy building soft power through mutually beneficial trade agreements.

Many Arab and Muslim countries are part of China's trade agenda because they want a share of their prosperity.

The Chinese are good business partners.

Those Americans and Israelis are insane, really pure insane.

How in the Lord's name could anyone even compare what the Americans and the Israelis have been doing to Arabs and Muslims like, Palestinians, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis, and so many others, then say China is a force of evil?

Of course the Chinese want something in return. Everyone does. Nothing is free. And yet countries like Muslim countries prefer this over the mass slaughter in the name of liberal ideals and human rights and whatever nonsense. At least the Chinese compensate us for our natural resources. Those Americans and Israelis simply gave us so much, carnage, slaughter, and terror.

What in God's name is wrong with those people that they could compare China to US insanity?

Communism for Marx, aka from each according to his ability to each according to his need, is only possible under material abundance.

For example, Marx in "The Poverty of Philosophy" work which mainly explained in Chapter 2 Section 1 was attacking not only M. Proudhon but all utopian thinkers.

Until then, Marx advocated for all possible pragmatic positions, which includes socialist and capitalist ones, that develop material preconditions for abundance.

Karl Marx saw things in terms of necessary cruelties not good or evil or even ought. He hated moralising.

For Marx, his issue is material abundance. He would support socialism if it served that goal. He would also support capitalism if it served that goal. Moral oughts were secondary to him.

He supported capitalism sometimes out of a belief that capitalists were digging their own graves by creating material preconditions for a future socialist revolution.

Many when debating politics or anything about China's Marxist Communism overlooks either out of ignorance or propaganda an important thing about Marxism.

Karl Marx himself never advocated for beginning with communism.

Communism for Marx, aka from each according to his ability to each according to his need, is only possible under abundance of resources.

Until then, Marx advocated for the pragmatic position that socialism and even capitalism if necessary need to adapt pragmatically, even if it means allowing the existence of capitalist elites but under a proletarian dictatorship. He made it clear that communism is impossible without abundance of resources. Many people didn't even bother to listen to what Karl Marx said. How many read his works or even bothered to look online for his views?

Makes sense why the Chinese act pragmatically like they do.

The thing is the Chinese know their country is not fully communist.

The Chinese consider their current system to be necessary and that they should change it if necessary as well until the communist stage that Marx talked about is reached.

Regardless of the true wishes of the Chinese, this matters in debates.

Without understanding this, any conversation about Marxism or China is worthless bickering.

I mean I really agree with realpolitik and its rejection of idealistic notions about rational cooperation. People are ruled by fear not rationality. They are conflict-prone. That's why ideals work only on paper. That's why all self-rule polities becomes oligarchies. No disagreements here.

What, I don't understand, is how can realism assume states to be rational actors?

Sometimes state interests contradict eachother. That's why we see irrational choices sometimes. It's all thanks to the fact that there are many factions within states. Sometimes a faction does manage to change state interests.

Are there any traditions within political philosophy whether within realism or outside it that fullfil such criteria?

Just like the title says, the Americans are fully responsible for everything done by President Trump.

​

According to the constitution of the USA, the American President can be removed without re-election by impeachment through 2/3 votes from the house of the representatives and by conviction through 3/4 votes from the house of the senators just like that.

​

The goddamn US constitution already gave the Americans their solution for Trump's reckless behaviour. Many Americans still defend him. This means he is a legitimate US president according to their own constitution.

​

This is totally all on them.

Honestly hypocritical ones poisoned the well of the political discourse that it became pointless to even engage with their arguments.

​

According to the so-called human rights standards of the West, and if standards applied consistently, we generally have much more reasons to take the side against the West rather than the side with the West.

​

Crying "whataboutism" doesn't change anything. No one takes the arguments of hypocrites seriously.

​

Countries like China and Russia didn't do half the nonsense done by the Americans and the Westerners. They didn't commit ethnic cleansing against the American and Palestinian Natives. They didn't kill millions of people in the 20th century in the name of fighting communism through ruthless capitalist regimes. They didn't kill millions of Muslims in the 21st century by destabilising, invading, and bombing most Muslim countries.

​

Makes no sense to take the West's side here even by their own so-called human rights standards.

​

Better to stop preaching their principles then.

مهما نظرت لمصر ستجد أنه هذا الشعب لا أمل فيه لأنه لا يعرف مصلحة نفسه.

​

الليبراليون يدعمون النخب الرأسمالية. السلفيون يريدون الحكم تحت النخب السلفية. الموالون للجيش يؤيدون الحكم تحت النخب العسكرية.

​

كله يريد تدمير بعضه البعض حتي لو دمروا البلد نفسه. الليبراليون تخلوا عن الديموقراطية حتي يسقطوا السلفيين. السلفيون أرادوا إستخدام الديموقراطية حتي يقمعوا المخالفين لهم في الرأي. الموالون للجيش يدافعون عن النخب العسكرية مهما كانت أخطائهم.

​

حتي الآن ما زال هذا الشعب يستمر في تقديم الأعذار. السلفيون ما زالوا يبررون لنظام الإخوان ومرسي بكل وقاحة رغم غدرهم بالشعب. الموالون للجيش ما زالوا يتهمون كل مخالف للحكومة بأنه أخواني. الليبراليون يخافون من تطبيق الديموقراطية بسبب خوفهم من السلفية.

​

هذا البلد الذي سموه مصر فعلا يستحق أن يتم حكمه بالحديد والنار.

​

فعلا البلد دي مينفعش فيها غير فرعون.

Everytime, I ask the same question about the Uyghurs, everyone else cannot reply.

"How many Uyghurs did China kill, expell, or sterilise?"

One question. A very simple question. Not too hard to answer.

And still I hear nothing but excuses, deflections, and imaginary numbers without any sources or even any elaborations.

Once, someone told me that millions were exterminated by their sterilising policies, which I came to realise that they were talking about the Uyghurs having better access to birth control and thus lower birthrates.

It makes one realise how dishonest those individuals are.

Third-World Nationalism are basically the nationalist ideologies within the underdeveloped countries of our world. Those underdeveloped countries are also called the developing countries and the Global South as well.

For many reasons like, history of exploitation, colonial grievances, and commonly perceived double standards, they distrust the egalitarian and globalist ideologies which tried to shape our modern world of Post-WWII.

Now I know that academia is very diverse with many cultures and countries and regions. That's why all answers would need to take those elements into account. I want to hear perspectives from everyone from all sides.

Trump's presidency was erratic to say the least. And it's only been a year and a half. Yet so much damage was already done. And I can't even begin to imagine what's about to come.

That's why I am interested in any political thinkers with expansive studies about Trump.

My favourite political approach is through realpolitik and under the realm of political realism.

هو المصريين مش فاهمين بلدهم ازاي؟ الديكتاتور هو واحد السلطة كلها في أيده. مصر مبقاش عندها ديكتاتور من ساعة عبد الناصر والسادات. هو الموضوع صعب يتفهم؟ السيسي مش ديكتاتور. السيسي مجرد واحد من نخبة الجيش. هل السيسي يقدر يعمل قرار ضد إرادة أغلبية قادة الجيش؟ من الآخر مصر محكومة من نخبة الجيش مش علي ايد ديكتاتور. فهمتوا؟ عشان كده لو السيسي راح في اي داهية هيجي واحد غيره طول ما نخبة الجيش موجودة.

As an Egyptian man, the American and Israeli hypocrisy about Gaza and Hamas is so insulting.

For years, Israel enforced a blockage against Gaza. And when, Hamas retaliated, they played the victim.

That's despite the fact that when, we, Egyptians, blocked them from using the Suez Canal, they attacked our country.

We all knew this "liberal" rules-based order was a two-tier system.

The Hobbesian intellectuals from the philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, himself to the many monarchists of all ideologies to the realists of foreign policy and what else always claimed that people can never cooperate unless forced to cooperate under strong authority aka a monarchical or autocratic figure that ruling elites are always going to be here that wiping out current elites is only going to beget new elites.

The war of all against all.

It looks like they at last won the intellectual debate in the 21st century particularly in the year of 2026 without any doubts anymore at least when it comes to the battle of actual political policies.

Like it or not you can't just ignore the reality on the ground to argue for ideals pretending they still matter even when not practiced.

People are really aversive to cooperation without some strong authority.

I ask for suggestions of Realistic Post-WWII movies without idealising the USA.

Simply realistic. No idealism. No fighting for liberty. Just the raw picture of the American wars.

أنا مستغرب من أنه ما زال هناك جدالات عن السلفية والفكر السلفي في الوطن العربي من الكثير من العرب اللذين ما زالوا يدافعون عن أفكار ابن تيمية وبن عبد الوهاب وغيرهم من أئمة السلفية.

الفكر السلفي منفصل عن الواقع والتاريخ ويأخذ بعقيدة الإسلام بدون أخذ السياق التاريخي في الحسبان ، التاريخ يظهر أن الشريعة الإسلامية لم تكن ثابتة بشكل مطلق في أحكامها بل تغيرت بتغيير السياق للحفاظ علي غايات العقيدة من الضياع ، المصيبة هي محاولات التهرب الفاشلة من عواقب هذا الفكر عن طريق الأعذار الواهية رغم أن هذه الجماعات كانت تأخذ بأقوال ابن تيمية وبن عبد الوهاب وغيرهم من أئمة السلفية وليس بأقوال فلاسفة الليبرالية مثل لوك ومونتسكيو وروسو في فتاواهم.

هذا الفكر الذي لم يجلب أي شيء مفيد أو أي شيء علي الإطلاق سوي تكفير المخالف واستباحة دماء الناس من العرب وأهل الذمة وحتى أهل الملة ، هذا الفكر الذي أنتج ميليشيات كانت تحارب وتقتل في المسلمين أكثر مما كانت تحارب وتقتل في الأمريكان والصهاينة ، هذا الفكر الذي دمر بلاد العراق والشام وغيرهم ، هذا الفكر الذي كان نتيجة تمويل من الأمريكان والصهاينة وآل سعود من أجل غاية أضعاف الوحدة الوطنية في الوطن العربي.

لماذا ما زال هناك جدالات عقيمة عن السلفية؟

View Poll

Once, I heard someone say that the Buddhists are diverse, with many different beliefs, and with some believing or disbelieving in God and whatever.

I used to be confused about it until reading this story by the Buddha narrating about a man shot by a poisoned arrow.

This story about a man, who was shot by a poisoned arrow, and who kept asking endless questions about the one, who shot the arrow, when he could just go to the doctor to solve his problem, is obviously mocking those questions about divine causation as without any use in getting rid of suffering.

The Buddha is more of a physician for the soul than your usual curious philosopher.

One could say he's a pragmatic man trying to solve suffering with pragmatic solutions.

What do you think?

I am interested in reading about political philosophers whose works are based on political determinism.

For example, Thomas Hobbes is one of the earliest political philosophers, who argued for monarchy based on pragmatic principles by appealing to the political determinism of the "war of all against all" argument.

Let me tell you what I think about the "Islam can never be compatible with liberalism" arguement.

To tell truth, I hope it's true. I really do. I even wish that all Muslims would just abandon liberalism already.

The Arab Homeland saw nothing but robbing, killing, destabilising, and shameless lies from liberalism and liberals.

The Arabs saw so much death and slaughter from the Europeans, whether British, French, Americans, Israelis, to care about their ideals.

Seriously, piss off. This argument is not what those bigots think. It's not an insult at all. It's actually a compliment.

Just like the title says, I want to know about examples of logicians, who lived during the classical or medieval era before the modern era.

We all know about Aristotle. Needless to say. Still want to know about more.