It's amazing how people see this as some big own.
Like, if your system collapses to the extent that over 6 million people flee because a country that you *checks notes* believe has a wicked and destructive economic system *checks notes* declines to do business with you....
Like, if your system collapses to the extent that over 6 million people flee because a country that you *checks notes* believe has a wicked and destructive economic system *checks notes* declines to do business with you....
https://twitter.com/NathanJRobinson/status/1381733851584675842
idk seems like a self-own?
Not so much if the systematic critique is non-economic. But for putatively Marxist states to say, "Well everything would be FINE if the capitalist world would just PROVIDE US MARKET ACCESS" is a massive self-own.
Not so much if the systematic critique is non-economic. But for putatively Marxist states to say, "Well everything would be FINE if the capitalist world would just PROVIDE US MARKET ACCESS" is a massive self-own.
It's one thing if the critique is non-economic. But when the distinction is *about economic systems*, arguing that your economic system would work better if the other economic system would just give you more help is missing the point.
If your economic system is not resilient to losing access to countries with different economic systems, your economic system may not actually be *all that great*.
*gives side-eye to continuing US corporate collaboration with the CCP*
*gives side-eye to continuing US corporate collaboration with the CCP*
the problem is not too many sanctions
the problem is that we should as a matter of default have sanctions against all countries and governments until they become sufficiently liberal and democratic
the problem is that we should as a matter of default have sanctions against all countries and governments until they become sufficiently liberal and democratic
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
