We have a lot of evidence now that shows that the vaccines are effective at reducing the spread. They've been shown to reduce the risk of infection, accelerate viral clearance, reduce transmission, and have high efficacy against severe infection, hospitalization, and death. A thread on some of the weaknesses of natural immunity. Also, contrary to what many libertarians would have us believe, even most Americans do actually support vaccine mandates.
A number of articles covering the economic history of Latin American countries regarding the successes from the state-led ISI model (1960-1980) and the economic failures resulting from the imposed neoliberal model (1980-2000):
This can be a helpful article that expounds more on the devastating effects of the US embargo on Cuba in the context of the pandemic: https://ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2020/u-s-economic-sanctions-on-cuba-in-the-context-of-the-pandemic-covid-19/
A video that may also help dispel the popular right-wing misconceptions about the Cuban government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds
According to a recent poll, even sixty-one percent of Cuban Americans in South Florida support a temporary halt to all economic sanctions during the pandemic. Over 70% of Cuban Americans living in South Florida believe that the embargo is not working.
A short video that exposes parts of the recent American regime change propaganda campaign directed against Cuba: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOc53ePzWok
The Soviet Union under Stalin also played a critical role in developing China with massive loans to build its infrastructure and the industrial foundation that was key to China's economic independence. These Soviet loans were certainly not an altruistic giveaway and had to be paid back. According to Deng Xiaoping:
Stalin, on the other hand, did some good for us. After the founding of the People’s Republic, he helped us to build up an industrial complex that is still the foundation of the Chinese economy. He didn’t help us for free — fine, we had to pay him — but he helped us.
Numerous Marxist economists and scholars including Michael Roberts, David Kotz, Junshang Liang, Zhonglin Li, Lijun Su, Guglielmo Carchedi, and Minqi Li have shown that China is not an imperialist country in a Marxist sense. China's focus on mutually beneficial state-led projects for direly needed infrastructure, industrialization, schools, hospitals, manufacturing, and power generation are all critical developments required by the global south to break out of their state of underdevelopment and dependency inflicted upon them by the western imperial core. China's international loans and trade deals do not impose neoliberal structural adjustment programs of privatization and austerity or other harsh conditionality measures that are utilized by western capitalist countries and western-dominated financial institutions like the IMF.
According to Marxist economists David Kotz and Zhongjin Li:
More importantly, Horn et al (2019) also find that unlike other major economies, almost all of China’s external lending and portfolio investment is undertaken by the Chinese government, state-owned companies, or the state-controlled central bank, not by private investors that follow the logic behind profit-oriented decisions.
Chinese official lending programs, such as the more recent Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), function as a vehicle for China’s economic statecraft and international cooperation, rather than a search for state domination. Moreover, the investment and loan decisions are mainly channeled through two policy banks, the Chinese Development Bank (CDB) and the Export-Import Bank of China (Chexim), which are largely development-oriented and policy-oriented financial agencies still controlled by the state that aim to achieve the policy objectives of the party and state, rather than originating from private capitalists in pursuit of profit.
By investing and lending largely to developing countries, especially low-income countries, and promoting industrialization in the global South, China is seen as supporting initiatives to address development problems not solved by neoliberalism’s corporate initiatives. While China’s current approach is more commercial than formerly, it continues to support state-run projects in industry and agriculture, which contrasts with the insistence in Washington Consensus on the conditionalities of structural adjustment programs (Sautman and Yan, 2007).
The evidence suggests that China’s strategic lending programs are aimed at reaching mutually beneficial deals rather than at securing conditions for extracting extra-high profits by Chinese capitalists abroad.
Chinese capitalists have treated local workers similarly to the treatment by capitalist investors from other countries, while by contrast Chinese SOEs have been more responsive to requests from the host government regarding more job creation and better labor conditions (Oya & Schaefer, 2019).
Other research also has found that Chinese projects create net employment for national workers and crowd in domestic firms as well.
A new Monthly Review article by two Marxist economists on more recent developments in imperialism: https://monthlyreview.org/2021/05/01/five-characteristics-of-neoimperialism/
Before the post-WWII division of Korea, the North only had about 18% of the total commerce and about a third of the light industry and agriculture of the peninsula. Despite the destruction of the North by American forces during the Korean War, the DPRK had managed to achieve higher GNP per capita than South Korea until the mid-1970s. The North Korean economy in the mid-1960s was actually praised even by western Keynesian economists like Joan Robinson:
Eleven years ago in Pyonygang there was not one stone standing upon another. (They reckon that one bomb, of a ton or more, was dropped per head of population.) Now a modern city of a million inhabitants stands on two sides of the wide river, with broad tree-lined streets of five-story blocks, public buildings, a stadium, theaters (one underground surviving from the war) and a super-de luxe hotel. The industrial sector comprises a number of up-to-date textile mills and a textile machinery plant. The wide sweep of the river and little tree-clad hills preserved as parks provide agreeable vistas. There are some patches of small gray and white houses hastily built from rubble, but even there the lanes are clean, and light and water are laid on. A city without slums.
There is already universal education […] There are numerous nursery schools and creches, all without charge. There is a complete system of social security […] The medical service is free. […] Workers receive holidays with pay.
All the economic miracles of the postwar world are put in the shade by these achievements
The DPRK later encountered a number of severe setbacks from increased military pressure from the US that caused the North Koreans to devote up to 25% of its GNP to its military (which is extremely high), crippling sanctions, the Sino-Soviet split that strained its economic relations with both China and the Soviet Union, excessive unbalanced growth with an overemphasis on heavy industry and underinvestment in light industry and consumer goods, bottlenecks in some sectors from mistakes in planning, a lack of hard currencies, and devastating droughts and floods hurting agriculture. The loss of the Soviet Union and the rest of the Soviet-bloc left the DPRK even more extremely economically isolated and vulnerable. This ultimately led to its economic devastation in the 90s.
South Korea's economic rise actually relied heavily on a state-led model (which ironically contradicts the neoliberal dogma of the Economics Explained channel) of 5-year plans, protectionism, industrial policies, and state-owned enterprises (like Pohang Steel Company) as well as receiving large amounts of foreign investment, technology, and aid from the West and its allies.
Another reminder that the “lab leak” theory is still pure speculation with no evidence (direct or even indirect). However, we do have actual empirical evidence to support natural origins:
Reminder that the right-wing "lab leak" conspiracy theory is pure speculation with no evidence (direct or even indirect). However, we do have empirical evidence to support natural origins:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MoNscience/status/1396240581651742724
I think you're confusing Deng with Chen Yun (who was another high-ranking Chinese communist party official who was also anti-cultural revolution and pro-market socialism):
Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?
Deng's assessment of Mao was more positive:
We will make an objective assessment of Chairman Mao’s contributions and his mistakes. We will reaffirm that his contributions are primary and his mistakes secondary. We will adopt a realistic approach towards the mistakes he made late in life. We will continue to adhere to Mao Zedong Thought, which represents the correct part of Chairman Mao’s life. Not only did Mao Zedong Thought lead us to victory in the revolution in the past; it is — and will continue to be — a treasured possession of the Chinese Communist Party and of our country. That is why we will forever keep Chairman Mao’s portrait on Tiananmen Gate as a symbol of our country, and we will always remember him as a founder of our Party and state. Moreover, we will adhere to Mao Zedong Thought. We will not do to Chairman Mao what Khrushchov did to Stalin.
We must make a clear distinction between the nature of Chairman Mao’s mistakes and the crimes of Lin Biao and the Gang of Four. For most of his life, Chairman Mao did very good things. Many times he saved the Party and the state from crises. Without him the Chinese people would, at the very least, have spent much more time groping in the dark. Chairman Mao’s greatest contribution was that he applied the principles of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution, pointing the way to victory. It should be said that before the sixties or the late fifties many of his ideas brought us victories, and the fundamental principles he advanced were quite correct. He creatively applied Marxism-Leninism to every aspect of the Chinese revolution, and he had creative views on philosophy, political science, military science, literature and art, and so on.
I would be quite content if I myself could be rated fifty-fifty in merits and demerits. But one thing I can say for myself: I have had a clear conscience all my life. Please mark my words: I have made quite a few mistakes, and I have my own share of responsibility for some of the mistakes made by Comrade Mao Zedong. But it can be said that I made my mistake with good intentions. There is nobody who doesn’t make mistakes. We should not lay all past mistakes on Chairman Mao. So we must be very objective in assessing him. His contributions were primary, his mistakes secondary. We will inherit the many good things in Chairman Mao’s thinking while at the same time explaining clearly the mistakes he made.
His view of Mao's actions was said to be "70 percent right and 30 percent wrong." This was similar to his view of Stalin:
To use the Chinese way, the score for Stalin would be thirty percent to seventy percent: thirty for his errors and seventy for his merits. Furthermore, Chairman Mao agreed with me on the question of Stalin’s score, and, after the twentieth Congress of the CPSU, members of the Communist Party of China expressed a very clear judgment of Stalin. We said that we would always continue to consider his writings as classic works of the international Communist movement.
Yeah, I agree that it's doubtful that every employee of a NED-funded outlet is necessarily a literal undercover CIA officer. We don't know the exact extent of just outright full collaboration or US government micromanagement within some of these NED-funded organizations. Maybe more of a case here of the US government just cultivating outlets and their employees as at least generally reliable assets for advancing American government interests (Perhaps they were already at least partially ideologically-aligned, share some similar key goals, support current US foreign policy, or just like what NATO has to offer. Hell, maybe the US just sees them as "useful idiots".) and financially supporting them accordingly via NED funding to promote them after recognizing their value. So, yeah, maybe not necessarily always 100% full-on ops or full-on feds.
Bellingcat is considered an American government op because it's funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is funded by the US government. According to NED president Allen Weinstein:
A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.
The Grayzone can't really be considered an op as they're only funded by their readers through direct donations and by their Patreon members and don't accept state funding. I've donated to them before. They're just Marxist journalists that primarily cover Western government-led regime change efforts, regardless of whether the regime change targets are socialist governments (Bolivia, Nicaragua, China, and Venezuela) or not socialist (Iran, Syria, and Russia). You could make the case that RT is a Russian op though as it is funded at least partially by the Russian government although they do host a lot of leftist content with Richard Wolff and Chris Hedges being frequent contributors.
Pérez certainly seems better than the openly neoliberal candidate Lasso, who appears to have lost the first round; however, it's important to remember that he had actually supported Guillermo Lasso's candidacy in the 2017 presidential elections. Lasso has also reportedly said he’d support Pérez in the 2nd round. There unfortunately are a plethora of red flags with Yaku Pérez:
According to Leonidas Iza, an indigenous leader and president of the Indigenous and Peasant Movement of Cotopaxi, Evo Morales did not invite Yaku Pérez to the inauguration because the Pachakutik candidate celebrated the right-wing dictatorship in Bolivia. Pérez also never condemned the Anez regime's massacre against indigenous protestors. He has instead accused Morales and Correa of “authoritarianism, machismo, extractivism, and populism.” Evo has backed Aruaz. Yaku rooted for the socialist Maduro and Correa governments to "fall":
Are you referring to Pachakutik and Yaku Pérez? Have to admit that he is pretty problematic:
When asked about Andrés Arauz's plan to give $1,000 to 1 million mothers who are the heads of their households once he's elected president, Yaku Pérez claimed these people will "probably spend it all on beer that same day."
According to Leonidas Iza, an indigenous leader and president of the Indigenous and Peasant Movement of Cotopaxi, Evo Morales did not invite Yaku Pérez to the inauguration because the Pachakutik candidate celebrated the right-wing dictatorship in Bolivia. He also never condemned the Anez regime's massacre against indigenous protestors. He accused Morales and Correa of “authoritarianism, machismo, extractivism, and populism.”
Pérez also called Maduro and Correa “colonial, ethnocidal, and racist.” He rooted for their governments to "fall":
“Now all that’s missing is for Rafael Correa and Maduro to fall. It is just a matter of time.”
The "us puppet" description of Pachakutik originally comes from Venezuelan-American journalist Eva Golinger who revealed that the Pachakutik party and anti-Chavista opposition parties were financially supported and trained by the US government's National Democratic Institute which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, United States Agency for International Development, and the US Department of State.
China’s plan to cut taxes in 2019 for the masses has the nation’s super-rich running for cover on concern the government will make up the shortfall by going after the wealthy.
Changes to the tax regime as of Jan. 1 mean authorities will be paying closer attention to assets and investment holdings.
Under the new rules, owners of offshore companies will not only pay taxes on dividends they receive but will also face levies of as much as 20 per cent on corporate profits, from as low as zero previously.
In the past, the rich could avoid paying taxes on overseas earnings by acquiring a foreign passport or green card, while keeping their Chinese citizenship. But this won’t work starting in January as the government will tax global income from all holders of “hukou” household registrations — the most encompassing way of identifying a Chinese national — regardless of whether they have any additional nationalities.
Tycoons transferring assets to relatives or third parties could be subject to taxation in the new year, depending on how strictly China enforces rules on gifts, according to Ni at Zhong Lun. The levies could reach as much as 20 per cent of the asset’s appreciated value, according to Ni.
Tax authorities will sharpen their scrutiny of high-net-worth individuals thanks to more modern tools at their disposal, according to Ni.
Further down the road, China is preparing to introduce a property tax law that could go into effect as soon as 2020. Though the tax rate and the details remain unclear, the prospects of the tax has caused people with multiple apartments to worry and made properties a less desirable investment tool, EY’s Mi said.
Chinese capitalists are also excluded from the Central Committee of the CPC just as the capitalist NEPmen were excluded from any real political power in the Soviet Union under their NEP.
Mahmut says students stay in the facility he oversees for an average of eight months and can leave after doing well on exams. But none of the several detainees the government made available to NPR said it was clear when they could return home.
By "return home" here they're referring to when detainees can return home after fully graduating the program rather than simply being allowed to return home on the weekends.
We have a lot of evidence now that shows that the vaccines are effective at reducing the spread. They've been shown to reduce the risk of infection, accelerate viral clearance, reduce transmission, and have high efficacy against severe infection, hospitalization, and death. A thread on some of the weaknesses of natural immunity. Also, contrary to what many libertarians would have us believe, even most Americans do actually support vaccine mandates.