Democracy and capitalism don't necessarily go together

http://www.truthandpower.com/blog/blog/politics/capitalism-and-democracy-a-lesson-from-hong-kong/

A very good essay showing that capitalism is not aligned with democracy and the most influential people in a capitalist system do nothing to maintain a democracy if that is not in their immediate interest or even threatens it.

 

To me it seems obvious, that in the US and the EU at the moment we are making the mistake of giving way too much room in decisions about public policy to business interests, and especially those which are aligned with the interests of the big political parties' supporters. If we want to resist the current trends of authoritarian governments rising we would need to push society centred legislation.

 

For example when looking at health spending, what matters most isn't whether it's good business to provide health services but how they can provide best for most people. When looking at legislation on child support, maternity/paternity leave, working hrs, what kind of products can be introduced in a market, whether advertisers can push certain products in schools, etc. should be dependent first on their immediate social effects and just second on the interests of business doing even better.

 

If people are doing well, that will rejuvenate local economies and society will do well. This would create the real disruption, breaking the dominance of giant companies on politics.

 

Democracy and capitalism can work well together. But only if there are strong governments putting the interests of society first, rather than of business or the economy in itself.

Why Putin and Xi didn't want Hilary Clinton to get elected

During the US presidential campaign Putin praised Trump, favoured Trump, and supported Trump through the use of the Russian intelligence services. They spread false propaganda. Putin also emphasized - and so did Trump - that they can have a good, peaceful relationship.

At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.

Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?

There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.

This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.

As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.

UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.

The US strikes in Syria

I never thought I would say anything good about Trump but I have to now.

There is conflict in Syria because Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran would all like to be the dominating state in the region and try to carve it up between them. Russia support Iran and Assad, the US backs Saudi Arabia and to some extent Irak, the EU backs to some extent Turkey, and China is stirring the shit in the background. As long as the regional big three - Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran - don't settle things there won't be peace.

However the chemical weapon strike by Assad's troops a few days ago was not a random thing or part of Assad regular plans. Here is why it happened.
The US is trying to maintain the current power balance both in the Middle-East and in the Pacific.
Russia and China don't like this. They would like more power and everything that comes with that: easier and cheaper access to resources, more military influence in the regions, more political influence, less scrutiny into their corruption and despotic acts. And so on.

Russia and China are at the moment working together and concerting their efforts therefore to erode US dominance everywhere. They do this mostly through proxy-states, since at the moment neither Xi, nor Putin want a conflict on their home territory. That would make them unpopular and lead to their losing their might potentially. So they both finance North-Korea who constantly pressures South-Korea and Japan, both US allies. Russia and China must have lent money and technology recently to North-Korea since it suddenly became able to launch very destructive long range rockets. That's a big danger for Japan and the US too.

Xi and Trump will soon meet. They will have a lot to discuss. Trump has a naive vision that he should lead the US into an economic war with China. This would be horrible for both countries, so Xi wants to avoid this. China wants to occupy and claim the whole of the South-China Sea. This is an extremely rich territory in natural resources. Also, a huge part of the world-trade goes through this sea in form of enormous ships. If it is controlled by a single country that country has a lot of power over everyone else in the world, because everyone is trading. At the moment the South China Sea is international waters. No single country controls it, and there are international contracts that enable everyone to use it. China wants to occupy it, the US wants to push back. China would also like to occupy Taiwan. Taiwan is an independent country, but it is in a strategically very important location in the sea, not too far from China. If it is not a part of China, it can be an enemy of China and China doesn't like this at the moment. The US is happy to have a neutral country near the Chinese border because it keeps China on its toes. It doesn't want China to occupy the island. And there are plenty more issues.

Trump has a very big mouth. He has been very verbal about doing big things. None of it has happened. Xi and Putin wanted to test whether Trump has any balls when it comes to military threats. They wanted to see whether they can put pressure on him if they take some actual military action. Will Trump again just talk but not do anything and shrink from retaliation, as he did on a host of other issues?

That is why North-Korea suddenly acquired the capabiltiy to fire long range rockets. And that is why there was suddenly a horrible chemical attack on civilians and on opposers of Assad in Syria. These were ways for Russia and China to test Trump without getting into a new conflict. They could also mask these questions easily as movements in already ongoing conflicts.

Why I was surprised was this: Trump was earlier very verbal about cutting back on military spending and being friendly with Russia. Standing up to Russia was a smart move in this case. No doubt, it wasn't Trump's idea. Why I'm still glad is because he listened to his more talented military and foreign policy advisors.

Why was it a good idea to demolish some Syrian military capability? Because it shows that the US is willing to engage in a counterstrike if Russia or China (or their proxies, North-Korea or Syria) make nasty moves.

Trump also has his own agenda: his dangerous and corrupt Russian ties have been exposed. He hopes that this strike will make people think that he can't be a friend of Russia, if he was willing to order a strike on Syria. Of course the strike means nothing like this in real life. Before the rockets hit the airbase the Syrians and Russians were informed of the attack and they could move out. It was also only one of several well equipped military air bases. Russia is still operating in the region without any issues. Still, some not well informed people will believe that Trump is some kind of hero, that he has integrity and he isn't compromised by Russian ties. He is. But at least he listened to his advisors and stood up to the pressure of Russia and China in this case.

This means that in the Xi-Trump talks Xi will have to be less brazen and more careful.