I am not belittling the influence of CIA in our daily lives, and it goes far beyond just surveillance, slavery, drug smuggling and so forth. But if you think that giving a gun to a bear to get rid of the wolf is a good idea, then I disagree. Ideas aside, Chinese government allows very few people to be China, in US many people comprise the upper class and can play part in its politics. In US, CIA is not the government, nor a deep state, and its existence is more temporary than China’s dependence on their internal security. The CIA’s effect is enormous but nobody needs them anymore, which is why they are trying to prove their usefulness. My hope is that sooner or later they will die off like oil companies.
As a Russian who knows his history I don’t see the principal difference between how you name your regime. You can call a typical chekist state ML but it won’t change what it is: a government that follows The Prince by the letter.
I’m sorry but there’s no point arguing this. I suggest you look at all of these facts objectively and really stop clinging to the buzzwords and reacting (positively or negatively) to the political agendas as if they didn’t exist.
Some buzzwords: expansionist, deeply controlled, ML, etc. In this context they are used intentionally vaguely. Control is not a vague thing, someone orders someone else to do something and the hierarchy is exactly that. Expansionist can be defined in many different ways. The expansions of US and China are different, but this isn’t 1914, noone cares about the land that much anymore. Both fight for spheres of economic and political influence. And recent annexation of HK was not in the slightest supported by HK. Stop using the word expansionist, its meaning has changed in the past 100 years. As for Leninism, it only kind of existed for three years- 1920-1923. The rest, as they say, is history.
I am not belittling the influence of CIA in our daily lives, and it goes far beyond just surveillance, slavery, drug smuggling and so forth. But if you think that giving a gun to a bear to get rid of the wolf is a good idea, then I disagree. Ideas aside, Chinese government allows very few people to be China, in US many people comprise the upper class and can play part in its politics. In US, CIA is not the government, nor a deep state, and its existence is more temporary than China’s dependence on their internal security. The CIA’s effect is enormous but nobody needs them anymore, which is why they are trying to prove their usefulness. My hope is that sooner or later they will die off like oil companies.
As a Russian who knows his history I don’t see the principal difference between how you name your regime. You can call a typical chekist state ML but it won’t change what it is: a government that follows The Prince by the letter.
Removed by mod
I’m sorry but there’s no point arguing this. I suggest you look at all of these facts objectively and really stop clinging to the buzzwords and reacting (positively or negatively) to the political agendas as if they didn’t exist.
Removed by mod
Some buzzwords: expansionist, deeply controlled, ML, etc. In this context they are used intentionally vaguely. Control is not a vague thing, someone orders someone else to do something and the hierarchy is exactly that. Expansionist can be defined in many different ways. The expansions of US and China are different, but this isn’t 1914, noone cares about the land that much anymore. Both fight for spheres of economic and political influence. And recent annexation of HK was not in the slightest supported by HK. Stop using the word expansionist, its meaning has changed in the past 100 years. As for Leninism, it only kind of existed for three years- 1920-1923. The rest, as they say, is history.
Removed by mod