Comment on How can you oppose tariffs, while supporting a hardline against China on Taiwan?

• surph_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  If it’s an industry the nation needs to survive, economically or otherwise, that’s an industry that needs to be nationalized.

  And this is the opposite of imperialism. Imperialism is what we have now.

  source

  • SouthFresh@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I asked for specifics because I am unaware of any country that can satisfy all of its security and/or survival needs from only domestic sources. If the necessary resource is not found in enough abundance domestically, what choice is left under your proposal, other than to nationalize another country’s resources through imperialism?

    source

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      We’re not talking about zero trade. We’re talking about nationalizing industries that are critical for economic or national security. There are plenty of countries who have done that, and the neoliberal west tends to retaliate against them for it.

      source

      • SouthFresh@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I feel like the details are important. What a country considered necessary for national security is a moving target that changes with technology.

        Just as an example, 1930’s U.S. didn’t have any need for national security regarding the transistor or integrated circuit fab materials and manufacturing. That certainly is on the list now. While the U.S. has resources domestically and manufacturing facilities for this, the resources are finite.

        The U.S. still has the Guano Islands Act available to “enforce” in the case that a suitable island supply was found AND desired. This was considered such a point of national security that the government legalized imperialism for bird shit.

        If a specific resource becomes nationalized in the way you are suggesting, it seems to me that similar acts for rare earth metals might appear and still lead to imperialism.

        source