Members of Kibbutz Hanita near Israel’s northern border are demanding $11 million from Ballet Vision, the Chinese fund that controls 80% of the Hanita Lenses plant, accusing it of refusing to exercise an option to purchase the kibbutz’s remaining shares, according to a lawsuit filed in Tel Aviv District Court.
In a response letter attached to the lawsuit, the Chinese fund said that since the outbreak of the war in Israel, Beijing has classified Israel as a “high-risk area” and imposed a ban on any new Chinese investments in the country, making it impossible to carry out the option.
According to the lawsuit, in 2021 the kibbutz sold 74% of Hanita Lenses, which manufactures intraocular lenses for medical use, to Ballet Vision for $35 million. Of that sum, $25 million was paid to kibbutz members, with an additional $10 million injected into the company.
Your assertions here are that using violence against fascists is bad purely because we cannot know whether fascism is correct or anti-fascism is. As for China being imperialist or not, your argument is that by opposing fascism they will inevitably become imperialist.
These are logical absurdities based in idealism.
Nope
It is, though.
You aren’t arguing about the answer. When we say “violence against fascists and imperialists is justified,” you attack the fact that this is ideologically driven.
This argument, again, is saying principles are incapable of being good.
I’ve responded to about a dozen people, friend. I’m not going to rehash it here.
Which country do you live in?
Why does it matter? I’ve said so before, so it isn’t really a secret, but what is the purpose?
Because after all the negativity and bad faith, and given the fact that we’re all talking past each other, I’m trying to decide if I care enough to attempt to back up and actually try to understand and/or come to a point of mutual perceived benefit.
And frankly I care much less if the person is notat the very least within my sphere of interest from a political and economic point of view. If the ideas they’re espousing have not chance of being implemented where I live, I care much, much less about who they are or what they think.
This Canadian chauvinism is really weird.
The internet is international. If you don’t want to talk to non-Canadians, go outside and talk to your neighbors. The internet is not for you because most people on most websites aren’t Canadian.
Communists control the world’s largest economy by PPP, so I’d say you should at least learn a bit more about what we have to say. I recommend starting with the subject of dialectical materialism. Maurice Cornforth’s Materialism and the Dialectical Method is a good intro! It especially helps explain some of the problems I have with your arguments relying on idealism.
What does PPP stand for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPP
Purchasing Power Parity?
Correct.
I’m not saying we don’t need to interact with them but economic size doesn’t tell me anything about their moral, ethical or political stance.
And I would suggest that pointing to a book describing political ideology as a means to justify how a political ideology is not subject to the same compulsions as every other human political organization has in recorded history - and indeed how China has in modern history - is the very definition of idealism.
The economic size and success of China means you should probably try to see why they do what they do. As for the book, no, idealism is the belief in supernatural explanations for phenomena, intentionally or not. It is opposed to materialism.
The 3 major assertions of idealism are as follows:
The 3 basic teachings of materialism as counterposed to idealism are:
When I called your arguments “idealist,” I meant it because of your habit of using “human nature,” or vibes, as a method of explanation, as well as treating phenomena as unknowable. When I linked Cornforth’s book (which I stole the 3 aspects of idealism and materialism from), it’s so you can study the reasoning behind the communist perspective and why it is different from past philosophies, and not subject to the same failings.
Further, I highly disagree with your take on China. It’s too vague to directly answer, though.