To me the reception of Pahlavi just means that we support him and do our part to maintain the momentum of the revolution.

That can be your opinion. But you shouldn’t rule out other interpretations.

Yea… no.

This was your opening statement here:

"capitalists: competition is so good, it encourages innovation and ensures the best value for consumers!

china: competes

capitalists: 😡😡😡"

Various people here explained to you why this is not “competition”, but skewing competition.

Then you said:

“My point is, if the labor prices are so low, why should western capitalists benefit from them, through outsourcing, rather than us consumers and Chinese companies splitting the difference with cheaper Chinese goods?”

…which sounds(!) like an argument for “hey consumers, why should you not simply benefit from the cheap Chinese goods built on exploitation of workers?”. On top of that: no-one made an argument for outsourcing here, as specifically, this is an article about something aimed at achieving the opposite - and Chinas sour reaction to it.

Then you moved on to:

“I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation. I am just pointing out the contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric and meeting people where they are and trying to help them to the next rung on the ladder of class consciousness.”

What contradictions in pro-capitalist rhetoric are you referring to? Because the fallacy in your opening statement (concerning “competition” has already been pointed out.

Then you say:

“Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.”, to which I pointed out it is either that or being out of business completely. Somehow, I haven’t heard an answer from you on that.

If your position is more than trying to make some “gotchas” on “capitalism”, which in this case doesn’t work properly, I’d love to hear it, but looking at the journey from your initial comment to your last, it is a bit hard to follow what exactly you want your point to be. So, instead of cheap personal attacks, let’s rather exchange thoughts.

Indeed, I don’t understand your entire argument. That’s why I kept asking questions on things you said. If you don’t actually want that, fine by me!

China does business with everyone and their position in the war is actually neutral.

So neutral that they still don’t even call it war. So neutral. Wow.

China does wants to continue to do business with everyone and hence wants to sell the image of their position in the war is as being actually neutral while being knees deep in supporting Russia’s war machine.

^Fixed it for you

Good luck persuading the ruling class, who control the state, to accept a drop in productivity in return for improved working conditions.

It’s either that or being driven out of business altogether. They’ll happily accept - and it already is reality, as can be seen by the plans of the EU. The only ones complaining here are China and you.

one of the common pro-capitalist arguments are that competition benefits consumers - but here’s a case where competition is being impeded by the state to protect the interests of capital owners.

This here is not a case of competition, it is a case of skewed competition through fundamental Chinese state subsidies. This reaction actually re-enables competition again by levelling the playing field.

It wouldn’t. Again, I am not arguing for, or against, any of these protectionist policies. All I’m doing is trying to help people here gain class consciousness

Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. You claim to want the abolition of worker exploitation, but then complain that protectionist policies will raise consumer prices. Why are those Chinese goods so cheap to begin with? Because of the very labour exploitation you say you oppose. You are demanding the perks of globalised capitalism (cheap goods) while claiming to be an anti-capitalist.

Furthermore, you are misidentifying the ‘contradiction’ here. China isn’t engaging in fair free-market competition; they are using massive state subsidies to intentionally bankrupt foreign industries. The EU pushing back isn’t a betrayal of capitalist ideals; it’s a defence against state-sponsored monopolies.

Retreating to ‘I’m just trying to build class consciousness’ doesn’t work when the economic logic you are using to build it contradicts your own stated goals. You can’t claim “the moral high ground” of protecting workers while advocating for a system that relies on dumping state-subsidised, unethically sourced goods into domestic markets.

That shift has already long-since occurred.

And it was a big mistake. Why not fix a mistake?

The exceptions are usually because of trade protectionism, which is an anti-competitive practice.

That sounds like you fundamentally oppose trade protectionism?

I believe that we should dismantle capitalism and abolish profit and exploitation.

How would letting heavily state-sponsored market dominance flood domestic markets and rid domestic workers of their jobs lead to abolition of profit and especially exploitation? Aren’t we already exploited by too many systemic dependencies? As became apparent during Covid, during the war against Ukraine and now, during the war against Iran?

What difference does it make to a worker if they are exploited by a domestic or a foreign corporation?

The workers in Europe fought long and hard for their rights - and still do, so why should we let production of goods simply shift to those places where these ‘limitations to profits’ aka worker’s rights no longer apply? A conscious consumer should care…

Pahlavi is a relevant figure of the Iranian opposition, whether you and I like that or not. Whether he meets Laschet or not. Especially for Iranians in exile, he’s the most prominent figure for an alternative to the current Mullah regime. And of course, regime change is possible - and desired by Iranians. Don’t forget that the regime had to kill more than ten thousand people on the streets who were protesting against them only three months ago and that after the news emerged that Khamenei is dead, people in Iran filled the streets to celebrate.

So, what exactly is your problem here?

If the meeting doesn’t mean anything why has the government not met him?

Because the government meeting Pahlavi is something else than Laschet meeting Pahlavi. One is our official government, where a meeting would undoubtedly convey some sort of support they apparently don’t want to display. The other is current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, where a meeting is much more normal and does not convey that gravitas. Isn’t that pretty obvious?

Problem is that you keep on filling the circumstances with your own personal opinions/assumptions and then confuse these for facts. It is your choice to interpret these things in the most negative way possible or suspecting a conspiracy/“something bigger”, but don’t be surprised if others won’t follow you on that path and grow tired of you trying to keep that wheel spinning.

The facts are: the government explicitly stated they won’t meet Pahlavi. Pahlavi met with foreign affairs politicians / members of the Bundestag from various parties. These parties also raised concerns about this meeting. Laschet himself was cited with “Of course I want to talk to Pahlavi, as he’s a person of relevance when it comes to transition in Iran.” Details of this meeting and participants beyond Laschet are not known.

Yet, for you this is all clear and you’ll happily interpret it as a sign of support. Not only by Laschet, but the whole of Germany. What’s there left to say to that?

Of course, the meeting can be held for the personal goals of Laschet but how likely is that?

No one here said that. When the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee meets such a person (together with foreign affairs politicians from other parties), the most obvious reason for that meeting would be their respective function in foreign affairs.

Given the criticism from across a plethora of parties - involved and uninvolved - and the clear message by the government to not meet him, your statement of ‘Germany’ supporting is false: either uninformed or malicious.

As far as I read, he met with several foreign affairs politicians from various parliamentary groups in the Bundestag. The only named participant I know of is CDU’s Laschet. He was cited with “Of course I want to talk to Pahlavi, as he’s a person of relevance when it comes to transition in Iran.” Green’s Nouripour said, while he himself wouldn’t have attended that meeting, he yet thinks it is ok and even sensible of Laschet to speak with the various facets of Iranian opposition and that other members of his party will also attend the meeting. There are very critical voices from Laschet’s party as well as other parties. At least I do not know what they actually discussed in that meeting, so I am cautious to blindly assume they fully supported him and did not voice any concerns. Meeting a political figure from abroad does not automatically equal supporting them.

The way he is paraded around in the German media suggests strong political support, though.

Sure, there is strong political support for the idea of Pahlavi taking over again. But just not by ‘Germany’, as the user made it seem.

Laschet is the former chancellor candidate.

So? Laschet is the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee. Call me crazy, but I guess meeting with influential foreign political figures might have more to do with that than some election a couple of years ago.

And while he might support Pahlavi, not even his party is unanimously doing so. Meetings of political figures can also be used to voice concerns and criticism.

Hence, to insinuate that Germany supports him is at best uninformed, at worst malicious.

Two days ago the son of the Shah was in Berlin.

And the government made clear there won’t be an official meeting. Instead, he met with selected members of the Bundestag (parliament). What are you trying to say?

…they will invade their and our neighbour to annex it and enlargen the ‘Russian World’. Oh wait…