CaptainSwing

You saying all politicians, even the aweful ones, should get participation awards, while us plebs should just know our place and shut up?

Underfunding and neoliberal management. There's a fair chance the government is hollowing it out to undermine public perception of the institution so they cang et away with doing away with it completely.

While I agree, there are plenty of poor sources getting too much uncritical attention in the press, even by China's own accounts there are a large network of education facilities, trying to hammer in a strong sense of national identity. It is hard not to interpret this as a direct assault on the culture of Uighur people.

It shouls also be viewed in it's geopolitical context - China is desparate to have secure land routes into Europe and the middle east incase things kick off in the South China sea, and by their calculations that security requires (forcefully) integrating the Uighur people into Chinese culture and nationalism. On the other hand, the west will take what opportunity they can to attack China on human rights grounds, despite the hypocrisy of all the human rights abuses around the world they happily ignore (the treatment of Kurds in Turkey, for example).

TLDR; we can be critical of western imperialism, while still holding China to account.

I'm disappointed (though not surprised) to see Marx so marginalised. In particular, Schumpeter was in massive debt to Marx, as is quite clear from reading Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. The whole idea of creative destruction, for example, which is popular up to the day, is basically lifted straight from Marx. Of course, the evolutionary economists who consider themselves in Schumpeters legacy, tend to ignore this link too.

The socialist getting the most attention in this article is actually William Morris, who tended towards more libertarian ideas of socialism, though not as anti-statist as Goldman. Morris and Orwell were probably fairly close to eachother in terms of how they positioned themselves on the socialist spectrum of their time, both being kind of anarcho-curious state socialists

You're right Orwell had a vendetta against the soviet union and similar 'authoritarian' socialisms, but I think this article reads closer to a good faith self-criticism directed towards his peers rather than a dig at authoritarianism.

Important to remember that, despite jokes like these, Oscar Wilde remained a committed (if ideosyncratic) libertarian socialist.

I guess schumpeters point with creative destruction was the rupture required to replace one paradigm with another (Incidentally, he got this straight from marx). Technology, and markets, move in fits and starts as conservative tendencies meet with more efficient, or qualitatively different, competion. For both schumpeter and marx this view was seen as opposed to equilibrium models of economics on which much of mainstream economics and game theory still relies