Add new comment

I'm trying to figure out what's going on. But I feel limited in this matter. The basic idea here is that bureaucrats tend to choose their ideological discourse for their own benefit. For example, union bureaucrats still insist on the narration of the working class, which has nothing to do with liberation. Or a Trotskyist organization that decides its political slogans only in accordance with their own survival interests. The structuralist alliance between Graber and Chomsky resulted in a populist trend driven by the old intellectual discourse. The Populist Movement has its complexity. It gives rise to resistance, but at the same time, it skillfully protects the vested interests of the old class. There are also many nationalists in China who oppose globalization. They usually assume a stereotypical left-wing stance, but they are only against unfair distribution in the global system. In fact, from the perspective of the IMF, it is just a tautology. The IMF started from Keynesianism, but populism used Keynesianism to oppose IMF. This is probably related to bureaucratic corruption. They use nationalism to defend their own interests. So I tend to think that David Graber's popularity in China has something to do with bureaucratic interest choices. It's easy to criticize Graber alone, but it's not easy to figure out everything.