02 May 2025

The Great Shift: A Tale of Globalism’s Winners and Losers Featuring China and the USA

In the small town of Millville, Ohio, the 1990s dawned with a hum of optimism. The local steel plant, Millville Ironworks, was the heartbeat of the community, employing thousands of workers who punched in each morning to forge the backbone of American industry. Families like the Thompsons thrived on steady paychecks, owning modest homes, driving reliable Fords, and sending their kids to college without crushing debt. The American middle class, built on manufacturing might, seemed unshakeable.

Across the Pacific, in Shenzhen, China, Wei Chen lived a different reality. A farmer’s son, he toiled in rice paddies, his future tethered to the land. China’s middle class was a faint dream, with most citizens scraping by on less than $2 a day. But the world was tilting, and globalism—spurred by trade deals like NAFTA and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001—would rewrite both stories.


The American Dream Unravels
By the early 2000s, Millville began to fray. The steel plant faced a flood of cheap imports from China, where labor costs were a fraction of America’s. Global corporations, chasing profits, shuttered factories across the Rust Belt, moving production to places like Shenzhen. Between 2000 and 2015, the U.S. lost 5 million manufacturing jobs, with 2.4 million directly displaced by Chinese import competition, according to economist David Autor.
For the Thompsons, the impact was personal. Jack Thompson, a third-generation steelworker, was laid off in 2004 when Millville Ironworks closed. At 45, he scrambled for work, landing a part-time job at a big-box retailer for $9 an hour—no benefits, no stability. His wife, Linda, took on extra shifts as a nurse, but the family’s savings dwindled. Their daughter, Sarah, abandoned dreams of college, opting for community college courses she could barely afford. The Thompsons’ home, once a symbol of middle-class pride, faced foreclosure.
Millville wasn’t alone. Across America, globalism hollowed out communities. Trade deficits with China soared, reaching $419 billion by 2015. Towns lost not just factories but the ecosystems around them—diners, hardware stores, and schools withered as tax bases shrank. Wages stagnated; by 2019, real median household income for the middle class had barely budged in two decades. The opioid crisis crept in, filling the void left by lost purpose. The American middle class, once the envy of the world, was shrinking, squeezed by automation, outsourcing, and policies that prioritized corporate profits over workers.

China’s Middle Class Rises
Meanwhile, in Shenzhen, Wei Chen’s life transformed. China’s integration into the global economy turned cities like Shenzhen into manufacturing powerhouses. Factories sprouted, producing everything from sneakers to smartphones for Western markets. Wei, now 30, left the farm for a factory job assembling electronics. His starting wage was low—$1 an hour—but it was a fortune compared to rural life. By 2010, he earned $5 an hour, enough to rent a small apartment and send money home.
China’s middle class exploded. Between 2000 and 2020, it grew from 3% of the population to over 50%, encompassing 700 million people, according to the World Bank. Urbanization surged; gleaming skyscrapers replaced shantytowns. Wei’s children attended modern schools, and he bought a car—a BYD, made in China. By 2025, China’s per capita GDP had risen from $1,000 in 2000 to over $12,000. Globalism, paired with China’s state-driven industrial policies, lifted hundreds of millions into a consumer class that rivaled America’s.
Shenzhen became a symbol of this ascent. Once a fishing village, it was now a tech hub, home to giants like Huawei and Tencent. Wei, who’d risen to a factory supervisor, marveled at the city’s high-speed rail and sprawling malls. China’s middle class wasn’t just surviving—it was driving global demand, buying iPhones, traveling abroad, and fueling a domestic economy that challenged the West’s dominance.

The Scales of Globalism
Back in Millville, Jack Thompson watched news reports of China’s rise with a mix of resentment and resignation. He didn’t blame Wei Chen, who was just chasing a better life, but he felt betrayed by the system. Trade deals had promised prosperity for all, but the benefits skewed upward—to Wall Street, to CEOs, to consumers enjoying cheap goods. The middle class, the engine of America’s postwar boom, was collateral damage. Studies showed that while globalism slashed poverty worldwide, it deepened inequality in developed nations. In the U.S., the top 1% captured 20% of national income by 2020, up from 10% in 1980.
In Shenzhen, Wei Chen heard whispers of America’s struggles but focused on his own gains. His family’s rise mirrored China’s, built on the same global trade that gutted Millville. Yet even Wei faced challenges—rising costs, pollution, and a government that controlled opportunity. Still, his life was unimaginable two decades prior.

A Tale of Two Worlds
By 2025, Millville was a shadow of its past. The steel plant was a rusted husk, and Jack, now in his 60s, relied on Social Security and Linda’s meager pension. Sarah worked two gig jobs, her American Dream a distant echo. In Shenzhen, Wei Chen’s family planned their first international vacation, a testament to China’s middle-class miracle.
Globalism had redrawn the world. It lifted billions in China and the Global South, creating a new consumer class that reshaped global markets. But in America, the middle class paid the price, their stability sacrificed on the altar of free trade. The lesson was stark: globalism wasn’t a zero-sum game, but its gains and losses were brutally uneven. As Millville faded and Shenzhen shone, the question lingered—could the scales ever balance again?

Notes on Inspiration: This story draws from the video’s themes (linked: Peter Zeihan’s analysis of global trade’s impacts), emphasizing the decline of U.S. manufacturing and China’s economic ascent. Data points, like job losses and China’s middle-class growth, are grounded in studies from economists like David Autor and World Bank reports. The narrative humanizes the structural shifts, focusing on relatable characters to mirror the broader economic trends discussed in the video.

27 April 2025

Arming Ukraine: Trump’s Bold Move vs. Obama and Biden’s Blunders—Another Mujahideen Mess?

By Juan Fermin April 27, 2025 at www.nosocialism.com

The U.S. government’s addiction to arming proxies is a dangerous game. In the 1980s, it backed the Afghan Mujahideen to crush the Soviets, only to unleash al-Qaeda, 9/11, and decades of chaos. Today, it’s flooding Ukraine with billions to fight Russia, raising fears of another blowback. On December 22, 2017, the Trump administration approved supplying Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, arming Ukraine with Javelins showed strength, arguably keeping Putin at bay. Under Obama and Biden, Russia invaded its neighbor—twice. Is this history repeating, or a different fight? Let’s strip away the statist spin and face the facts.
The Mujahideen Blowback: A Warning
In 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and the U.S. saw a chance to bleed its Cold War rival. Through Operation Cyclone, the CIA pumped $3–6 billion in weapons—rifles, Stinger missiles, cash—to the Mujahideen, a chaotic mix of patriots, warlords, and jihadists, via Pakistan’s ISI. Saudi Arabia matched funds, tossing in religious zeal. It worked: the Soviets limped out by 1989. But the U.S. bailed, leaving a fractured mess. Mujahideen factions turned on each other, and foreign fighters like Osama bin Laden formed al-Qaeda in 1988. The Taliban rose from the ashes, hosting al-Qaeda’s 9/11 plot that killed 3,000 Americans. U.S. weapons spread to insurgents across the Middle East, fueling chaos. The lesson? Arming proxies without a plan is like lighting a fuse and walking away.
"No Russian invasion happened on Trump’s watch"
Ukraine: Trump’s Strength, Obama and Biden Stumble?
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine spans a decade, with a clear pattern: invasions under Obama and Biden, but not Trump. In 2014, under Obama, Russia annexed Crimea and fueled separatists in Donbas, seizing chunks of Ukraine while the U.S. sent blankets and “non-lethal” aid. Obama’s timid response left Kyiv vulnerable. In 2017, Trump flipped the script, approving a $47 million sale of 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles, delivered in 2018. Stored as a “strategic deterrent,” these weapons signaled resolve against Russia’s Donbas proxies. No Russian invasion happened on Trump’s watch (2017–2021), and supporters credit his tough stance—Javelins, sanctions, and dealmaking—for keeping Putin in check.
"While Putin’s imperialist ambitions drove the invasion, Biden’s delays and rhetoric didn’t help"
Then came Biden. In 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion, the biggest European war since 1945. Critics slam Biden’s weakness: slow aid in 2021 as Russian troops massed, mixed signals, and provocative talk of Ukraine joining NATO—a red line for Moscow. Biden’s team called NATO’s door “open” at 2024 summits, enraging Putin, who cited expansion as a pretext for war. While Putin’s imperialist ambitions drove the invasion, Biden’s delays and rhetoric didn’t help. Since 2022, the U.S. has sent over $100 billion in Javelins, HIMARS, tanks, and drones, but early stumbles arguably gave Russia an opening.
"Differences stand out: Ukraine’s Unity: Unlike the Mujahideen’s factions"
Mujahideen Redux? Not Quite
Could arming Ukraine create “another Mujahideen”—a future extremist threat or regional chaos? Some parallels sting:
  • Proxy War: Like Afghanistan, Ukraine’s a proxy fight against a Russian foe, with U.S. weapons pouring in.
  • Weapons Risks: Mujahideen Stingers armed terrorists; in Ukraine, small arms have hit black markets.
  • Foreign Fighters: Afghanistan drew jihadists; Ukraine attracts volunteers, some with far-right ties, who could go rogue post-war.
  • Instability: Afghanistan’s civil war followed U.S. neglect; a prolonged Ukraine war could weaken Kyiv.
But differences stand out:
  • Ukraine’s Unity: Unlike the Mujahideen’s factions, Ukraine’s a sovereign nation with a NATO-aligned military.
  • No Jihadist Spark: Afghanistan fueled global jihad; Ukraine’s fight is nationalist, not ideological.
  • Oversight: The U.S. tracks Ukraine’s weapons with serial numbers, unlike the 1980s free-for-all.
  • Western Stake: Ukraine’s in Europe’s heart, tied to NATO and EU plans, not a forgotten backwater.
"Under-supporting Ukraine risks Russian dominance; over-arming without oversight courts chaos"
Risks and Reality
Biden’s late escalation—greenlighting ATACMS strikes inside Russia in 2024—shows grit but risks a wider war, especially with North Korean troops involved. Trump’s team, like JD Vance, calls this reckless, draining U.S. taxpayers. Ukraine’s Azov militia, though integrated, has far-right roots, and a fragile post-war state could let weapons slip. But a Mujahideen-style blowback—global extremism or a new al-Qaeda—is unlikely. Ukraine’s not breeding jihadists, and the West won’t abandon it.
The real issue? Big-government meddling. Obama’s weakness let Russia grab Crimea. Trump’s Javelins drew a line, and no invasion followed. Biden’s NATO promises and early fumbles opened the door for 2022. Under-supporting Ukraine risks Russian dominance; over-arming without oversight courts chaos. Both smell like statist overreach.
"Let’s learn from history, not repeat it"
The Takeaway
At www.nosocialism.com, we stand for freedom, not endless wars. Trump’s 2017 Javelins showed strength, keeping Russia at bay. Obama and Biden’s stumbles—2014 and 2022 invasions—show what happens when weakness meets provocation. Arming Ukraine isn’t a Mujahideen rerun, but it’s not risk-free. Demand accountability: track every weapon, plan for peace, and put taxpayers first. No more blank checks for foreign wars—let’s learn from history, not repeat it.
Can Trump’s dealmaking end this war, or is Biden’s escalation a trap? Drop your take below and share this post!

Our Sponsors