|
On May 17 2022 23:31 Manit0u wrote: Yes, that's definitely part of that. The biggest problem for them with cancelling this deal is not just the large quantities of coal imported from Australia, it was also of much higher quality than their domestic coal, which makes it even harder to replace as they have to burn much more of their own coal to achieve similar results. That is too bad since it also likely means more pollutants. If people thought communism was going to save us from environmental impact China would like to have words with you. Going to have to stop blaming political ideology and other people and all work together on this or we are phucked.
|
On May 17 2022 23:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2022 23:31 Manit0u wrote: Yes, that's definitely part of that. The biggest problem for them with cancelling this deal is not just the large quantities of coal imported from Australia, it was also of much higher quality than their domestic coal, which makes it even harder to replace as they have to burn much more of their own coal to achieve similar results. That is too bad since it also likely means more pollutants. If people thought communism was going to save us from environmental impact China would like to have words with you. Going to have to stop blaming political ideology and other people and all work together on this or we are phucked. China is a capitalist country, though.
|
On May 18 2022 01:22 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2022 23:42 JimmiC wrote:On May 17 2022 23:31 Manit0u wrote: Yes, that's definitely part of that. The biggest problem for them with cancelling this deal is not just the large quantities of coal imported from Australia, it was also of much higher quality than their domestic coal, which makes it even harder to replace as they have to burn much more of their own coal to achieve similar results. That is too bad since it also likely means more pollutants. If people thought communism was going to save us from environmental impact China would like to have words with you. Going to have to stop blaming political ideology and other people and all work together on this or we are phucked. China is a capitalist country, though. I agree with you, but many believe the Chinese government that they are.
|
Their economic system is mixed like most countries in the world but their political system is certainly communist.
|
On May 18 2022 01:55 RvB wrote: Their economic system is mixed like most countries in the world but their political system is certainly communist.
I am not even sure what is left of communism in China except a party dictatorship.
I have warned about the unsustainable covid-0 policy China is up to. This should do long term damage to China as a trading partner, but probably less than Russia did by invading Ukraine.
|
On May 18 2022 01:55 RvB wrote: Their economic system is mixed like most countries in the world but their political system is certainly communist. Their political system is certainly authoritarian. Communism does not have a shit ton of billionaires.
|
On May 17 2022 18:01 fakovski wrote: 2.why 0 COVID policy is ridiculous? because we are not behave the same way with you, so we are ridiculous? CNN reported a million death caused by covid in the US, if china lay down like other countries, at least 5million death would be expected....the goverment care about people's lives, is that wrong? oh, you might find it not "free" , but under some serious circumstances personal freedom need to be constrained for the great objectives, my city got a 2 week lockdown, I don't complain about that, I didn't see anyone around get mad about the policy. remeber days ago some 18year-old kid kill 10+ with a rifle in newyork state? that is really impressive freedom
I'm just curious about this point. I'm in Portugal, where almost 100% of all adults are vaccinated, the vast majority with 3 doses of mRNA vaccines. We're undergoing a COVID wave right now. Meanwhile, there are no mask mandates anymore outside of public transit. Life is mostly normal. We accept the 'cost' of the cases, the same way we accept the cost of bad cases of flu.
Given that the virus is going to stay here on Earth in circulation, and it will continue to evolve, what is the long-term plan in China? Will cities lockdown every single time there are a few cases? Does that mean, in practice, that circulation of people between China and the rest of the world is locked forever? Will Chinese cities be locking down four times every year?
|
China is also now up to 1 in every 25 Uyghurs behind bars for "terrorism". Which is the highest incarceration rate in the world.
https://www.cp24.com/world/uyghur-county-in-china-has-highest-prison-rate-in-the-world-1.5904742
BEIJING (AP) -- Nearly one in 25 people in a county in the Uyghur heartland of China has been sentenced to prison on terrorism-related charges, in what is the highest known imprisonment rate in the world, an Associated Press review of leaked data shows.
A list obtained and partially verified by the AP cites the names of more than 10,000 Uyghurs sent to prison in just Konasheher county alone, one of dozens in southern Xinjiang. In recent years, China has waged a brutal crackdown on the Uyghurs, a largely Muslim minority, which it has described as a war on terror.
The list is by far the biggest to emerge to date with the names of imprisoned Uyghurs, reflecting the sheer size of a Chinese government campaign by which an estimated million or more people were swept into internment camps and prisons. It also confirms what families and rights groups have said for years: China is relying on a system of long-term incarceration to keep the Uyghurs in check, wielding the law as a weapon of repression.
|
On May 18 2022 01:55 RvB wrote: Their economic system is mixed like most countries in the world but their political system is certainly communist. Maybe what was commonly referred to as communism in the West. Doesn't have much to do with communism itself. That would entail having a stateless, classless society where the people control the means of production. China is none of that. Quite the opposite, actually. It is an authoritarian state (turning totalitarian again), with explicit classes. The people have very limited influence on the means of production.
|
On May 18 2022 05:03 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2022 01:55 RvB wrote: Their economic system is mixed like most countries in the world but their political system is certainly communist. Maybe what was commonly referred to as communism in the West. Doesn't have much to do with communism itself. That would entail having a stateless, classless society where the people control the means of production. China is none of that. Quite the opposite, actually. It is an authoritarian state (turning totalitarian again), with explicit classes. The people have very limited influence on the means of production. Kind of strange to say people "in the west" considering China calls itself communist, people in Russia likely do and all over the world.
There is philosophical communism and what communism has looked like in practice. From China to North Korea, to USSR to so on it has looked like this. Authoritarianism where the scape goat is "capitalism" but it functions the same as any other authoritarianism including fascism.
|
On May 18 2022 05:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2022 05:03 maybenexttime wrote:On May 18 2022 01:55 RvB wrote: Their economic system is mixed like most countries in the world but their political system is certainly communist. Maybe what was commonly referred to as communism in the West. Doesn't have much to do with communism itself. That would entail having a stateless, classless society where the people control the means of production. China is none of that. Quite the opposite, actually. It is an authoritarian state (turning totalitarian again), with explicit classes. The people have very limited influence on the means of production. Kind of strange to say people "in the west" considering China calls itself communist, people in Russia likely do and all over the world. There is philosophical communism and what communism has looked like in practice. From China to North Korea, to USSR to so on it has looked like this. Authoritarianism where the scape goat is "capitalism" but it functions the same as any other authoritarianism including fascism. The party calls itself communist (and North Korea calls itself "democratic", by the way), but neither China nor the USSR ever claimed to be communist, afaik. They only tell their people that they're striving to one day become a communist society.
|
On May 18 2022 05:42 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2022 05:05 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2022 05:03 maybenexttime wrote:On May 18 2022 01:55 RvB wrote: Their economic system is mixed like most countries in the world but their political system is certainly communist. Maybe what was commonly referred to as communism in the West. Doesn't have much to do with communism itself. That would entail having a stateless, classless society where the people control the means of production. China is none of that. Quite the opposite, actually. It is an authoritarian state (turning totalitarian again), with explicit classes. The people have very limited influence on the means of production. Kind of strange to say people "in the west" considering China calls itself communist, people in Russia likely do and all over the world. There is philosophical communism and what communism has looked like in practice. From China to North Korea, to USSR to so on it has looked like this. Authoritarianism where the scape goat is "capitalism" but it functions the same as any other authoritarianism including fascism. The party calls itself communist (and North Korea calls itself "democratic", by the way), but neither China nor the USSR ever claimed to be communist, afaik. They only tell their people that they're striving to one day become a communist society. That is part of the schitck, you can never get out of that stage as the "capitalists" are always there fighting you (see deep state, nazis or jews depending on the facsist ideology). The leaders keep requiring extra power to defeat who ever the scape goat is but the more they get the wealthier them and their families get but somehow the scapegoats remain to powerful to stop.
This post I read on Reddit says it better than I could on what the party itself is saying, so I saved it. Now why it needs billionaires and lives a absolute luxury for those in control never really gets explained, but for anyone not drinking the koolaid it is pretty obvious that most/all authoritarianism run countries are the same they just all have their own take on the marketing/branding to make them the heros.
f you mean to say that China is not a communist country because it has not achieved a "Communist" stage of economic development, then you are not only correct, but the Chinese Communist Party itself agrees with you.
In the west, the term "Communist" in the context of countries is used to refer primarily to Marxist-Leninist states. Most famously these would be the Soviet Union and China, which were both headed by Communist Parties. The thing is, even though every one of these countries followed Communist ideology, none of them ever claimed to be Communist. If you read Russian or Chinese texts you will notice that they always mention "Socialism" and claim to be "Socialist countries".
This is because in the Communist idea of historic dialectic set out by Marx and Engels, the human stages of economic development go in the following order: Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism . In other words, Communism was the "end goal" that all the Marxists (traditional Communists) set out to achieve.
However, if you look at Russian and Chinese history you will notice that they attempted to go from semi-feudal agrarian societies to jump directly into the "Socialism" stage without going through the capitalism stage. This turned out to be a mistake, since market capitalism was much more capable of providing surplus than socialist state run economies. This is where the stereotypes of constant food and commodity shortages of the Eastern bloc originate from.
It was from this context that China in the 1970s began to switch gears to a more market driven "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" under Deng Xiaoping. Market reforms were introduced, moving China away from the stereotypical Marxist-Leninist "Communist" type of state run economy. This may seem to many like an admission that Communism is flawed, but in fact, it is almost the opposite.
Deng Xiaoping was a staunch communist, and his shift towards market capitalism was in fact an attempt to drive China back into the "correct" communist path. So instead of going Feudalism > Socialism > Communism, and skipping capitalism, he would put the "Capitalism" stage back in, as Marx had originally envisioned. The idea is to let the nation become wealthy with surplus first, before reigning it back in under the state.
To this day, this remains under this ideology of having communism as the end goal, and the Chinese Communist Party retains heavy "socialist" economic policies - All major banks continue to be state run, funded by the central bank, and major companies are all either directly run by or heavily influenced by the Party, even when in the eyes of western economic analysts it would be far more efficient to further implement market reforms. In fact, these days the Communist party is starting to go in the opposite direction, as it is attempting to bring back the influence of the state run economy, which they believe has run too far from the proper "Communist" way.
In other words, China was never a Communist country. But Communism remains the goal of the leaders of China. And in the west, where Communism is not well understood, a country with Communism as the end goal is considered a Communist country. In this regards, China is just as Communist as it was under Chairman Mao, it's just much richer while doing it. No country was ever Communist. But if any country could be called "Communist", it would be China.
TL/DR: "Communists" are those who consider "Communism" to be the end goal. The Chinese Government considers "Communism" to be the end goal. Therefore China is "Communist".
|
On May 18 2022 05:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2022 05:42 maybenexttime wrote:On May 18 2022 05:05 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2022 05:03 maybenexttime wrote:On May 18 2022 01:55 RvB wrote: Their economic system is mixed like most countries in the world but their political system is certainly communist. Maybe what was commonly referred to as communism in the West. Doesn't have much to do with communism itself. That would entail having a stateless, classless society where the people control the means of production. China is none of that. Quite the opposite, actually. It is an authoritarian state (turning totalitarian again), with explicit classes. The people have very limited influence on the means of production. Kind of strange to say people "in the west" considering China calls itself communist, people in Russia likely do and all over the world. There is philosophical communism and what communism has looked like in practice. From China to North Korea, to USSR to so on it has looked like this. Authoritarianism where the scape goat is "capitalism" but it functions the same as any other authoritarianism including fascism. The party calls itself communist (and North Korea calls itself "democratic", by the way), but neither China nor the USSR ever claimed to be communist, afaik. They only tell their people that they're striving to one day become a communist society. That is part of the schitck, you can never get out of that stage as the "capitalists" are always there fighting you (see deep state, nazis or jews depending on the facsist ideology). The leaders keep requiring extra power to defeat who ever the scape goat is but the more they get the wealthier them and their families get but somehow the scapegoats remain to powerful to stop. This post I read on Reddit says it better than I could on what the party itself is saying, so I saved it. Now why it needs billionaires and lives a absolute luxury for those in control never really gets explained, but for anyone not drinking the koolaid it is pretty obvious that most/all authoritarianism run countries are the same they just all have their own take on the marketing/branding to make them the heros. Show nested quote +f you mean to say that China is not a communist country because it has not achieved a "Communist" stage of economic development, then you are not only correct, but the Chinese Communist Party itself agrees with you.
In the west, the term "Communist" in the context of countries is used to refer primarily to Marxist-Leninist states. Most famously these would be the Soviet Union and China, which were both headed by Communist Parties. The thing is, even though every one of these countries followed Communist ideology, none of them ever claimed to be Communist. If you read Russian or Chinese texts you will notice that they always mention "Socialism" and claim to be "Socialist countries".
This is because in the Communist idea of historic dialectic set out by Marx and Engels, the human stages of economic development go in the following order: Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism . In other words, Communism was the "end goal" that all the Marxists (traditional Communists) set out to achieve.
However, if you look at Russian and Chinese history you will notice that they attempted to go from semi-feudal agrarian societies to jump directly into the "Socialism" stage without going through the capitalism stage. This turned out to be a mistake, since market capitalism was much more capable of providing surplus than socialist state run economies. This is where the stereotypes of constant food and commodity shortages of the Eastern bloc originate from.
It was from this context that China in the 1970s began to switch gears to a more market driven "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" under Deng Xiaoping. Market reforms were introduced, moving China away from the stereotypical Marxist-Leninist "Communist" type of state run economy. This may seem to many like an admission that Communism is flawed, but in fact, it is almost the opposite.
Deng Xiaoping was a staunch communist, and his shift towards market capitalism was in fact an attempt to drive China back into the "correct" communist path. So instead of going Feudalism > Socialism > Communism, and skipping capitalism, he would put the "Capitalism" stage back in, as Marx had originally envisioned. The idea is to let the nation become wealthy with surplus first, before reigning it back in under the state.
To this day, this remains under this ideology of having communism as the end goal, and the Chinese Communist Party retains heavy "socialist" economic policies - All major banks continue to be state run, funded by the central bank, and major companies are all either directly run by or heavily influenced by the Party, even when in the eyes of western economic analysts it would be far more efficient to further implement market reforms. In fact, these days the Communist party is starting to go in the opposite direction, as it is attempting to bring back the influence of the state run economy, which they believe has run too far from the proper "Communist" way.
In other words, China was never a Communist country. But Communism remains the goal of the leaders of China. And in the west, where Communism is not well understood, a country with Communism as the end goal is considered a Communist country. In this regards, China is just as Communist as it was under Chairman Mao, it's just much richer while doing it. No country was ever Communist. But if any country could be called "Communist", it would be China.
TL/DR: "Communists" are those who consider "Communism" to be the end goal. The Chinese Government considers "Communism" to be the end goal. Therefore China is "Communist". I think we're roughly on the same page. The reason why I objected is because classifying China as "communist" rests on the assumption that they are genuinely striving to reach a communist society one day. I don't think that's the case. As you put it, communism for China is just a brand. They use it to fool their own citizens and people like GH.
In addition, aside from a top-down approach to building a communist society, there are various bottom-up approaches, such as anarcho-communism and such. Whatever China's failing are, they are not inherent to communism itself (that has never been reached) but rather to their top-down approach.
The analysis you shared is also missing an important aspect, imo. The distinction between capitalism and communism is not only about who controls the means of production, but also about the motives in the system. In capitalism goal is making profit while in communism - it's meeting the needs of the society. In capitalism, the latter is a by-product. The inverse is true in communism. Lastly, the question of ownership of the means of production is additionally muddied by the fact that state control over the economy is not the same as social control over the means of production. You can't have the latter if the society does not democratically control the government. The situation in China is somewhat similar to republican Rome, where the state owned large swaths of property but the political elites treated it as their private property.
|
On May 18 2022 07:08 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2022 05:55 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2022 05:42 maybenexttime wrote:On May 18 2022 05:05 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2022 05:03 maybenexttime wrote:On May 18 2022 01:55 RvB wrote: Their economic system is mixed like most countries in the world but their political system is certainly communist. Maybe what was commonly referred to as communism in the West. Doesn't have much to do with communism itself. That would entail having a stateless, classless society where the people control the means of production. China is none of that. Quite the opposite, actually. It is an authoritarian state (turning totalitarian again), with explicit classes. The people have very limited influence on the means of production. Kind of strange to say people "in the west" considering China calls itself communist, people in Russia likely do and all over the world. There is philosophical communism and what communism has looked like in practice. From China to North Korea, to USSR to so on it has looked like this. Authoritarianism where the scape goat is "capitalism" but it functions the same as any other authoritarianism including fascism. The party calls itself communist (and North Korea calls itself "democratic", by the way), but neither China nor the USSR ever claimed to be communist, afaik. They only tell their people that they're striving to one day become a communist society. That is part of the schitck, you can never get out of that stage as the "capitalists" are always there fighting you (see deep state, nazis or jews depending on the facsist ideology). The leaders keep requiring extra power to defeat who ever the scape goat is but the more they get the wealthier them and their families get but somehow the scapegoats remain to powerful to stop. This post I read on Reddit says it better than I could on what the party itself is saying, so I saved it. Now why it needs billionaires and lives a absolute luxury for those in control never really gets explained, but for anyone not drinking the koolaid it is pretty obvious that most/all authoritarianism run countries are the same they just all have their own take on the marketing/branding to make them the heros. f you mean to say that China is not a communist country because it has not achieved a "Communist" stage of economic development, then you are not only correct, but the Chinese Communist Party itself agrees with you.
In the west, the term "Communist" in the context of countries is used to refer primarily to Marxist-Leninist states. Most famously these would be the Soviet Union and China, which were both headed by Communist Parties. The thing is, even though every one of these countries followed Communist ideology, none of them ever claimed to be Communist. If you read Russian or Chinese texts you will notice that they always mention "Socialism" and claim to be "Socialist countries".
This is because in the Communist idea of historic dialectic set out by Marx and Engels, the human stages of economic development go in the following order: Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism . In other words, Communism was the "end goal" that all the Marxists (traditional Communists) set out to achieve.
However, if you look at Russian and Chinese history you will notice that they attempted to go from semi-feudal agrarian societies to jump directly into the "Socialism" stage without going through the capitalism stage. This turned out to be a mistake, since market capitalism was much more capable of providing surplus than socialist state run economies. This is where the stereotypes of constant food and commodity shortages of the Eastern bloc originate from.
It was from this context that China in the 1970s began to switch gears to a more market driven "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" under Deng Xiaoping. Market reforms were introduced, moving China away from the stereotypical Marxist-Leninist "Communist" type of state run economy. This may seem to many like an admission that Communism is flawed, but in fact, it is almost the opposite.
Deng Xiaoping was a staunch communist, and his shift towards market capitalism was in fact an attempt to drive China back into the "correct" communist path. So instead of going Feudalism > Socialism > Communism, and skipping capitalism, he would put the "Capitalism" stage back in, as Marx had originally envisioned. The idea is to let the nation become wealthy with surplus first, before reigning it back in under the state.
To this day, this remains under this ideology of having communism as the end goal, and the Chinese Communist Party retains heavy "socialist" economic policies - All major banks continue to be state run, funded by the central bank, and major companies are all either directly run by or heavily influenced by the Party, even when in the eyes of western economic analysts it would be far more efficient to further implement market reforms. In fact, these days the Communist party is starting to go in the opposite direction, as it is attempting to bring back the influence of the state run economy, which they believe has run too far from the proper "Communist" way.
In other words, China was never a Communist country. But Communism remains the goal of the leaders of China. And in the west, where Communism is not well understood, a country with Communism as the end goal is considered a Communist country. In this regards, China is just as Communist as it was under Chairman Mao, it's just much richer while doing it. No country was ever Communist. But if any country could be called "Communist", it would be China.
TL/DR: "Communists" are those who consider "Communism" to be the end goal. The Chinese Government considers "Communism" to be the end goal. Therefore China is "Communist". I think we're roughly on the same page. The reason why I objected is because classifying China as "communist" rests on the assumption that they are genuinely striving to reach a communist society one day. I don't think that's the case. As you put it, communism for China is just a brand. They use it to fool their own citizens and people like GH. In addition, aside from a top-down approach to building a communist society, there are various bottom-up approaches, such as anarcho-communism and such. Whatever China's failing are, they are not inherent to communism itself (that has never been reached) but rather to their top-down approach. The analysis you shared is also missing an important aspect, imo. The distinction between capitalism and communism is not only about who controls the means of production, but also about the motives in the system. In capitalism, but goal is making profit. In communism, it's meeting the needs of the society. In capitalism, the latter is a by-product. The inverse is true in communism. Lastly, the question of ownership of the means of production is additionally muddied by the fact that state control over the economy is not the same as social control over the means of production. You can't have the latter if the society does not democratically control the government. The situation in China is somewhat similar to republican Rome, where the state owned large swaths of property but the political elites treated it as their private property. I do not disagree, I thought it was an interesting perspective and explained in a digestible way.
It is also interesting to think about how countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and so on are closer to "communism" then the countries that have proclaimed to be communist. It is my perspective that when it comes to left/right and so on far more important than any policy is how does it impact the democracy itself. Because authoritarianism can creep in (or by revolution) from any end of the spectrum and it always ends up awful for the vast majority of the people.
|
They use it to fool their own citizens and people like GH.
Fool us into what exactly?
On May 17 2022 21:41 fakovski wrote: very interesting to digest imaginations and speculation out of the heads on the other side of the planet
fwiw the Sinophobia that dominates around here is not universal. Some of us recognize that while China isn't perfect, it's working relentlessly to at least leave a habitable planet for future generations because it recognizes capitalism's endless profit seeking is not in and of itself a path to meeting societies needs. In fact, capitalism often explicitly stands in the way of meeting societies needs as exemplified by the WHO vaccine patent waiver. It nakedly prioritizes profit at the expense of societies needs.
|
On May 18 2022 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Fool us into what exactly? Show nested quote +On May 17 2022 21:41 fakovski wrote: very interesting to digest imaginations and speculation out of the heads on the other side of the planet fwiw the Sinophobia that dominates around here is not universal. Some of us recognize that while China isn't perfect, it's working relentlessly to at least leave a habitable planet for future generations because it recognizes capitalism's endless profit seeking is not in and of itself a path to meeting societies needs. In fact, capitalism often explicitly stands in the way of meeting societies needs as exemplified by the WHO vaccine patent waiver. It nakedly prioritizes profit at the expense of societies needs.
If you were hoping China is trying to leave a habitable planet for future generations, you should be quite disappointed.
|
On May 18 2022 02:53 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2022 18:01 fakovski wrote: 2.why 0 COVID policy is ridiculous? because we are not behave the same way with you, so we are ridiculous? CNN reported a million death caused by covid in the US, if china lay down like other countries, at least 5million death would be expected....the goverment care about people's lives, is that wrong? oh, you might find it not "free" , but under some serious circumstances personal freedom need to be constrained for the great objectives, my city got a 2 week lockdown, I don't complain about that, I didn't see anyone around get mad about the policy. remeber days ago some 18year-old kid kill 10+ with a rifle in newyork state? that is really impressive freedom
I'm just curious about this point. I'm in Portugal, where almost 100% of all adults are vaccinated, the vast majority with 3 doses of mRNA vaccines. We're undergoing a COVID wave right now. Meanwhile, there are no mask mandates anymore outside of public transit. Life is mostly normal. We accept the 'cost' of the cases, the same way we accept the cost of bad cases of flu. Given that the virus is going to stay here on Earth in circulation, and it will continue to evolve, what is the long-term plan in China? Will cities lockdown every single time there are a few cases? Does that mean, in practice, that circulation of people between China and the rest of the world is locked forever? Will Chinese cities be locking down four times every year? Portugal has a population of 10million,while china-1600million, in most chinese cities ppl got vaccinated for free, I don't know what is the long-term plan in China, I guess the circulation of ppl between china and the rest of the world will be locked for a long time (at least another 6-12months), life is mostly normal in china too, I check the news today.....about 200+ new cases daily, shanghai is the only city locked-down.
|
I surfed on TL since 2002, when 20years ago ppl are more friendly , unfortunately China is developing too fast that she become a main threat to the U.S (and her allies), I can even feel ppl from those countries have a different view of China comparing with ppl from other countries. It will not be pleasant to argue with them, and it would not be helpful to anyone, China is making firm progress under such questionings and prejudice since her foundation in1949, so I suggest everyone put aside those arguements and try to make the world better for everyone.
|
On May 18 2022 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Fool us into what exactly? Show nested quote +On May 17 2022 21:41 fakovski wrote: very interesting to digest imaginations and speculation out of the heads on the other side of the planet fwiw the Sinophobia that dominates around here is not universal. Some of us recognize that while China isn't perfect, it's working relentlessly to at least leave a habitable planet for future generations because it recognizes capitalism's endless profit seeking is not in and of itself a path to meeting societies needs. In fact, capitalism often explicitly stands in the way of meeting societies needs as exemplified by the WHO vaccine patent waiver. It nakedly prioritizes profit at the expense of societies needs.
Did you totally miss the big and public increase im coal and new coal plants. That is before you take into account the concrete/ashphalt, open pit plasic burning and so much more.
Your post is so much close to facetitious than factual.
At least go with something remotely believable about like they want to increase the standard of living for the people, but well all know the CCP puts profits above their people over and over again.
|
On May 18 2022 10:42 fakovski wrote: I surfed on TL since 2002, when 20years ago ppl are more friendly , unfortunately China is developing too fast that she become a main threat to the U.S (and her allies), I can even feel ppl from those countries have a different view of China comparing with ppl from other countries. It will not be pleasant to argue with them, and it would not be helpful to anyone, China is making firm progress under such questionings and prejudice since her foundation in1949, so I suggest everyone put aside those arguements and try to make the world better for everyone. With energy being so central to human development in the modern world China's leaping ahead of the globe (including the much more capitalized US and her allies) in the vital technology/production of cleaner/renewable energy has certainly enflamed longstanding orientalism which cascades into the Sinophobia and prejudice you accurately describe China progressing through (and you'll unfortunately probably see a lot more of here).
While I wouldn't expect you to endure arguing with people here I do hope you continue to offer your perspectives on things as I find them refreshing
|
|
|
|