|
On May 18 2022 11:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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
Almost none of this is true and what is, is thr definition of greenwashing.
Basically no country is doing enough, that China who by objective measures are often the worst and almost always 10 worst, they are not "working relentlesly " for the planet unless you think increasing coal mining and burning more of it than anyone by far is helping.
Your constant bringing up Sinaphobia for any critism of china is pathetic, what is worse is you wont even be specific because even you know its bullshit and instead you just throw it out generally it is so obviosuly passive agressive and is just dripping with pretentiousness.
Point it out, quote it, or STFU about it.
Edit: Here is another example, even their solar panels breat double the carbon foot print of those made it europe and that is before you get into disposal which eu has rules on and china does not.
https://isen.northwestern.edu/solar-panel-manufacturing-is-greener-in-europe-than-china
|
I think the Chinese would be talking about their supposed leaps in green technology more than anyone and attempting to license that tech across the globe instead there is a constant stream of embarrassing news about the pollution and other damage they cause to the environment. The wreckage they're causing to the Mekong basin in the Indo-chinese peninsula is exceptionally callous to their neighbor's environment and a significant food source for their own people.
We've seen fantastical production numbers come from China but they've never been verified by any independent source. We've seen the bad numbers and failures out of the west because they're unable to stop the truth from getting out.
|
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. A country called the Union of Soviet Socalist Republics that had a hammer and sickle on their flag was NOT claiming it was communist? really?
|
On May 18 2022 02:37 JimmiC 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. Their political system is certainly authoritarian. Communism does not have a shit ton of billionaires. Billionaires who only exist by grace of the party. If they do something which the party deems unacceptable they get cut down to size (like for example Jack Ma from Alibaba who started critizing the government). And this is what Deng's reforms were about. The economy was partly liberalised and private citizens are allowed to enjoy these economic freedoms but the political system is still in firm hands of the party.
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. Mao and his revolutionary buddies certainly were striving for a communist society. I don't think this was just a brand back then and I don't think it is now. That their reforms did not end up in the ideal communist society is true but also not a very interesting observation. Reality doesn't change just because you have thought out a nice theory. The practical implementation will always differ from the theoretical framework. More interesting is looking at why these communist revolutions always end up in an authoritarian dictatorship.
|
Russian Federation584 Posts
On May 18 2022 14:13 JimmyJRaynor 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. A country called the Union of Soviet Socalist Republics that had a hammer and sickle on their flag was NOT claiming it was communist? really? That's true. Even the last constitution of USSR (in 1977) in the first chapter stated that "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the socialist state of the people, expressing the will and interests of peasants, workers and intelligentsia, working people from all nations and peoples of the state".
Communism there represented as an ideal to be strived for, as in preamble "The highest goal of the Soviet state is building declassified communist society with a developed communist self-governance".
There is a difference between Socialism and Communism (well, theoretical one at least), because communist ideal is kinda unreachable. It's an idealistic utopia, requiring a perfect human being who will work overtime just for the enjoyment of it, and take the minimal resources necessary for him to exist with a bit of comfort. Since human nature isn't exactly that, it still remains an utopia. USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK, Maoist China - they all are/were socialist, not communist.
But as was correctly stated above, they all turned into that state from a not-very-developed agrarian society, and often after a great turmoil (World War 1 and Civil War in Russia, World War 2 and Civil War in China, World War 2 in DPRK, overall poverty and revolutions/coups in Cuba/Venezuela) which leads to authoritarian tendencies, and that differs this socialism from the continuous peaceful process happening in, lets say, Scandinavia, whose internal policies are often described as socialistic (despite them still being capitalist countries, of course), since the end goal of Socialism is creating a maximum possible equality in the society (without completely removing the need for state and personal property, as Communism proposes). The difference is, either people will be equally poor or equally rich.
|
On May 18 2022 15:30 Ardias wrote: There is a difference between Socialism and Communism (well, theoretical one at least), because communist ideal is kinda unreachable. It's an idealistic utopia, requiring a perfect human being who will work overtime just for the enjoyment of it, and take the minimal resources necessary for him to exist with a bit of comfort. Since human nature isn't exactly that, it still remains an utopia. USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK, Maoist China - they all are/were socialist, not communist.
ah , interesting.
In North America, the USSR was considered a communist country. They had no "professional hockey players" they were all amateurs who were in the army and paid by the government. There were no profits made by any hockey teams. No profits + No Private Run Hockey Teams = Communism www.youtube.com
Ron Ellis: "it was like war ... it was Canada against Russia ... democracy against Communism" "Excelling in athletics was proof the communist system is the better system"... this is the stuff fed to Canadians during the USSR's existence. The implication being.... USSR IS a communist country.
The fans chanted at Phil Esposito "communism is best" when the USSR defeated Canada in Game 4 of an 8 game series. Canadians viewed the USSR as a communist state. Communism had just won. www.youtube.com
BTW, I hope Ovechkin breaks Gretzky's goal record. Gretzky is a whiner and Ovechkin is a more pure goal scorer any way.
|
Truth be told, both capitalism and communism are flawed at the very core of the idea as the perfect form of either can't be achieved (communism requires infinite resources while capitalism requires the possibility of infinite growth).
It is kind of amusing that pretty much all countries that were striving towards communism have ended up as isolationist dictatorships (China, Russia, NKR, Cuba). It seems that the happiest people are in countries where you have a healthy mixture of systems - consistently winning in happiness rankings seems to be Denmark, which is a socialist country with free market etc.
|
Sosialism in accordance with Marx and Engels' philosophy have always been the transitionary stage from capitalism to communism. In socialism, one require a strong state to regain ownership of the means of production from the capitalists / private enterprise and chaperone it until the situation is ready for it to be transferred to the people, when the people are ready to cohabitat in communes where they all share equally in the ownership of and surplus of their commonly owned means of production (which will then be shared with other communes through markets). Once the transition is done, the strong state is dissolved, leaving the people through their communes in charge. This marks the end of socialism, and start of communism.
Nothings ever gotten past the "strong state"-part without breaking though, no matter if countries have labelled themselves as, or been labelled as, communist, and as thus, there has been no communist countries in accordance to the philosophy dictating the term.
As with all other utopian ideologies, itd at best work within a segregated, self-sufficient microsociety.
|
On May 18 2022 15:26 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2022 02:37 JimmiC 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. Their political system is certainly authoritarian. Communism does not have a shit ton of billionaires. Billionaires who only exist by grace of the party. If they do something which the party deems unacceptable they get cut down to size (like for example Jack Ma from Alibaba who started critizing the government). And this is what Deng's reforms were about. The economy was partly liberalised and private citizens are allowed to enjoy these economic freedoms but the political system is still in firm hands of the party. + Show Spoiler +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. Mao and his revolutionary buddies certainly were striving for a communist society. I don't think this was just a brand back then and I don't think it is now. That their reforms did not end up in the ideal communist society is true but also not a very interesting observation. Reality doesn't change just because you have thought out a nice theory. The practical implementation will always differ from the theoretical framework. More interesting is looking at why these communist revolutions always end up in an authoritarian dictatorship.
The Russian Oligarchs are only billionaires at the grave of Putin, he kills them or strips their wealth if he so chooses. This is a function of authoritarianism and not communism.
At some point a lot of Americans got taught that right wing meant less rules and left wing meant more rules so America was the most rightwing because it had the least rules and China was communist because it has the most rules. None of that is true. You can have right wing dictatorships with all the rules in the world. And if the people do not own the means of production it is not communism.
|
On May 18 2022 08:51 GreenHorizons wrote: Fool us into what exactly? Into shilling for China. Takes some serious brainwashing to convince a far left person to support the closest thing we've had to a fascist state in modern days (until Russia's recent descent into fascism).
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. Sorry to break it to you, but China has had a capitalist economy for a few decades now, lol.
|
China has lifted over 100 million people out of poverty. The majority of the population seems to be happy with how things are beeing ran. Who are we to critizise them?
This thread is nothing but China bashing,the openings post clearly sets the tone. Its like one of those threads you see on reddit. A very one sided and negative discussion about another country.
China has its flaws like any country but it has also done many great things.
I am not "shilling" for China. (another constructed narrative to counter anyone who doesnt go along with the bashing). Its the mindless bashing ,straight up propaganda,that bothers me in the discussions that you see on the internet these days. Its very one sided. Everyone who posts negative about China gets upvotes (not on this forum luckily) and everyone who doesnt fully go along with it gets downvoted and called beeing a "shill". There is no room for a nuanced position,you have to either bash or you are a shill.
|
On May 19 2022 02:58 pmh wrote: China has lifted over 100 million people out of poverty. The majority of the population seems to be happy with how things are beeing ran. Who are we to critizise them?
This thread is nothing but China bashing,the openings post clearly sets the tone. Its like one of those threads you see on reddit. A very one sided and negative discussion about another country.
China has its flaws like any country but it has also done many great things.
I am not "shilling" for China. (another constructed narrative to counter anyone who doesnt go along with the bashing). Its the mindless bashing ,straight up propaganda,that bothers me in the discussions that you see on the internet these days. Its very one sided. Everyone who posts negative about China gets upvotes (not on this forum luckily) and everyone who doesnt fully go along with it gets downvoted and called beeing a "shill". There is no room for a nuanced position,you have to either bash or you are a shill.
Using capitalism and authoritarian rule to pull people out of poverty does not make it communism. It has been the long standing capitalist theory of trickle down effect. That still doe snot make it communism.
Also it s hard to know what the people think of their leadership when they are jailed or executed for questioning it.
China leads the world in capital punishment btw. and near the top per capita as well, though getting actual numbers are hard. Now there were past years where they were executing 10's of thousands and now it looks to be just thousands but whether it is internment or death, people can not voice their displeasure even if they have it.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/international/executions-around-the-world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_China
How leftist is China on LGBTQ+ issues? Answer not very.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_China
None of this is bashing it is just facts.
The same way someone could bring up the oil sands and talk about how bad for the environment they are in Canada. I would not call that person a Canada basher or Candianist. I would agree with them and then talk about what parties support it and why and who does not. And even the parties that support it would not pretend it was good for the environment, they would have other reasons like economic development, geopolitics and suggest that the environmental damage could be rectified over time and new tech or whatever it is they say.
|
On May 19 2022 02:58 pmh wrote: China has lifted over 100 million people out of poverty. The majority of the population seems to be happy with how things are beeing ran. Who are we to critizise them?
This thread is nothing but China bashing,the openings post clearly sets the tone. Its like one of those threads you see on reddit. A very one sided and negative discussion about another country.
China has its flaws like any country but it has also done many great things.
I am not "shilling" for China. (another constructed narrative to counter anyone who doesnt go along with the bashing). Its the mindless bashing ,straight up propaganda,that bothers me in the discussions that you see on the internet these days. Its very one sided. Everyone who posts negative about China gets upvotes (not on this forum luckily) and everyone who doesnt fully go along with it gets downvoted and called beeing a "shill". There is no room for a nuanced position,you have to either bash or you are a shill.
I think China's economic renaissance is inspiring. bravo. Germany's coal imports are set to rise 8% this year. India and China coal based electricity production are going up 9 to 12 percent. USA will also start burning coal like crazy again. So I don't see why everyone is ragging on China. I'd like to see Canada start more coal based electricity production as well. The province of Ontario had the cheapest electricity prices in NA when the government run energy company "Ontario Hydro" burned lots of coal. stupidly cheap electricity helped make Ontario an economic juggernaut in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Russia's coal consumption and production rose from 2014 to 2016. What did the world do? Nuttin. In fact, I think Germany imported even more Russian coal during 2016. If the world won't directly intervene in Russia taking over the Ukraine what is the world really going to do about Russia consuming more coal? The same thing the world has already been doing: nothing.
Again, I don't see why everyone is ragging on China about its coal use. All we hear from the rest of the world is a lot of yapping about cutting back on coal. They are talking the talk.. they sure ain't walking the walk.
On May 18 2022 20:08 plated.rawr wrote: As with all other utopian ideologies, itd at best work within a segregated, self-sufficient microsociety. the only way to be a utopia level happy adult is for that adult to possess high self esteem. high self esteem is built on choices and hard work executed by the individual and can't be given to them by any government or any other human for that matter.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/79352.Six_Pillars_of_Self_Esteem https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/277820.How_to_Raise_Your_Self_Esteem www.youtube.com
For 30s to 90s
the turbulence of our times demands strong selves with a clear sense of identity, competence, and worth. with the breakdown of cultural consensus , an absense of worthy role models, little in the public arena to inspire our allegiance ,,,, and disorientingly rapid change a permanent feature of our lives.. with all that ... it is a dangerous moment in history not to know who we are... or not to trust ourselves. The stability we can not find in the world we must create in our own persons.
If you have low self esteem your life is lousy no matter how good the social safety net is.
|
On May 19 2022 02:58 pmh wrote: China has lifted over 100 million people out of poverty. The majority of the population seems to be happy with how things are beeing ran. Who are we to critizise them?
This thread is nothing but China bashing,the openings post clearly sets the tone. Its like one of those threads you see on reddit. A very one sided and negative discussion about another country.
China has its flaws like any country but it has also done many great things.
I am not "shilling" for China. (another constructed narrative to counter anyone who doesnt go along with the bashing). Its the mindless bashing ,straight up propaganda,that bothers me in the discussions that you see on the internet these days. Its very one sided. Everyone who posts negative about China gets upvotes (not on this forum luckily) and everyone who doesnt fully go along with it gets downvoted and called beeing a "shill". There is no room for a nuanced position,you have to either bash or you are a shill.
That about sums it up. At least they have a place that kind of trash "belongs" now
|
Both capitalism and socialism has its fatal flaws, and democracy is not a magic drug. The westners are bashing China for her dictatorship, however, democratic countries without strong leadership are true disasters. India is a good example. Urkrainian, when they naively choose a comedian,they put their fate in others' hands.
|
On May 19 2022 06:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: If you have low self esteem your life is lousy no matter how good the social safety net is. Perhaps, but neither is self-esteem a substitute for the material necessities that allow for a dignified existence.
Also, the idea that you cannot have healthy self-esteem while benefiting from social programs is absurd.
Here ends my derailment of this thread about China.
On May 19 2022 11:41 fakovski wrote: Urkrainian, when they naively choose a comedian,they put their fate in others' hands. Russia's tragic blundering in Ukraine is not the example I would select if I wanted to portray dictatorships as more powerful than democracies.
|
On May 14 2022 18:38 Manit0u wrote: 4. A lot of businesses are moving out of China and setting up shop elsewhere (Vietnam mostly), which will probably have huge impact on Chinese economy.
It'll be interesting to see what happens. Also, if China really shuts down information flow out of the country it might become impossible to measure the Chinese economy.
On May 19 2022 13:30 Djabanete wrote: Also, the idea that you cannot have healthy self-esteem while benefiting from social programs is absurd.
You misread my comment. The government can not give any individual high/healthy self esteem. High self esteem is only attainable via an individual's carefully strategized choices and carefully executed actions. Therefore, an "ideal" political system can not create even one single happy healthy solid self esteem individual. Not one. Ultimately, it is up to an individual person to create their own happiness. Such an endeavour is a lot of hard work.
On May 19 2022 11:41 fakovski wrote: Both capitalism and socialism has its fatal flaws, and democracy is not a magic drug. ya, good points. IMO, there is no perfect system. Work with what ya got... + Show Spoiler +and if the place you are located is really bad and you can pull it off then move to a different/better country. Toronto, Ontario, Canada is home to 100s of thousands who left a bad situation in a different country. Doing so is pretty tough. Often one must learn a new language and adapt to a completely different culture. That said , hundreds of thousands, even millions manage to pull it off. Neighbouring New York state has tonnes of people from the Toronto area who left and went to New York for even better opportunities than Canada offers.
"The money is out there gents... you pick up its yours ... you don't ... i got no sympathy for ya", Blake in GlenGary GlenRoss 1992.
|
Edit: Nvm I said I was done derailing.
|
On May 14 2022 18:38 Manit0u wrote: 1. No more freedom of religion in Hong Kong. They've also arrested a 90 year old Catholic cardinal.
3. Most Chinese people can no longer leave the country. Their passports are being shredded, as well as foreign green cards. 4. A lot of businesses are moving out of China and setting up shop elsewhere (Vietnam mostly), which will probably have huge impact on Chinese economy. I wonder what are other people's thoughts on the current situation in China and where will it lead potentially. I think it will lead to US politicians having more excuses/reasons/rationale for increasing military spending.
US politicians can reasonably claim China is becoming like the USSR of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. US politicians can then use this as a reason to spend more money on military to protect against the "Chinese Communist threat".
|
China has many problems but also many successes and it is foolish to dismiss them. For example China accounted for the vast majority of poverty reduction in the Millenium Goals, due to its rapid development.
The issue people in the West have with China is more that they reject its system of government. They see it as inherently evil or inferior, because it emphasizes the continued leadership of the Party over any individual rights. Whereas many Chinese do believe that those human rights allegations are excuses to attack China and the Chinese people, and they don't see why they have to follow the rules set by foreigners and that what China does is none of their business.
|
|
|
|