China goes Fuedal on Buddhists

[Ravager69]

Why become a super power anyway? Look at Belgium, Netherlands or Finnland - people there have a good life on a very decent level without resorting to repressions and conquering other countries. I don't think that becoming a super power is worth all the bad shit you need to do in order to achieve that status.

As for the protesting - without incident, no one would ever notice that Tibetans ever protested - people need to be shocked with something if they are to do something about a thing that doesn't concern them directly.

Another thing - why is China improving? Because of the *slave work of their own citizens*, forced to work many hours for ridiculous money. Because investors can buy stuff cheaper in China and sell it in their countries without having to worry about producing it. You can say that China steals job from other countries and backstabs itself at the same time.

I wonder how China got the rights to organise the Olympics in the first place....

 

[welsh]

As I was thinkjing in the shower I realised why I kept citing all those sources of problems throughout history. Its dumb of me I know but I can say it now.

The reason why I brought up those examples was because change is never easy. Every government in history has at some point for the sake of economic/military security done some bad shit. This is how the world works whether you may like it or not. Idealism is good but history shows that you need to temper idealism with realism.

Except in China's case this is not about its military and economic security. Tibet is a marginal player economically. No one realistically thinks Tibet can exist independently of China. I haven't made that argument, nor will I. Its unfortunate for Tibet that it got stuck between China and India, and as a weak power, was subject to the influence of both.

But that doesn't justify the repression that the Chinese have applied to the Tibetans for 50 years.

This is not about political or economic security. This is about hegemonic domination. This is about the ruling class (in China's case the Communist Party) getting the acceptance and loyalty of the people of China and allowing no alternative systems of government.

And China's ruling class is not unique in trying to achieve hegemony. Most countries try it. In the Western democracies, ruling classes exist, but democratic politics should hold the ruling class accountable to society. That works, some of the time.

But when you have a authoritarian state, in this case a state in which a political party controls, than the party has maintain its hegemony through other means. When Mao was threatened in the 1960s he answered with the Cultural Revolution. Deng figured old style communism (cults of personality, etc) wasn't working so he went with the four modernizations and kicked off China's growth.

Ruling classes use a variety of techniques to achieve hegemony, but why? Because it allows them a greater share over the distribution of political and economic power.

What scares the Chinese about Tibet is that Tibetan Buddhism, like the Falun Gong, offers an alternative ideology that people are loyal too even as they reject the CCP's right to rule.

Where a government can't achieve hegemony it will often turn to repression to achieve its distributive aims.

I am not saying protesting is wrong. I am saying there is a point to how much you protest before you back off. Like those protestors in Tianneman had like a month to demonstrate or so. I mean in front of the whole world with the PRC doing little censorship. After speaking to the world, they should have just gone home and felt that they did make a difference.

There is a point in protesting when you can't go home, when you've stepped over the line and you realize that if you leave the protest, you will be targetted. The fact that you are able to sustain a protest as a group makes you stronger and protects you.

If you go home, you get picked up and imprisoned. But the government might not be willing to go that far if its publicized and shown on TV.

In Indonesia, college students protested Suharto and soon found themselves trapped on campuses by police that would beat and imprison them if they left. In Tianneman the Chinese students faced the same challenge. If they left, they lost.

At a certain point the protestors become aware that they are but fish swimming in a school against a pack of sharks. There only hope is that the sharks will back off, because individually, they are vulnerable.

And this is a difference between a democratic system and an authoritarian system.

Generally speaking, in a democratic system the costs of repression are very high, while the costs of toleration are very low. This means that its harder, more politically costly, for the state to break the heads of protestors. When it does break heads- as in Montegomery Alabama or in India during the salt march, than people watching it on the news can see for themselves the willingness of the state to repress the rights of their fellow man.

In a dictatorship, the press can be blacked out, and worse, since the dictatorship is not accountable to society, it has a freer hand at repression. Thus, in a dictatorship the costs of repression are lower and the costs of toleration are higher. Why are the costs of toleration higher? Because if you allow one faction to rebel, then you might not be able to stop another.

As a dictatorship its not necessary to dominate society. Rather, one needs only keep society sufficiently divided so that no single section or coalition can challenge one's rule.

So China can allow a small group of people to enjoy wealth. It can allow people who live in the cities to do well.

And at the same time it can allow half its population to remain enslaved. Why? Because it need only keep the enslaved population divided and the wealthy population loyal.

But what if the wealthy portion were no longer loyal? What if the CCP were to try to carry out one of its "anti-bougeoisie purges" as in the days of Mao.

Then, I suspect China would be in big trouble.

To an idealic person like you such a move means failure.

To be honest, with you, I rarely think of myself as idealistic. As a political scientist as see myself as a liberalist with a strong sense of Weberian state-class theory.

As a voter I think of myself as generally liberal.

In terms of international relations I see myself as a realist. China is undermining the economies of the US and Europe. China's government strikes me as similar to facism. China has continued to use its military to challenge the status quo.

China is also vulnerable from within. What I hope to see in China is another revolution- not a marxist revolutoin but a liberal revolution- the collapse of the party and the creation of a more accountable government.

And I don't see why the Chinese Communist Party would ever give up its monopoly of power unless it had no other choice. Rather the CCP falls peacefully or violently, is up to them. But sooner or later the CCP will fall.

However, can you really say China hasn't changed? My father when he went back noticed a huge change. My father lived through Maos shitty regime so I believe him when he says there has been REAL change. People can actually criticize the government in their homes without being carted away by the special police. The standard of living is improving. ALmost everyone has a car, cellphones, game systems, whatever you can think of. See the thing is though, China still has a lot to do. I mean even in the US we still don't have our problems sorted out in regards to the haves and the have nots (and the US didn't have half the shit happen to it that CHina had).

Two points- Yes China has changed. SOme folks have gotten wealthy, more have gotten poor. CHina has one of the greatest levels of inequality in the world. China has also enjoyed the lion's share of FDI. In the last decade two countries enjoyed FDI more than others-

(1) The US- because we have a lot of Europeans, Canadians, Japanese, etc, investing in the US
(2) China.

The rest of the world has gotten fairly little. IN fact so much FDI has gone to China and not to its neighbors that it has frustrated their development.

And some of those countries are democracies.

Now you might say- what about the US's poverty and its inequality? I have repeatedly said that the US problem is inequality among classes and that explains why class is becoming an issue in the recent elections. Happily we have a society that can still talk with maturity about the problem of social class.

As for relative poverty - Yes, Americans have poverty. Roughly 12.9% live under the poverty line. What's that poverty line? A bit more than $10,000.

While its hard to live in the US on 10K a year, it sure as hell beat $365 a year.

In the US our poor population suffers from inadequate health care and obesity. In China the problem is starvation.

So yeah, comparing poverty in the US to China is a pretty stupid comparison.

So you gotta let the government do its thing.

With that logic than you might as well let the government come into your house, take your money and rape your wife.

Will it always be pretty? No of course not. But then again, you give me an example where a country has been able to both become an economic and military superpower wthout getting its hands dirty. You also give me an example of an economic superpower that has achieved the wealth distribution that you dream about without getting its hands dirty.

So you are saying the prestige of China in being a World Power justifies its repression of its own people and keeping 29% of its population under $1 a day? And that prestige means that other societies should just forgive and forget? Oh its ok that China raped Tibet, it had to because it wants to be a Superpower.

Fuck that.

I don't want China to be a superpower, and given the history of the CCP, no one else should either.

Seriously, think about it. I know, as a Chinese-American you're sympathetic. But as a human being think about it.

If you're Chinese I can understand you're biased.

But as an American? That's bullshit.

 

[welsh]

Looks like the EU may consider a boycot afterall.

EU assembly to consider Beijing Olympics boycott
Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:09pm EDT
By Darren Ennis

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - China is expected to come under fire in the European Parliament next week over its response to unrest in Tibet with many EU lawmakers calling for some kind of European boycott of the Beijing Olympics.

Several leading assembly members will seek action ranging from a political snub of the opening ceremony to an outright boycott of sport's showpiece event by the bloc's athletes, parliament officials said on Thursday.

A special sitting of the EU assembly is expected to be convened to discuss China's crackdown on protesters in the Himalayan region.

The EU has so far said there is no need to boycott the Games in response to the wave of violence, which Beijing says was orchestrated by the exiled Dalai Lama, an accusation he denies.

The Tibetan spiritual leader has said he does not support the violence and that he backs the Beijing Olympics.

Slovenia, which holds the six-month EU presidency, said on Thursday that a boycott was "not the right answer". But France's foreign minister has said the idea should be considered and there is some support within the European Parliament for European countries to stay away from the Games.

The European legislature has no say over issues such as the foreign policy of EU states but its views can turn a spotlight on issues such as human rights abuses. Any decision to boycott the Games would have to be taken at national level.

"From my information, the question now is not whether to have a boycott, but more what type of boycott it should be," Edward McMillan-Scott, vice-president of the European Parliament, told Reuters.

OPENING CEREMONY

On Tuesday, EU assembly President Hans-Gert Poettering, a close ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said politicians should reconsider attending the opening ceremony of the Games. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the idea could be considered by EU foreign ministers at a meeting next week.

McMillan-Scott wrote to EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana on Thursday seeking "an exceptional meeting" of the bloc's foreign ministers on the Tibetan issue before their scheduled informal meeting in Slovenia on March 28 and 29.

"The EU cannot sit on the fence and watch these tragedies unfolding in Tibet and China," he wrote. "I urge you to consider ... what stance the EU should adopt on the Beijing Olympics."

A spokeswoman for the Slovenian presidency said Tibet was not formally on the agenda of the meeting but if "the current pace of events continue, it is very likely to be raised".

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has angered China by agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama when he visits London in May

CNN story has some good videa and pictures here

 

[Brother None]

I note you haven't addressed my issue that these kind of ill-thought reactions like boycotting the Olympics might just hasten the cultural demise of the Tibetans, welsh.

I find that interesting. You keep trying to shove me into some kind of "let's do nothing"-box, even though I've clearly said I am in the "let's not do anything without thinking about it properly"-box, a box I consider you not to be in.

Kill the entire regime economically? That's not feasible now, unless you're willing to sacrifice your own country's economy in the process.

 

[welsh]

Well BN, I am willing to bet that the US could survive with a China in disarray better than China can without the US.

Ok, in response-
I think the Chinese have a saying- in Crisis comes Opportunity. The opportunity for the Chinese is to begin to change a policy that has generally failed.

As I have argued above- this isn't so much about Tibetan independence (an impossibility even the Dalai accepts) nor is about economic control. This is about the hegemony of an idea- that the CCP is "right."

But the CCP isn't right. IF it were right than this crap wouldn't have happened in the first time.

I mentioned before that the problem is a game of strategic interaction- what are the costs of tolerance and what are the costs of repression.

Right now, I suspect that if the Chinese are holding back at all, its because they are afraid of the bad press. The more they repress, the greater will be the calls for an olympics boycott.

The CHinese have staked a lot of political clout on the olympics and its becoming a debacle. Recent Slate article agrees. The Chinese want the olympics to go well, so that they can shine in the world's spotlight as a rising power in the East.

Fine. If no one shows up than they don't get the press they want. At the same time people might start having second thoughts about China. That's happening already. In the US, the rising repression is driving people to rethink Walmart and the jobs that have been lost. Declining dollars should stimulate a growth in exports, but the Chinese peg the Yuan to the dollar so that won't change. And a lot of folks are realizing that this stinks. There have already been costly boycotts from important personalities. Spielberg dropped out of his role because of China's policy with Sudan- a choice of conscience that makes China lose face.

Ok, the costs of tolerance and the cost of repression.

Right now the Chinese face few costs of repression. They can protray Tibetan riots as unruliness, blame the Dalai as a "wolf in monks robes". They can say the Tibetans are unruly and spreading instability, and they can use attacks against Han Chinese to justify further repression.

There is little to hold back the Chinese. The western media might have mattered, but the Chinese were smart enough to black that out- including youtube viewing by their own people. Why?

Because if more Chinese saw what was happening in Tibet more Chinese might think that they should protest as well. They might think that the Chinese are not quite so strong as people think. They might rise up.

So think of the costs of repression vs the cost of tolerance much like two slopes on a scale that cross each other. The greater the the costs of repression, the lower the costs of tolerance. Likewise, the lower the cost of repression the higher the costs of tolerance.

The Chinese have low costs of repression, high costs of tolerance.

But if the lines switch, where the costs of repression become heavy, where it means they might lose something, they might be more inclined to tolerate Tibetan demands.

However, that demands that the Chinese pay a cost for their repression, and the Tibetans have little to offer.

But the West does. If the West boycotts the olympics, or at least threatens to, than the CHinese will consider this possibility and may reduce their repression. IF the CHinese don't blink, than boycott and then lets start thinking about free trade.

At the same time the Chinese have to be offered an out. The CHinese leadership said it would talk to the Dalai if he renounced violence and didn't want a free Tibet. The Dalai has renounced violence and accepts a relationship with China.

If you had China and Tibet talking, then I suspect you have a good chance to see the riots die down.

But if you take away the few means that the Tibetans have to resist, than you take away one of their few sources of power. Without power, there is no reason for the Chinese to negotiate with them. How do we know. Nearly 50 years of history.

Diplomacy is a strategic game of interaction between sides with various forms of power and different resources.

I agree, I think the Tibetans timed this to take advantage of China's vulnerability over the Olympics. That's strategic thinking.

And if they did nothing? Then its the same old status quo and the Tibetans are doomed the dustbin of history.

Tibet

A colonial uprising

Mar 19th 2008
From The Economist print edition

The Dalai Lama is China's best hope of winning Tibetan acceptance

GEORGE ORWELL would have understood Chinese attitudes to Tibet. In “1984” he coined the term “doublethink”, or the ability to believe contradictory things. Thus Chinese leaders profess to believe both that traditional Tibetan culture is repugnant, full of superstition and cruelty, and that Tibet is an “inalienable part of China”. They also claim that the Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, is becoming irrelevant, yet insist he managed to foment the latest outpouring of anti-Chinese resentment seen in Tibet (see article).

The Dalai Lama is a constant irritant in China's efforts to achieve full international respectability. His stature and access to world leaders keep the issue of Tibet alive, though no country recognises his government-in-exile. And, as Chinese leaders must grudgingly acknowledge, he retains the loyalty of many Tibetans. In 2005 conservationists, alarmed at the threat to endangered wildlife posed by a Tibetan fad for wearing tiger and other skins, asked the Dalai Lama to denounce the practice. He did, and Tibetans lit bonfires of the pelts.


So China persists in seeing the Dalai Lama as the embodiment of its “Tibet problem”. In fact, he offers the only plausible solution to it. China's strategy for dealing with him is to wait for his death, and install a pliable successor. Last year it even passed an edict giving the government a role in approving new incarnations of such “living Buddhas”. But this strategy is doomed. No successor will command such veneration. And so none will be as persuasive an advocate of non-violence and of a “middle way” for Tibet, short of the full independence many Tibetans believe is their birthright.

The fury, arson, vandalism and bloodshed seen in Lhasa in recent days were not instigated by the Dalai Lama. They erupted in spite of his frequent calls for restraint, and were in part a consequence of China's refusal to engage in more than desultory talks with his representatives. It could be far worse: to their great credit, Tibetan nationalists have hardly ever resorted to terrorist tactics, though exiled activists point out that the railway that opened in 2006 linking Tibet and China offers an obvious target.

Serious talks with the Dalai Lama, and the possibility of his returning home for the first time since fleeing to exile in India after an uprising in 1959, might help assuage Tibetan anger. It would also help vindicate those who argued that the staging of the Olympic games in Beijing would make China less repressive. It would give China the chance, belatedly, to honour the promise of autonomy it gave Tibet in 1951, in an agreement foisted on the young Dalai Lama. It would boost its image around the world, and even in Taiwan, which might become less averse to the idea of Chinese sovereignty.

A boot in the face
Yet China shows no sign of being swayed by these arguments. Rather it seems intent on using the Olympics to flaunt its control of Tibet, as the flame is paraded in Lhasa. As elsewhere in China, it hopes that economic advance will soften calls for political freedom. And as in other areas where ethnic minorities have been restive—Inner Mongolia and, especially, Xinjiang—it hopes immigration by the majority Han Chinese will swamp nationalist sentiment. Unless and until that happens, there is always sheer force. That has been used this time with more discretion than in the past. But it is nevertheless the means China seems to have chosen to rule Tibet. As in Orwell's dystopia, its picture of the future seems to be of a boot stamping on a human face, for ever. It need not be that way.

Now you say this-

You keep trying to shove me into some kind of "let's do nothing"-box, even though I've clearly said I am in the "let's not do anything without thinking about it properly"-box, a box I consider you not to be in.

You're claim is to not do anything until we know more. But the Chinese have stopped us from learning more.

As mentioned before - a criminal hides his crime, an innocent man proclaims his innocense.

The Chinese are hiding and the weight of history is against them.

YOu want to give the Chinese the benefit of the doubt. But they'll only allow you to see what they don't want you to see when they are ready. And by then, the story will be doctored to fit their narrative, the proof will be gone, and bodies will have disappeared.

No, when the Chinese blacked out the news, they lost the benefit of the doubt.

Now you have to weigh your decision to give the Chinese the benefit of the doubt vs the cost of doing nothing while the Chinese repress.

I am sorry, but I don't think the Tibetans should pay that price.

(Then again, neither should have Bosnians, those in Darfur, the Rwandans, and how many others? Its easy to ask for delay in action when its not your blood paying for it).

 

[Brother None]

Well BN, I am willing to bet that the US could survive with a China in disarray better than China can without the US.

I wouldn't take that bet. At least not right now. The US is in a recession, with the FED taking very ill-thought actions and a significant part of foreign debt being in Chinese hands.

The simply truth of the matter is that you can't take on China head-on economically, right now, and the chances of you emerging from the recession in any position to do so are limited.

You don't agree?

I think the Chinese have a saying- in Crisis comes Opportunity. The opportunity for the Chinese is to begin to change a policy that has generally failed.

As I have argued above- this isn't so much about Tibetan independence (an impossibility even the Dalai accepts) nor is about economic control. This is about the hegemony of an idea- that the CCP is "right."

Very true.

The CHinese have staked a lot of political clout on the olympics and its becoming a debacle. Recent Slate article agrees. The Chinese want the olympics to go well, so that they can shine in the world's spotlight as a rising power in the East.

Agreed.

You're claim is to not do anything until we know more. But the Chinese have stopped us from learning more.

Yes, and that's unfortunate, but that doesn't automatically make uninformed action a good thing.

YOu want to give the Chinese the benefit of the doubt.

No, I don't.

Now you have to weigh your decision to give the Chinese the benefit of the doubt vs the cost of doing nothing while the Chinese repress.

That is the wrong argument. And I've made this point often enough that I'd figure it'd register by now, but apparently it hasn't

You have to weigh the decision to make an ill-informed emotional response to these events and its results vs looking at alternatives and - sadly - prognosticating while you do.

You seem to think there's some kind of ideal response, intercede or not doing anything, either being the perfect answer. I don't have to tell you that's naive, you know it is. There is no perfect response to this, and there are advantages and disadvantages to either action.

The problems I have here are obvious:
1 - if you take an uninformed decision you can not know what the advantages and disadvantages of it are, and you have a good chance to make the situation worse rather than better. This has happened too many times in history to simply ignore, as you propose.

2 - my personal worry is the way China responds. You seem to think of it as a dictatorship with its back against the wall - which is (from my experience) how the US views any dictatorship, you always believe they're in crisis. It's not a view I agree with, but if it is true any aggressive response just becomes potentially more dangerous.
But regardless, there is a very real chance that an ill-thought response will push 'em over the edge when it comes to repression and or cultural genocide. You seem to think they have reason to fear us. That is not true, especially not for the US, and losing the Olympics is something they fear, but once it's done it's just going to be something that annoys them. And who do they release their annoyance on?

Now it's possible some aggressive counter-reaction is necessary. But it's fairly obvious to me that you're just pro it because you view the Chinese as bad news, the Tibetans as innocent (and thus you have a skewed view of reality) and want to thump on your chest in order to quiet your own conscience. That's fine, but you should consider who are going to be the victims of your conscience.

 

[DarkCorp]

As an American, I think that boycotting the Olympics will do little. As BN states they will get pissed but will put the ENTIRE blame for losing the olympics on the Tibetans. A generation or more of Chinese will be not only furious with Tibet, but possibly vehemenently anti-western. Those who come in power future years will probably inherit a very agressive truly expansionistic China just ready to go to war. What about an alternative?

In fact if anything, Zhao Ziyang said it best. "We are old. It doesn't matter to us anymore". He told the students not to sacrifice their lives so easily. All the rioting and violence I believe won't mean shit. Just like Tianneman drew criticism but China still entered the WTO.

However, the party is old and it will die and be replaced with younger more reform minded people. You can't force the party to change because it will change on its own in time. Deng was a prime example of this. Sanctions and boycotts against the population whom you have already said was innocent isn't the way to go.

Second, you keep thinking I want China to be a superpower, I really don't. However, just because I don't want it to happen doesn't mean it won't. Just because I don't like communism doesn't mean I am going to turn a blind eye to the achievements they have made. Once again, change takes time man. The students can't just expect to chant "down with the party and expect it to happen overnight". Well it could happen but once again look at Russia. You speak about caring for chinese citizens but say nothing about the political turnmoil and violence that could erupt if china devolves into a disunified mess.

Same with the Tibetans. All the violence in the world means nothing when the world just doesn't really seem to care. However, keep the idea alive. If all those people felt so passionately, keep themselves alive for the sakes of their children, family and friends. Continue to spread the word and uphold the belief. The more that are alive and passionate the better. Getting yourself killed solves nothing.

As for America what will it do? Piss off a nuclear power and force it to ally with the growing anti-american crowd or try to atleast keep said power neutral if not win them over? I think this is the view the rest of the world is currently taking as well.

 

[welsh]

You guys argue that if we tell the Chinese not to pull the trigger then they will. I am saying that if we don't say something there is no reason for them not to.

Simply stated, there is no reason for China not to repress these Tibetans hard except if they realize their are costs involved.

BN- I am not saying this is a perfect answer. Its not. This was not a crisis of our timing or China's. But wishing it weren't happening won't make it so.

The European and the Americans waited to decide act in Yugoslavia. Response in Rwanda and East Timor were equally delayed.

Maybe part of that was the hope that, "if we don't do anything, those that repress might actually stop."

Well they don't stop and in Tibet they are not stopping.

You would like to prognosticate, the Chinese achieve a fait accompli. So by the time you decide to act, its over.

I am not saying that the Tibetans are harmless or guiltless in this. But for 50 years the CHinese have been repressing the Tibetans and have been getting away with it. That the riots illustrate that the Tibetans are pissed off is something the Chinese should have expected.

THat the Chinese didn't anticipate this illustrate their blind ambitions.

China loses friends over Tibet
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 20/03/2008

What is the Chinese view of the Dalai Lama? Wen Jiabao, the premier, has said that the rioting by Tibetans was "organised, premeditated, masterminded and incited by the Dalai clique", whose claims to be pursuing not independence but peaceful dialogue "are nothing but lies".

Zhang Qingli, the Communist Party secretary in Tibet, has described the Dalai Lama as "a wolf in monk's robes, a devil with a human face but the heart of a beast".

Yet Wednesday Mr Wen told Gordon Brown by phone that he would be prepared to enter into dialogue with the exiled Tibetan leader if he renounced violence and did not advocate independence for Tibet. As the premier well knows, those two conditions have already been met. So when will the talks begin?

The likelihood is that they won't. Mr Wen is trying to show the outside world the "soft" face of Chinese power, an indication that the party is concerned about its image in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics.

Mr Zhang exemplifies the "hard" face directed against dissidents at home. The second approach will probably prevail. China's political system is unable to accommodate dissent. Expect Beijing, therefore, to crush the Tibetan revolt as quickly as it can.

The party is shooting itself in the foot by demonising a man who is the living embodiment of peace. Agreeing to negotiate on the genuine autonomy that the Dalai Lama seeks would not necessarily win over all Tibetans; the exiled youth congress, for example, wants independence and accepts violence as a means to that end. But, given the Dalai Lama's spiritual authority over his followers in China, it would take the sting out of the revolt.

Instead, the party, in the person of Mr Zhang, has chosen to defame him with a grotesque caricature. Beijing's brutality has been noted in Taiwan, where the frontrunner in Saturday's presidential election, who supports eventual reunification, has been forced on to the back foot.

Happily, it has also convinced Mr Brown that he should receive the Dalai Lama, possibly during his visit to London next month. So much for China's ability to win friends and influence people.

The Chinese have a way out of this, a simple measure to deaden the protests and they don't have to repress. They could simply talk to the Dalai Lama as they promised.

But they don't- why- because that would concede some of their hegemonic ambition.

The Chinese are afraid that if they have to cut a deal with the Tibetans, to recognize the distinction of Tibet, then the Chinese will have to do so with other minorities.

Of course the Chinese could achieve their hegemonic ambitions by other means. But they don't because they are afraid it will make them look weak.

I think the Chinese Communist Party survives because it has succeeded in making a small faction of its society rich and because it can mobilize a sense of nationalism.

And how doest that nationalism manifest- economic growth and occassionally, by rattling its sabers over Taiwan. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese would use Taiwan and the threat of war to keep trade alive and favorable to them.

BN, you're right that the CCP doesn't have its back to the wall. Why? We keep buying its good and we don't complain about their policies. Criticize China about Darfur? No way. Hell, a lot of folks are afraid of saying "Bad China" over Tibet.

IN fact a lot of folks think we're dependent on those goods. And you're dependent you're powerless. You can't protest, you can't criticize.- Because you are afraid of the consequences of that protest.

So yes, there would be pain in this, there are consequences, costs. But there are always costs.

Now here's something to prognosticate over- had we been tougher 20 years ago, would we be facing the same problems today? If we don't toughen up now, what can we expect in 20 years.

So yes, its time we end this dependence on Chinese goods because it makes us weak. There are plenty other places in the world where it the goods made in CHina could be made, and there are a lot of places in the world that could use all the money that we've sent to China.

Darkcorp- you say lets give China a chance to change. LEt's not push it but let it go its own way.

This is the same old thing that's been said for 30 years.

Two decades ago people said the same thing about Tiannemen Square. Now you're saying the same thing about Tibet and the other places were the Tibet protests have spread.

20 years, man, and its the same fucking story. We've given China a chance to change.
ANd what has it done.

The CCP is still in power and China has become a more global player, doing the kinds of things like selling weapons to Sudan and supporting a genocide in Darfur.

And why doesn't anyone complain- because we don't want to hurt the companies doing business in China? Because we depend on cheap Chinese goods? Because the Chinese own a lot of US dollars and artificially keeps its prices low? The same reason why China can join the WTO and not play by the rules of the game?

Fuck that.

You seem to have some hope that the next generation of Chinese leaders are going to be reform minded. Or perhaps they will buy the myths that the CCP has used to justify itself and might get more militant on Taiwan.

Has that happened before- yes its called "blow back"- when the next generation of leaders believes its own myths. This happened in Japan before World War 2, and it happened in Russia about Afghanistan before 1979, and led them to intervene to remove a pro-Soviet leader who they feared had turned on them.

SO will the next generation of Chinese leaders reform and liberalize?

Why would anyone with a monopoly of power surrender that power if they don't have too? The only way the CCP will ever abandon its monopoly of power is when it faces a crisis in which

THe costs of staying in power is significantly more dangerous than the costs of sharing power.

In otherwords- its quite likely that the CCP will continue to monopolize power until its overthrown either by a palace coup (perhaps from the military) or from a revolution. An alternative might exist if CCP believes it can continue to participate in power if it shares, but risks its own doom unless it does.

ANd I agree with BN- that's not now.

You offer the CHinese an economic shock. You stop buying their goods, and you might have something.

BN- why do I think the US could overcome its dependence on China? Because generally speaking products made in China have to be exported to outside markets. At the same time, the dollar is going down making the US a more affordable market for new investments.

Much of this crisis is a credit crisis. The credit crisis is partially due because of balance of payments and trade deficits. Those deficits go to CHina and for oil. If the US has to recover its economy, it has to reduce dependence on both.

Europe faces similar problems. But what does China offer? A big market? Low cost labor? Tax incentives? YOu can find low cost labor elsewhere and while tax credits would be nice, there are a lot of foreign tax credits that companies could use. It will mean closing factories and relocating them. But that's happening anyway. ANd if the CHinese currency was priced at its actual value- than a decline in the value of both the US and the EURo might mean some of that manufacturing returns to Europe and the US.

SO yes, there are costs, and the costs will be against big businesses and they'd have to move. But they will. Those cheap goods will come, but from places like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Botswana, Uganda, Senegal, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Bulgaria, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, much of the developing world that could use the FDI.

The FDI goes to China because of tax benefits, because its cheaper.

And without those businesses not only do you increase unemployment in China but you also reduce profits for Chinese companies and the ruling class.

And then you might get reform.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Why become a super power anyway? Look at Belgium, Netherlands or Finnland - people there have a good life on a very decent level without resorting to repressions and conquering other countries. I don't think that becoming a super power is worth all the bad shit you need to do in order to achieve that status.

Thing is, counties don't say to themselves, "Hey, let's become a superpower!" Charismatic individuals sometimes lead contries on powergrabs like that, but they never last (Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, etc.) because they're, by definition, powergrabs.

Nations that turn into superpowers (Rome and the USA, I guess) do so as a reaction to unwelcome external crises. They find themselves ordering things because for one reason or another no one else is capable of doing the job effectively.

 

[DarkCorp]

20 years huh. Well its been more than twenty years since the Pinkertons shot up protestors. Yet the Kent state shooting still happened. Its been 20 years or more since the time of the civil war and the end of slavery happened. Yet major racism didn't end until around 1970 or later. Its been 20 years since "manifest destiny" yet the US continues to interfere in the politics of other countries to protect its assets and wealth.

Its just so strange your hell bent on thinking that China seems to be the only country that has ever done anything wrong to its people for the sake of progress. Also, it is weird how you think that China is the only country you believe cannot change with time but instead by force. Lastly, did you choose to ignore the fact that China has the largest population in teh world. I mean is the government supposed to magically make everyone rich? Once again change takes time.

PS: Like universal mentioned, China is not making a power grab. It would be foolish to compare China to lets say the imperialistic desires of the Japanese during WW2. Sometimes learning from your mistakes just might cause you to be a superpower. If the alternative is getting assfucked by other countries like what happened in the past, China chose to be miltarily strong.

 

[Ravager69]

But USA is not a *communistic* country. *That* is the diffrence. In a democratic country the politics do not have the ultimate power to do as they wish (at least not openly) and have to deal with public's opinion. If the chinese goverment said "move your sorry asses people, we're going on war with Russia", I doubt anyone could even protest against it. Plus - how can you compare living in USA to living in China and say that is not so diffrent?

Second thing - USA goverment does not make majority of it's people live in horrible poverty. Typical American has things that most of people from the rest of the world never will (although your food is horrible, at least there some justice in the world x] ). The strenght of USA stems from it's remote location and the fact, that many brilliant people come imigrating from other countries, fleeing from war, political problems or poverty. And of course from the slave work of mexican imigrants, but hey, nobody steals them from Mexico and makes them work in the States and besides, they have a lot better life in US than most chinese citizens.

China keeps itself strong for the costs of it's citizens lives and I highly doubt they will change in time, not without other countries action.

 

[DarkCorp]

Lets see. The United States had a few incursions from the British early on and two major wars on its soil.

Now lets look at China. Continuous civil war till WW2. Assfucked by the world till Japan left. If that wasn't bad enough, we got Mao and his Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution as a "reprieve" afterwards. Has a billion plus population. If you add it all up, China has pretty much only started developing after Maos death circa 1976. Thats 30 something years dude compared to how many years of peace for the US?

So yeah I guess your right Ravager, in a way its not a fair comparison. The US hasn't had half the shit happen to it that China had. The United States doesn't have nearly the amount of people that China has. Its obvious that wealth distribution is easier if you have less people to take care of. You say that CHina kills its people to develope. Have you blatantly ignored my examples of the same shit happening in developing America? Did you conveniently forget child labor, pinkerton goons, robber barons, manifest destiny, racial injustice, sexism? The list goes on and on.

Also, many of the quote "civilised" countries in this world achieved their development by blatantly assfucking other countries. As far as I know, China has never had that problem. The only violent invasion ever conducted by China was of Tibet and thats only to secure its borders. Does China rattle its sabre at Taiwan? Yes of course. Taiwan is a blatant US ally. With Taiwan, the United States is saying to China, "If you get out of line, America will bitchslap the taste right out of your mouth". Do you think the chinese government likes that?

PS: You think the chinese population want communism? You seem to forget that they never really had a better alternative. It was either the severly corrupt KMT government, inneficient monarchy or constant state of civil war AKA warlordism. I mean what would you do if you were chinese?

What I keep saying and what people keep ignoring is the fact that compared to all the shit that has happened to China, its doing remarkably fucking well. Also, the price China is paying for progress is not unique. Every other country that has ever tried to get by on its own hands and feet has had to make some costly decisions. I do not support Communism. However, I support the idea that my race are not a bunch of ignorant savages doomed to civil war and strife unless they prostrate before the world. I do not subscribe to the fact that innocent people will pay the price of sanctions/boycotts/ embargoes because certain countries want to be hypocritical in regards to "human rights abuses".

I do believe like every other country, China has to implement harsh policies in order to maintain stability and order. There is still a lot of problems to fix but that will happen with time. As with Russia, Putin is a heavy hand but that is because the country was in complete chaos. China saw how much chaos a "quick" change of government brought and wants to avoid similar problems.

 

[Ravager69]

Yeah, but I don't think organising World Olympics in a place like China is fair at all. I know China isn't the ultimate villian that needs to be stopped, but man, aren't there any better places more fitted for an event like this? Somewhere where people won't have to sign some fucking cyrograph that they won't ever absolutly make a stand about the China's political status or will be banned? I am not an expert on the matter, but did any other country did something similar?

 

[DarkCorp]

Yeah, but I don't think organising World Olympics in a place like China is fair at all. I know China isn't the ultimate villian that needs to be stopped, but man, aren't there any better places more fitted for an event like this? Somewhere where people won't have to sign some fucking cyrograph that they won't ever absolutly make a stand about the China's political status or will be banned? I am not an expert on the matter, but did any other country did something similar?

I guess any country where life is so good and ordely that major dissent is non-existant. USA, UK, Australia, Europe, Canada, countless others.

 

[welsh]

Darkcorp- Manifest destiny wasn't the basis for the US attacking other countries, it was an ideology that supported western expansion west. That Mexico got run over in the process, was unfortunate for Mexico.

But then isn't China's occupation of Tibet its own version of manifest destiny?

And while you criticize the US for a variety of sins- and I will agree that many of those sins are perfectly valid, China has had the same problems with

Did you conveniently forget child labor, pinkerton goons, robber barons, manifest destiny, racial injustice, sexism? The list goes on and on.

These are also sins of China.

I can see my own country's sins, but you seem bent on defending China regardless of its sins. Why?

Nationalism? Fine. You can be nationalistic if you want to, but I suggest you test your values by looking at the mirror. Are you an rational human being, or a rational Chinese nationalist?

You point out Taiwan- as far as I can tell Taiwan has a working democracy, a successful economy that overcame the Asian Financial Crisis of 97 fairly well, and is interested in doing business in China. It wants its independence, which China will refuse. China points missiles at Taiwan to threaten the country and promises a war that will cost thousands of lives for its nationalistic ambitions.

Or is it to further justify or legitimize continued rule of Chinese Communist Party.

By offering your support, you are trying to justify the continued rule of the CCP, a regime that has exploited its own people and will repress minorities for its own gain.

Now you and your family might have done well under CCP rule. I don't know. But I am pointing out that hundreds of millions have been suffering, and its getting worse.

You argue that China has done better. Yes, since 1976. Since 1990 its gotten worse. How to justify this?

You say... oh America... you hypocrite.

Yeah, but at least the Americans can vote out a government and can articulate their criticisms. At least the Americans can keept their government accountable and hold them responsible.

In China you can't do that.

And you support these guys? Better yet, you'll deny the rights of millions to protest against the state because the government has reduced them to poverty and abuse?

I am sorry, but I am not a Chinese Nationalist. I see no reason to support a regime that prospers by impoverishing its own. I see no reason to give this country honor when it repress the Tibetans.

The CCP's desire to sustain its hegemony is not something I care to support. And if the CCP were to fall, would that be such a bad thing? Perhaps then the poor in China might get to enjoy the gains that the rich have.

Will that mean Civil War? Maybe. But that's China's problem. But gut feeling is that the CCP will hold onto power until the last Chinese is dead.

So yeah, sorry, I sympathize for the Chinese. And I'll qualify my position-

Fuck the Chinese Communist Party.
Boycott the Olympics.

 

[Ravager69]

Well, after some thought I don't think there is anything to be done about the Olympics. They HAVE TO be apolitical, less every time some will use them to say something. Neither will China be denied the right to organise it nor sportsmen participating in it will give up the chance to win.

We should hold responsible people that led to this situation in the first place, letting China to be the host.

Of course we should boycott Chinese Government, but not through the Olympics. All of us should show support for Tibetans that are getting killed in riots for protesting, as well for any other country that is being repressed.

 

[DarkCorp]

I can see my own country's sins, but you seem bent on defending China regardless of its sins. Why?

Man I think this needs explaning. Look I am not defending American/Chinese/England/whatever. I am saying "sin" is part of progress. I am defending the fact that in order for progress to happen, "Sin" must happen. Its a bit pessimistic but I guess I am defending Sin.

Nationalism? Fine. You can be nationalistic if you want to, but I suggest you test your values by looking at the mirror. Are you an rational human being, or a rational Chinese nationalist?

I take it you are once again implying I am some sort of closet communist. I will try to answer as best as possible.

To be honest I am conflicted. In one way I want China to fail. I want America to be free of competitors. At the same time I am an American of Chinese ethnicity. If china was to go into the dark ages again how would chinese people be viewed as a whole? For the majority of the 20th century, people thought that the chinese were stupid chinks who were ignorant savages. They would never be able to stand up for themselves so they deserved to be shit on. Not until they said "you make fun of me and I will beat your fucking face" did the world give them respect that should normally be given to all human beings. How would that image affect the ethnic chinese americans? How would that image reflect ethnic chinese as a whole in the world?

Respect should be given, not earned. Unfortunately, its the other way around. Also, I do not want my country to turn the country of my heritage into an enemy. We saw what happened to the american japanese when japan and america went from buddies to enemies.

I just thought about it and yeah, I understand where you are coming from. In fact any non-chinese could hardly give a shit if one of Americas major competitors falls into a gigantic shithole. If I wasn't chinese I would think the same. But the thing is, a china vs america mentality doesn't bode well for me.

You point out Taiwan- as far as I can tell Taiwan has a working democracy, a successful economy that overcame the Asian Financial Crisis of 97 fairly well, and is interested in doing business in China. It wants its independence, which China will refuse. China points missiles at Taiwan to threaten the country and promises a war that will cost thousands of lives for its nationalistic ambitions.

So one sided it isn't funny.

For startes yes the KMT is a democracy. Yes they have accomplished much. Yes they want to work with mainland China.

Now I offer another point of view. If they were so good at making everything right and being a bastion of awesomness, why the fuck did they not do it for the whole of China when they were in charge? If they were such an example of prosperity and goodness for the chinese people, why did they fucking steal national treasures, gold reserves and foreign currency reserves from the chinese people as they abandoned the population to the communists?

Once again sure the country is doing good on wealth distribution. They have America to protect them so military isn't a priority. Defense costs money. Second Taiwan has how many fucking people? Oh yeah 23 million to ONE BILLION in China.

Yeah its easy to fucking distrubute wealth when you exclude certain others. And yeah its certainly easier to feed the country when there are less mouthes.

Second, you make no mention of how Taiwan is a US ally. Who says the US doesn't rattle its sabres at China using Taiwan and Japan?

Or is it to further justify or legitimize continued rule of Chinese Communist Party.

When did I say the CCP was the greatest thing since sliced bread for the chinese people? Did I not mention how Mao fucked up everything. Did I not mention that till Mao died, things were pretty much still shitty for the average chinese?

Look, your whole post was a one sided jihadi rant against China. Personally I was suprised that someone who normally talkes about restraint, understanding, and differing points of view took such a right wing stance on this issue. I am just saying this shit isn't as black and white as you say it is. How does that make me a defender of communism? I am just saying that governments can and have changed. You on the other hand is saying topple the government and lets turn China into another Iraq.

Yeah, but at least the Americans can vote out a government and can articulate their criticisms. At least the Americans can keept their government accountable and hold them responsible.

I am trying to make an example of how a DEVELOPING nation commits sin in order to come out better afterwards. You know, the ends justify the means. I am saying how it would be great if we could compete but yet be Ned Flanders. But it isn't gonna fucking happen. I mean I am comparing DEVELOPING America to DEVELOPING China.

You are not honestly saying that the poor (majority of americans at the time) had any clout against the likes of Carnegie, Rockefeller and Morgan do you? Jesus christ why do you think the stock market crash happened? Because the people who were saying the rich people were douchebags and fucking people over were silenced. In the civil war rich people kept their families safe from conscription while the poor average families took it up the ass. The protestors who wanted an end to child labor, better pay, safer working conditions were ruthessly silenced by the rich. So how the fuck was DEVELOPING America different from DEVELOPING China. In both instances it seems the rich had all the say and the have nots get shit on.

Since 1990 its gotten worse. How to justify this

How do you justify its gotten worse for the chinese?

In case you forget the people in the cities ARE chinese people. So yeah, chinese people are doing better. Sure not ALL chinese are wealthier but you try equally distributing wealth to a BILLION people. The US is head of the world and it still has problems with wealth distribution for 300 million. Technically there should be hardly any poor people in the US.

And you support these guys? Better yet, you'll deny the rights of millions to protest against the state because the government has reduced them to poverty and abuse?

Protesting is one thing. Going fucking apeshit and burning shit/killing people/disrupting the country as a whole is too much. Did Martin Luther King set cars on fire? Did his people aggressively approach and sometimes intentionally provoke police? Did the black population go apeshit and riot in the streets? No man. Thats why people felt for their cause. News showed hundreds of black people who only wanted to be treated like fucking human being get mercilessly beat by racist savages. Did they ever at anytime show that they deserved the beatings? Did they retaliate and exacerbate the situation by calling the white men honkey sons of bitches? Did they get into fistfights with the police?

The Salt March also did well but so did Ghandi in making sure his protest was organised. He himself made sure the marchers were part of his own ashrem who were trained in his strict disciplines. So yeah, once again no burning shit/destruction of public property/provoking of police, etc, etc.

Once again what is with the poverty dude. Just because a government can't magically make everyone rich doesn't mean it should be toppled. Just because a government can't magically make things better in 30 years with a shitload of disadvantages that some of the better developed countries never had to face doesn't mean its people should all be fucking punished with total anarchy.

 

[Ravager69]

Just because a government makes people poor on *purpose* isn't argument good enough to criticize it?

 

[DarkCorp]

Just because a government makes people poor on *purpose* isn't argument good enough to criticize it?

How do you come up with this conclusion? If you are talking about wealth distribution I have already noted how difficult that would be in a country of a billion people.

I guess a good comparison would be India. The country is developing quickly yet 27.5 percent of the population still lives below the poverty line compared to Chinas 10 percent. Keep in mind India has roughly around the same population as China.

Man how many times do I have to say this. People can complain about the chinese government. My father was in China recently and both he and his family and friends freely talked about government and policy. I went back in 1993 and I didn't notice any secret policy crackdown on my family when they talked about the failures of the communist regime and its advances since Maos death.

Your confusing peaceful protesting with nation wide unrest. Your confusing peaceful protesting with burning cars, destruction of government property, antagonizing of police/military. Honestly those students had a good thing going in Tianneman until they got cocky. They figured the entire world would back them up like with Russia so they pushed their luck. I remember as a kid watching dumbasses throw rocks and molotovs at the soldiers and passing military vehicles. Does that sound like a fucking peaceful protest? What do think the US government would have done in the same situation?

Even in the interview with students many of them agreed they came more because of it was a cool thing to do then an actual protest. Thats why the CCP tried to negotiate with the protestors but failed. The protests were disorganised and demand swere just too varied for the government to appease everyone.

Try to keep in mind there are always two sides to every story. Just as there are people who would just paint the CCP as bad, there are those who also see the good that they have done and can easily forsee a bigger mess were the government to be violently toppled.

China isn't Rwanda or Yugoslavia. Change takes time and a violent war and removal of government won't help the chinese people.

 

[welsh]

Darkcorp-

I read your last post and I have to wonder what you're smoking.

You say 10% of the Chinese are living in poverty?

Really?

I mean of the CCP were to shovel shit, would eat that too?

Seriously, you adopt the Chinese government's numbers without question?

When its already been called bullshit?

Different countries set their different poverty lines. By the U.S. official poverty threshold, there is 12% of the Americans are living in poverty while by China's, only about 8% of Chinese are poor people. But if according to the World Bank's unified average daily purchasing power standard, there is 16.6% of Chinese living under 1 dollar a day and 46.7% under 2 dollars in 2005, compared to U.S. and other developed countries, in which less than 2% of their population are living beneath 2 dollars a day. Of course, with a large population and developing process that is late started, it's impossible for China to avoid the poverty phenomenon and it's improper for that reason to deny the great achievements of China's reform and opening and developing potential. However, to fully understand is much different from to be conceited blindly. A country in which 46% of the population can't reach a 2-dollar daily life, sneers at the “poverty” problem of another country in which less than 2% of its people are living in the same situation; is it a little “look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own”?

I am sorry, but I don't get why you are eating up the party line?
What are you, paid by these guys?

Man I think this needs explaning. Look I am not defending American/Chinese/England/whatever. I am saying "sin" is part of progress. I am defending the fact that in order for progress to happen, "Sin" must happen. Its a bit pessimistic but I guess I am defending Sin.

An awkward situation to be in. Yet you defend the sins that are done today and tomorrow, and compare them to the sins of yesterday.

Isn't the idea- "go forth and sin no more?"

I take it you are once again implying I am some sort of closet communist. I will try to answer as best as possible.

Brother, I don't know if your a communist, and I don't care. But these arguments make you look like you work for the CCP.

To be honest I am conflicted. In one way I want China to fail. I want America to be free of competitors. At the same time I am an American of Chinese ethnicity. If china was to go into the dark ages again how would chinese people be viewed as a whole? For the majority of the 20th century, people thought that the chinese were stupid chinks who were ignorant savages. They would never be able to stand up for themselves so they deserved to be shit on. Not until they said "you make fun of me and I will beat your fucking face" did the world give them respect that should normally be given to all human beings. How would that image affect the ethnic chinese americans? How would that image reflect ethnic chinese as a whole in the world?

Frankly, I don't think it would make a single difference with the way Chinese Americans are treated today.

Given my teaching experience, I much prefer to teach Chinese Americans than recently arrived Chinese. Because seriously, recently arrived Chinese students are dumb as stones. Many have cheated their way to graduation, and most are here only because they know someone or are connected to some privilege.

If you came from a country that was suffering internal strife, that would only mean that you're pretty typical for an America. Most of us came from a country suffering some tragedy. You think the Irish would be here if but for a famine? YOu think the Italians or Germans came over because things were sweet in Europe? Whether its Mexicans coming over the border, Eastern Europeans, Africans or anyone else- people come to the US because their homelands are fucked up.

I am not going to deny that Chinese suffered discrimination. But these days, the ethnic bias is highly favorable to the Chinese. Most Chinese students I know are respected because they work hard and struggle to achieve. As a teacher, I am proud of these kids. The Taiwanese, the Singaporeans- they work hard.

As for the Chinese coming over from the mainland, as far as I am concerned, half should be sent back as dead weight as most are worthless as young intellectuals. Worse, many think that because they had a privileged life in China they deserve to have those same privileges here. They reinforce a worse stereotype than you mention above.

To me its about character, and many of the recent Chinese students don't have much. Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Chinese, and some of my finest students came over from the mainland. But for each one that I had that I respected, I can name three that weren't worth shit.

Respect should be given, not earned.

That's silly. No real respect happens unless its earned.

Unfortunately, its the other way around. Also, I do not want my country to turn the country of my heritage into an enemy. We saw what happened to the american japanese when japan and america went from buddies to enemies.

I just thought about it and yeah, I understand where you are coming from. In fact any non-chinese could hardly give a shit if one of Americas major competitors falls into a gigantic shithole. If I wasn't chinese I would think the same. But the thing is, a china vs america mentality doesn't bode well for me.

Nope. But it also is a question of your character and your values.
Do you define yourself by your character or by the fortuitous circumstances of your existence- that you were born wealth or born Chinese?

So one sided it isn't funny.

For startes yes the KMT is a democracy.

KMT is a party. Taiwan is a democracy.

Yes they have accomplished much. Yes they want to work with mainland China.

Now I offer another point of view. If they were so good at making everything right and being a bastion of awesomness, why the fuck did they not do it for the whole of China when they were in charge? If they were such an example of prosperity and goodness for the chinese people, why did they fucking steal national treasures, gold reserves and foreign currency reserves from the chinese people as they abandoned the population to the communists?

Maybe they might have. Chiang Kai shek didn't stop being a prick after he was forced out of Taiwan. But given a choice between giving up the national treasure to Mao or keeping it, I think he made the right choice.

And they didn't abandon the people to the Communists. They lost the Civil War and fled to Taiwan. That's a big difference. For at three decades wanted to go back to China and reclaim it from the Communists. Not that they had much chance of that.

Once again sure the country is doing good on wealth distribution. They have America to protect them so military isn't a priority. Defense costs money. Second Taiwan has how many fucking people? Oh yeah 23 million to ONE BILLION in China.

Yet China remains the #3 economy in the world, with record growth.

And 46% of the population living on less than $2 a day?
What's that 460 million plus living on less than $800 a year, and that's not poor?

Yeah its easy to fucking distrubute wealth when you exclude certain others. And yeah its certainly easier to feed the country when there are less mouthes.

Second, you make no mention of how Taiwan is a US ally. Who says the US doesn't rattle its sabres at China using Taiwan and Japan?

To be honest, of late the US has been too gentle to China. Ever since the Chinese downed one of our spy planes, Bush's administration has been soft on China.

Honestly, I was hoping that the Defense Department sent the missile parts to Taiwan for a reason. Afterall, if China can point missiles at Taiwan, then Taiwan should be able to point missiles back.

Or is it to further justify or legitimize continued rule of Chinese Communist Party.

When did I say the CCP was the greatest thing since sliced bread for the chinese people? Did I not mention how Mao fucked up everything. Did I not mention that till Mao died, things were pretty much still shitty for the average chinese?

And yet you defend the CCP?

Look, your whole post was a one sided jihadi rant against China. Personally I was suprised that someone who normally talkes about restraint, understanding, and differing points of view took such a right wing stance on this issue. I am just saying this shit isn't as black and white as you say it is. How does that make me a defender of communism? I am just saying that governments can and have changed. You on the other hand is saying topple the government and lets turn China into another Iraq.[/quote}

I didn't say you were a defender of communism. But I am saying you are defending the CCP. Why? That's the question I have. Because seriously, its bullshit.

Honestly, I am not sure if China would become another Iraq. I would hope not. Topple the government- yeah. I could go with that if only because nearly 1/2 the population lives destitute.

I'm sorry, I see no justification for supporting further CCP rule, nor any reason why the US should support the CCP stay in power.

Ok, one exception. North Korea- which China uses to legitimize its presence as an international actor.

Yeah, but at least the Americans can vote out a government and can articulate their criticisms. At least the Americans can keept their government accountable and hold them responsible.

I am trying to make an example of how a DEVELOPING nation commits sin in order to come out better afterwards. You know, the ends justify the means.

How Machiavellian of you. Remember, Machs also says its better to be feared than to be loved. Which isn't that much away from Mao saying "political power comes from the barrel of a gun."

Now think about that- you say China has changed. Yet its seems that political power still comes from the barrel of a gun. Doubt it? Ask a Tibetan.

I am saying how it would be great if we could compete but yet be Ned Flanders. But it isn't gonna fucking happen. I mean I am comparing DEVELOPING America to DEVELOPING China.

So you're saying one sin deserves another? Or all sins are the same?

Fuck that.
The US at least was working towards a more liberal democracy. China is working towards a powerful facist state. Fuck the CCP.

You are not honestly saying that the poor (majority of americans at the time) had any clout against the likes of Carnegie, Rockefeller and Morgan do you?

Yes, there were pinkerton agents, but there were also unions. There were protestors. We did have wide cat strikes. You can't do that in China because then the Chinese sends in army.

Seriously, you know that saying, "No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition?" Yeah- that's not true in China.

Jesus christ why do you think the stock market crash happened? Because the people who were saying the rich people were douchebags and fucking people over were silenced. In the civil war rich people kept their families safe from conscription while the poor average families took it up the ass. The protestors who wanted an end to child labor, better pay, safer working conditions were ruthessly silenced by the rich. So how the fuck was DEVELOPING America different from DEVELOPING China. In both instances it seems the rich had all the say and the have nots get shit on.

There you go back to the issue of moral equivalency. So its ok that the Tibetan get repressed and 46% of China lives destitute (regardless of the 'official rate of poverty') because bad things happened in the US?

And yet you note that the creation of a Keynesian welfare state happens during the Great Depression? That we saw labor organize, that there were efforts to reduce poverty? That the period of US growth actually happens when economic inequalities are at a low point.

So maybe a good ole economic shock is good for China to get rid of its CCP.

How do you justify its gotten worse for the chinese?

Dude, try to look at the World Bank numbers instead of the ones that the Chinese make up.

World Development Indicators 2006-
In 1987 14% of China lives on less than $1 a day.
In 2002 29% of China lives on less than $1 a day.

That's worse.

In case you forget the people in the cities ARE chinese people. So yeah, chinese people are doing better.

Which CHinese? The ones working in the sweat shops? The virtual slaves?

Sure not ALL chinese are wealthier but you try equally distributing wealth to a BILLION people. The US is head of the world and it still has problems with wealth distribution for 300 million. Technically there should be hardly any poor people in the US.

Oh... China has such a huge population (how about that 1 child program, hunh)? Yeah, but CHina also has the #3 economy in the world. So?
Gini index of .549?

That makes China a little better than Guatamala?

Granted the US has a crappy Gini too, but than only 2% of our population lives on less than $2 a day. We're also the worst of the advanced industrialized democracies when it comes to Gini scores.

Protesting is one thing. Going fucking apeshit and burning shit/killing people/disrupting the country as a whole is too much. Did Martin Luther King set cars on fire? Did his people aggressively approach and sometimes intentionally provoke police?

You bet. You think MLK or Gandhi didn't think that the police would go bat shit on those people? Of course he did. Fuck, that's why he had women and children on the front line. Because having a woman get her head bashed in makes for good TV news.

That won't happen in Tibet because the Chinese press shut down the news.
WHy did they do that?
Maybe because it wasn't the Tibetans who started it? Or maybe its because the world won't say anything about something it can't see.

Notice how much Tibet is in the news today? Hard to do news when all the journalists have fled for their lives.

Maybe free speech is asking a bit too much of China?
Hey, but you know when the US was "developing" at least we could read about it in the press.

Did the black population go apeshit and riot in the streets? No man.

So you are saying the civil rights happened and had no relationship to the race riots that popped up all over the US from the 1940s till the 1990s?

Thats why people felt for their cause.

So you're saying that the Tibetans should just keep getting repressed?

Like that's worked?

News showed hundreds of black people who only wanted to be treated like fucking human being get mercilessly beat by racist savages. Did they ever at anytime show that they deserved the beatings? Did they retaliate and exacerbate the situation by calling the white men honkey sons of bitches? Did they get into fistfights with the police?

Regularly. Black Panthers?

The Salt March also did well but so did Ghandi in making sure his protest was organised. He himself made sure the marchers were part of his own ashrem who were trained in his strict disciplines. So yeah, once again no burning shit/destruction of public property/provoking of police, etc, etc.

And how did the Brits respond when they learned of Indians getting beaten because they were collecting salt?

See, that's it. The Chinese don't get the chance to respond because the CCP controls the media.
And it controls the media because maybe part of that 46% that's getting fucked each day by the CCP might say, "this is bullshit" and protest. And the CCP can't have that.

So fuck the CCP.

Once again what is with the poverty dude. Just because a government can't magically make everyone rich doesn't mean it should be toppled. Just because a government can't magically make things better in 30 years with a shitload of disadvantages that some of the better developed countries never had to face doesn't mean its people should all be fucking punished with total anarchy.

So you think the CCP will just gently go away and democratize? Yeah, like anyone who has a monopoly of power will just be too happy to give it up.

No, the CCP has to be placed in crisis where it faces a choice between ending its tyranny over China and opening itself up to greater accountability or facing civil war.

Knowing the CCP, I would wager those fuckers will opt for civil war. Because it will think that slaughtering millions of Chinese is better than surrendering power.