Jump to content

Let's talk about China


Recommended Posts

They elevated hundreds of millions of people from poverty, that's impressive. They're pretty smart in a lot of things. Too aggressive and authoritarian for my liking.

Their inevitable rise to become the strongest country on earth is threatening Western hegemony, so people for example in the US military are planning a war against China within the next five years, 'simply because it's necessary'. I guess a global nuclear winter will stop global warming.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:

They elevated hundreds of millions of people from poverty, that's impressive. They're pretty smart in a lot of things. Too aggressive and authoritarian for my liking.

Their inevitable rise to become the strongest country on earth is threatening Western hegemony, so people for example in the US military are planning a war against China within the next five years, 'simply because it's necessary'. I guess a global nuclear winter will stop global warming.

This is bad(The war)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's the 'Thucydides trap' which suggests that there's a tendency in History so that when a great power feels threatened by an emerging power the war between them is almost inevitable, and could be the case we are about to presence in a few years. USA considers China its threaten number 1, and China is progressively demonstrating to be a country that can compete with USA hegemony. In Africa, for example, China is developing which is called 'soft power', and progressively disconecting african economies from western industries by 'developing' their economies and infraestructures.

I think it's curious how wester countries see China as a threat (in a military way) while the most belligerant country in History, the one who invades or intercede in any country that don't follow their way is a Western country. China hasn't entered or damage any other nation sovereignty, not as the Western countries.

Not saying China is an example of anything, it's pretty obvious that their civil rights and political freedom is highly damaged, but they've priorized colective wealth (almost 800 million people have escaped from poverty in decades and the wealth in the country is growing really fast) and (geo)political stability among other, and that's also a way to concieve freedom, since a person is also free when they have a job, a house, they can raise a family without being worried for their economic future, people living in rural zones can send their children to universities, people get highly educated... Offer both ways of 'freedom' in Africa o underdeveloped countries and we'll see what they prefer.

At the end, things are not always as they tell us, and between that color range that only sees black and white is a bunch of grey tonalities.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, kangz said:

It's funny how everything, when somebody doesn't like it, gets compared to N*zi Germany. Someone could say that the USA, prioricing 'democracy' among stability in the countries they invade (comes out none of them has reached democracy or freedom) instead of the stability they had, has ruined those countries (we can talk about Iraq, Syria, Libia, but also about the one which has the most recent events: Afganistan). None of those countries were n*zis, indeed most of them were Socialists, also China is socialist.

Comparing every country that has an authotitarian regime with N*zi Germany is just not ok. The USSR was authoritarian and they encountered and defeated Germany. China do the same than the USSR, but somehow that article compares them to N*zi Germany, why? Just because they think they can scare people mentioning H*tler? I think thats a fallacy. We can debate and assume we don't share a point of view, even critizise China, but do it without appealing to the devil, that vitiates the debate.

Edited by Ares
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ares said:

It's funny how everything, when somebody doesn't like it, gets compared to N*zi Germany. Someone could say that the USA, prioricing 'democracy' among stability in the countries they invade (comes out none of them has reached democracy or freedom) instead of the stability they had, has ruined those countries (we can talk about Iraq, Syria, Libia, but also about the one which has the most recent events: Afganistan).

LOL. Installing a corrupt puppet regime of known mass murderers like in Afghanistan I'd hardly call 'democracy'. Not to mention all the democratically elected governments that the US toppled because they had different ideas/weren't submissive.

9 minutes ago, Ares said:

Comparing every country that has an authotitarian regime with N*zi Germany is just not ok. The USSR was authoritarian and they encountered and defeated Germany. China do the same than the USSR, but somehow that article compares them to N*zi Germany, why? Just because they think they can scare people mentioning H*tler? I think thats a fallacy. We can debate and assume we don't share a point of view, even critizise China, but do it without appealing to the devil, that vitiates the debate.

With Schmitt there's a direct connection. If someone justifies their government actions with Stalin's work, naturally one would compare them with Stalin's USSR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ares said:

There's the 'Thucydides trap' which suggests that there's a tendency in History so that when a great power feels threatened by an emerging power the war between them is almost inevitable, and could be the case we are about to presence in a few years.

That theory is based of wars long ago. After the second world war, views on war changed. Under those changed views, there is no reason to assume the theory is still valid.

 

Did the UK fight Germany after the second world war? The balance of power shifted in the Germans favour. Same goes for China vs. Japan around 2000. So for regional powers it is not true, but neither did NATO directly wage war with the Warschau pact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

That theory is based of wars long ago.

It also conveniently ignores post nuclear warfare. Weapons of mass destruction enforces global peace through the premise of mutually assured destruction.

The world has never seen more peaceful times relatively speaking.

Proponents of nuclear disarmament are incredibly naive to even suggest that the world will be a better place without nukes and where conventional warfare is a viable option again.

There won't ever be a war between major nations again until missile shields are developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smiley said:

It also conveniently ignores post nuclear warfare. Weapons of mass destruction enforces global peace through the premise of mutually assured destruction.

The world has never seen more peaceful times relatively speaking.

Proponents of nuclear disarmament are incredibly naive to even suggest that the world will be a better place without nukes and where conventional warfare is a viable option again.

There won't ever be a war between major nations again until missile shields are developed.

I would rather there be 100 conventional wars over just 1 nuclear war. Even a minor nuclear exchange (between India and Pakistan, for instance) would plunge the entire world into chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 100 conventional wars will kill a whole lot more people than a localized nuclear exchange. If Islamabad and New Delhi got vaporized, the world will be shocked, but it would eventually move on. No nation would be dumb enough to pick a side and risk getting annihilated for pointless wars. We still got some time for the truly desperate resource wars, which on the other hand would be an incredible firework show when viewed from space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, smiley said:

A 100 conventional wars will kill a whole lot more people than a localized nuclear exchange. If Islamabad and New Delhi got vaporized, the world will be shocked, but it would eventually move on.

We're talking about probably 1 billion worldwide casualties from one nuclear war between India and Pakistan. You are clearly underestimating the effects of even a limited nuclear war. 100 million dead in India and Pakistan directly and hundreds of millions more around the globe.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-pakistan-nuclear-war-can-kill-over-10-crore-people-study/articleshow/71418630.cms?from=mdr#:~:text=Bumper Deals-,NEW DELHI%3A A nuclear war between India and Pakistan could,to researchers in the US.

 

In sum, the authors write, a nuclear war (between India and Pakistan) could trigger mass starvation across the globe.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is the actual study. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/10/eaay5478 . Sensationalized, but if the whole arsenal is detonated, then yes, that is likely. But 250 nukes with 100+ kilotons is not a limited exchange. I am not sure if armed and ready to go missiles exceeds a few dozens. The authors equalized estimated war heads with weapons.

Couldn't find the billion figure, but nuclear induced cooling would probably kill a lot I guess.

And who knows, maybe people are actually dumb enough. Posadism was an unironical thing too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, smiley said:

Posadism was an unironical thing too.

LOL, never heard or those children of the atom before.

 

13 minutes ago, smiley said:

And who knows, maybe people are actually dumb enough.

People are dumb (as a whole/in general). Look at'em destroying their planet even without nuclear weapons. More importantly in this context, there are also errors and mistakes. How many times were we just minutes away from a nuclear armageddon because of some malfunction/misinterpretation? Just luck that the dudes doing their duty on the nuke button at that time were like 'Yah, probably not a nuclear attack'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here's a question: will China follow a similar path to the one that the ex-Soviet Union followed in the early 90s when it turned into contemporary Russia? In other words, is it the case that the current Chinese political system will be replaced with a different one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No creo que pase eso.

el cambio en Rusia fue porque su economía se fue alv.

además el partido comunista chino tiene mucho control sobre su población, y e de recordar que ellos preferirían matar a los posibles protestantes antes que cambiar algo de su régimen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, m7600 said:

So, here's a question: will China follow a similar path to the one that the ex-Soviet Union followed in the early 90s when it turned into contemporary Russia? In other words, is it the case that the current Chinese political system will be replaced with a different one?

Authoritarian regimes usually last for three to four successors before being reformed. Same as Gorbachev, someone would reform away to a more moderate socio-economic model. Collapse of the system as a whole is unlikely as that would need a significant loss in living quality like one induced by economic collapse. Also, the country is not exactly Orwellian as most media would claim.

Asia as a whole aside from a few exceptions has a very collectivist outlook on society, and individualism is not really a thing in most places to the degree of places like the US. So, Chinese and most Asians don't really see a problem by a missing laissez-faire capitalistic mode.

The Soviet Union was much more fragmented with different cultures that have different outlooks on society. The Kulaks were basically living a "Little House on the Prairie" kind of a lifestyle.

Edited by smiley
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smiley said:

Authoritarian regimes usually last for three to four successors before being reformed. Same as Gorbachev, someone would reform away to a more moderate socio-economic model. Collapse of the system as a whole is unlikely as that would need a significant loss in living quality like one induced by economic collapse. Also, the country is not exactly Orwellian as most media would claim.

Asia as a whole aside from a few exceptions has a very collectivist outlook on society, and individualism is not really a thing in most places to the degree of places like the US. So, Chinese and most Asians don't really see a problem by a missing laissez-faire capitalistic mode.

The Soviet Union was much more fragmented with different cultures that have different outlooks on society. The Kulaks were basically living a "Little House on the Prairie" kind of a lifestyle.

Fair enough.

Here's another question: is market socialism, as it's currently practiced in China, going to be implemented in other countries, including the United States, in the near future? I'm not asking if China will do the implementation, rather if other countries will start to copy their practices and business models. True, there are private companies in China. But the dominant ones are state-owned enterprises. Will this become a trend in other regions of the globe? Western countries have some state owned enterprises, but I wouldn't say that the situation is comparable to China's right now. But things might start to go in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theoretically I think it's better when the gov't controls the companies than the other way round. There's also sectors where it simply doesn't make any sense to leave it to the private sector, imho. It just makes it more expensive, and the profits are paid by the taxpayers. Since my compatriots keep voting for the same corrupt political parties I don't really see a change coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

Theoretically I think it's better when the gov't controls the companies than the other way round.

Assuming you don't mean control as in regulation, and as in control. It really is not.

Across the board, in different industries, the private sector is out competing nationalised firms where I am. And I haven't really seen the other way around except when the state impose an invincible monopoly in which case, the consumers are the ones who lose.

Energy, logistics, health care and even education. State enterprises just couldn't keep up with the private sector. These days, most of those firms are changed to public limiteds with majority government share with like 50 percent in private individuals.

Power corrupts. And bureaucrats are just tools for the highest bidder. Most communist induced famines were caused by bureaucrats not reporting correct statistics which lead to catastrophic misallocations. The consequences aren't as dire when you bribe customs to bring in huge quantities of taxable goods without paying a dime.

Edited by smiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, smiley said:

Across the board, in different industries, the private sector is out competing nationalised firms where I am. And I haven't really seen the other way around except when the state impose an invincible monopoly in which case, the consumers are the ones who lose.

The private sector is very good at saving cost. Take for example Uber, Amazon and Just Eat/Takeaway, they are very good at paying low wages to their deliverymen.

 

I think the Dutch education system is an example of an invincible monopoly. Public schools get major benefits and private schools can't compete with them. Yet the Dutch education system works perfectly. Overall in western Europe, any citizen can receive proper education.

US culture is not something that is familiar to me, but I get the impression that US citizens somehow get "brainwashed" into thinking socialism is bad. Social movements started in western Europe, where it worked fairly good  (currently people like to vote for Neo-liberal policies,  as we call them). I would say that the Scandinavian countries applied socialism close to perfection. The fact that some countries had made bad copies of socialism doesn't mean the ideology is flawed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, smiley said:

Across the board, in different industries, the private sector is out competing nationalised firms where I am. And I haven't really seen the other way around except when the state impose an invincible monopoly in which case, the consumers are the ones who lose.

Energy, logistics, health care and even education. State enterprises just couldn't keep up with the private sector. These days, most of those firms are changed to public limiteds with majority government share with like 50 percent in private individuals.

Maybe it depends on the actors and the circumstances. Germany (and its states) can get money cheaper than any private actor; if you take infrastructure like roads where costs go over >100 million €, no private company can be cheaper just because of that, and then add the necessary profit margin. That doesn't mean there's no 'Public Private Partnerships' to build roads, it just means those PPPs are terribly wrong and way more expensive. Currently in Berlin (state) they're working on a plan worth billions to have private companies build schools and then lease them back; estimates figure that this would cost at least three times per pupil than if they just built it themselves.

My 'favorite' example are dredges (those digging ships to keep rivers etc. navigable); they were communally owned, but when privatization was all the rage in the late 90s they too were privatized. The first year it was cheaper, the second year it was about the same, and by the third year communes were getting their own again because prices had soared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...