No, don't you see. It all makes sense. That's why countries with 2 governments, both having a half-monopoly on force, are always more stable then places where only one government does.
shryke on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
My main point is just that the US government does not have the spotless record
Who has said this? Who? At what point has this claim been made by anyone you're having this discussion with?
Well you all seem to think it's obvious that the US government has a much higher moral ground than the Chinese government. Nobody has offered a shred of evidence for that stance of course. You seem to think that it's better for the US to have unquestioned hegomony over the world- I would only support that if the US had a spotless record. Since it doesn't, and (arguably) seems to be getting worse, I would rather have it share power with another country, even if that other country is also severely flawed.
The Chinese system is based more on doing things that most of the population wants, without a formal vote, because if the people don't like the government then they'll just revolt.
Ahahahahahaha.
Because every time any part of the population has revolted against the Chinese government it's gone so well for them.
Looking at the progress that China has made in the past 30 years... yes, I'd say it has actually gone pretty well for them. When you consider that at the end of WW2 they were poorer and more oppressed than sub-saharan Africa, it's quite remarkable that they've come this far this fast.
There are a number of things it's impossible to protest in China. At least if you don't want to actually go to prison and do hard labor for daring to suggest the government needs to be removed.
China can continue to send Han Chinese in to Tibet to eventually overtake the indigenous people there and none of you can say a thing.
Hey there's a couple things and that was just me.
You seem to think that it's better for the US to have unquestioned hegomony over the world-
Nope! You keep making assumptions based on nothing beyond not agreeing with you. The world is not black and white. That I don't want what you do doesn't mean I want the opposite.
Since it doesn't, and (arguably) seems to be getting worse, I would rather have it share power with another country, even if that other country is also severely flawed.
And thus doom the rest of the world to suffering and the suspense of another, horrific war? No thanks. I prefer the option where a government that isn't horrible checks America's power.
The Chinese system is based more on doing things that most of the population wants, without a formal vote, because if the people don't like the government then they'll just revolt.
Ahahahahahaha.
Because every time any part of the population has revolted against the Chinese government it's gone so well for them.
Looking at the progress that China has made in the past 30 years... yes, I'd say it has actually gone pretty well for them. When you consider that at the end of WW2 they were poorer and more oppressed than sub-saharan Africa, it's quite remarkable that they've come this far this fast.
I was referring to the fact that any time the people didn't like what the government was doing and just revolted against it it resulted in a horrible, bloody mess.
But you're right, the government's doing just fine since it crushes any and all opposition within their borders. What a great system.
Looking at the progress that China has made in the past 30 years... yes, I'd say it has actually gone pretty well for them. When you consider that at the end of WW2 they were poorer and more oppressed than sub-saharan Africa, it's quite remarkable that they've come this far this fast.
You know most of the Chinese are still in the most desperate poverty right? And that's just in Han China. Tibet is undergoing borderline ethnic cleansing.
There are a number of things it's impossible to protest in China. At least if you don't want to actually go to prison and do hard labor for daring to suggest the government needs to be removed.
China can continue to send Han Chinese in to Tibet to eventually overtake the indigenous people there and none of you can say a thing.
Hey there's a couple things and that was just me.
Those are facts, yes, but they're not really important to the argument. Pointing out specific shitty things that the Chinese government has done does not prove that they are significantly worse than the US government, which has also done many shitty things. If you wanted to seriously argue that the US is better, overall, you would have to look at everything their governments do. And since we're talking about foreign policy here, the way the governments run their own country isn't particularly relevant.
You seem to think that it's better for the US to have unquestioned hegomony over the world-
Nope! You keep making assumptions based on nothing beyond not agreeing with you. The world is not black and white. That I don't want what you do doesn't mean I want the opposite.
Since it doesn't, and (arguably) seems to be getting worse, I would rather have it share power with another country, even if that other country is also severely flawed.
And thus doom the rest of the world to suffering and the suspense of another, horrific war? No thanks. I prefer the option where a government that isn't horrible checks America's power.
Oh, my mistake. Apparently what you're hoping for is the fantasy scenario where a country that doesn't actually exist will manage world affairs. I'm only discussing scenario's that are likely to actually happen, here. The EU, for example, has shown zero interest in seriously opposing US foreign policy, and they've got plenty of problems of their own.
The Chinese system is based more on doing things that most of the population wants, without a formal vote, because if the people don't like the government then they'll just revolt.
Ahahahahahaha.
Because every time any part of the population has revolted against the Chinese government it's gone so well for them.
Looking at the progress that China has made in the past 30 years... yes, I'd say it has actually gone pretty well for them. When you consider that at the end of WW2 they were poorer and more oppressed than sub-saharan Africa, it's quite remarkable that they've come this far this fast.
I was referring to the fact that any time the people didn't like what the government was doing and just revolted against it it resulted in a horrible, bloody mess.
But you're right, the government's doing just fine since it crushes any and all opposition within their borders. What a great system.
That's really not an accurate portrayal of modern China, at all. They've changed a lot since the 80's.
Looking at the progress that China has made in the past 30 years... yes, I'd say it has actually gone pretty well for them. When you consider that at the end of WW2 they were poorer and more oppressed than sub-saharan Africa, it's quite remarkable that they've come this far this fast.
You know most of the Chinese are still in the most desperate poverty right? And that's just in Han China. Tibet is undergoing borderline ethnic cleansing.
Compare where they are now to where they were 30 years ago- the government is making a massive effort to lift its people out of poverty, and they've made a lot of progress. In the US, our government doesn't give a fuck about helping the average poor person, and instead prefers to shovel more money at the richest corporations.
Those are facts, yes, but they're not really important to the argument. Pointing out specific shitty things that the Chinese government has done does not prove that they are significantly worse than the US government, which has also done many shitty things. If you wanted to seriously argue that the US is better, overall, you would have to look at everything their governments do. And since we're talking about foreign policy here, the way the governments run their own country isn't particularly relevant.
I'm not sure what it is then that you think should be gauged. And how a country governs its own people is very important when figuring out how they'll treat foreign countries.
Oh, my mistake. Apparently what you're hoping for is the fantasy scenario where a country that doesn't actually exist will manage world affairs. I'm only discussing scenario's that are likely to actually happen, here. The EU, for example, has shown zero interest in seriously opposing US foreign policy, and they've got plenty of problems of their own.
Correct. So given an ideal can't be achieved I'd prefer having just the US rather than another cold war between the US and China which if it's anything like the last one would lead to far, far more wars in other countries as has been pointed out.
That's really not an accurate portrayal of modern China, at all. They've changed a lot since the 80's.
Yeah? When was the last anti government protest? How did that go?
Looking at the progress that China has made in the past 30 years... yes, I'd say it has actually gone pretty well for them. When you consider that at the end of WW2 they were poorer and more oppressed than sub-saharan Africa, it's quite remarkable that they've come this far this fast.
You know most of the Chinese are still in the most desperate poverty right? And that's just in Han China. Tibet is undergoing borderline ethnic cleansing.
Compare where they are now to where they were 30 years ago- the government is making a massive effort to lift its people out of poverty, and they've made a lot of progress. In the US, our government doesn't give a fuck about helping the average poor person, and instead prefers to shovel more money at the richest corporations.
So as long as the money comes in human rights are fungible?
The main threat China poises to the `West' is that their level of industrialisation allows them to now start working on undermining the intellectual properties/brands of the West.
HTC is a great example. They've been making phones for years, and now with everyone talking about Android, they're rapidly becoming the major player in the mobile phone market. Nokia, a company from a `morally correct' western nation, are dying in the arse and its unlikely that they'll be able to compete; I think they are going to become the first high profile high-tech casualty of this shift.
Western brand value will continue to be undermined, and companies like Honda, Hyundai and so on have set a good Asian standard for Chinese companies to follow in the future. You will buy more product that is not only produced in China, but is designed in China, and with royalties/surcharges that ultimately end up in China.
Maintaining control of intellectual properties, and supporting their value to customers, is going to be the big challenge for the West if it wants to maintain its current powerbase. The rest of the world don't care if their brand `tribute' goes to the US or not, as long as they have cool shit.
No the regular people still can't vote, but the communist party does at least try and listen to their concerns.
I'm sorry but that's kind of sticking point.
Let's see.....we've had a recent slide to the right and you're comparing that to the chinese not being able to vote? Well I'm glad Beijing listens to them at least.
Seriously dude you're comparing pebbles to asteroids here.
This is an example of what I'd say is a western bias- you assume that the ideal form of government must be a western style democracy where everyone casts a vote. Meanwhile poll after poll shows that what the US government does is drastically at odds with what most people actually want it to do, because our democracy is badly flawed. The Chinese system is based more on doing things that most of the population wants, without a formal vote, because if the people don't like the government then they'll just revolt.
You're talking about a country that jails people for discussing democracy. Present tense. Jails. And you're suggesting that the force that will effectively keep the government in check is fear of revolt? I think that is an extremely naive idea.
Here's an example of a recent protest in China. The article calls it a failure, but the fact remains that there was an organized group of people right outside the government office, chanting anti-government slogan. They weren't killed, they weren't sent to prison, nothing. They didn't really accomplish anything, because most Chinese support their government, but they weren't punished at all either.
Here's an example of a recent protest in China. The article calls it a failure, but the fact remains that there was an organized group of people right outside the government office, chanting anti-government slogan. They weren't killed, they weren't sent to prison, nothing. They didn't really accomplish anything, because most Chinese support their government, but they weren't punished at all either.
Yeah? Let's look at the news a day later for those protests.
Who is discussing from a solely western perspective here though? Your arguments are attempting to equivocate the two cultures in some kind of comparison. The arguments presented in opposition so far here are only contesting this.
China is making progress in regards to what's being discussed, but it's very very slow for a lot of reasons. It's ridiculous to apply some sort of cultural relativity here though.
Here's an example of a recent protest in China. The article calls it a failure, but the fact remains that there was an organized group of people right outside the government office, chanting anti-government slogan. They weren't killed, they weren't sent to prison, nothing. They didn't really accomplish anything, because most Chinese support their government, but they weren't punished at all either.
Yeah? Let's look at the news a day later for those protests.
I'd also still like to know what metric it is you're using that doesn't give the US a much higher moral ground than China in regards to human rights.
That's pretty much the same response that the US would have, if you tried to start a protest movement that would overthrow the US government. Should I link the the numerous examples of US protestors being arrested, and having their video cameras destroyed?
I'm not the one who asserted that the US is so obviously on the moral high ground, that was you. If you want to assert that, you'll have to come up with that metric yourself. I have no idea how you could possibly do that, though.
Yay! Cue another discussion where people who don't speak Chinese and have never visited or been to China make statements about how you'll be immediately jailed and sent a to a work camp for causing any kind of civil unrest!
Look, as someone who was born in China, has family and friends in China and visits often I understand that the country is not perfect. However, I seriously question how much outsiders truly know about the country. Yes the government often deals pretty forcefully with protesters but it is certainly not to the extent that you all think. There are a lot of prominent intellectuals who frequently get put under house arrest, but they certainly don't just "disappear" or get sent to work camps or anything like that. In fact last time I was in Beijing I actually saw Ai Wei Wei at a restaurant I was eating at.
The reason that the riots in Xinjiang got violent last time was due to Uyghurs targeting Han Chinese or destroying Han Chinese businesses. Of course the same thing happened in Indonesia in the 90s when Indonesians rioted against the local ethnic Chinese because of animosity that the wealthier Chinese owned the vast majority of the businesses there and were somehow subverting their prosperity. Of course when the same thing happens in China its because the government is entirely evil and they are trying to ethnically cleanse areas to set up Han majorities, completely ignoring the affirmative action laws in China that allow minorities to have more than 1 child.
China is an authoritarian country and the government does censor the internet and films but the country is probably not what you picture. There are actually elections at the town and village level though this seems to not be reported at all in the media. The Chinese both domestically and abroad are also largely approving of the government. Pew Research Institute conducted a study and found that 86% of Chinese supported the government. White people also always seem to be surprised at how the vast, vast majority of overseas Chinese are still very much approving of the government despite living in "free" countries. Hell, my dad lived through the Cultural Revolution and he is still pro-CCP. The Chinese as a society value social stability greatly, especially after what they consider 200 years of humiliation and foreign dominance at the hands of the West and the Japanese. They are generally very proud of the progress their country has made since economic reforms in 1978 and its re-emergence as a great power. If you ask most Chinese about protesters they will probably be quite annoyed at what they view as "troublemakers" rather than activists.
Sorry if what I wrote is a little disjointed, I didn't really have a very organized train of thoughts.
Who is discussing from a solely western perspective here though? Your arguments are attempting to equivocate the two cultures in some kind of comparison. The arguments presented in opposition so far here are only contesting this.
China is making progress in regards to what's being discussed, but it's very very slow for a lot of reasons. It's ridiculous to apply some sort of cultural relativity here though.
Just trying to give people a broader perspective so they won't demonize The Chinese government quite as much. I wouldn't say their equivalent at all, I just don't think that the US government is inherently superior.
Here's an example of a recent protest in China. The article calls it a failure, but the fact remains that there was an organized group of people right outside the government office, chanting anti-government slogan. They weren't killed, they weren't sent to prison, nothing. They didn't really accomplish anything, because most Chinese support their government, but they weren't punished at all either.
Yeah? Let's look at the news a day later for those protests.
I'd also still like to know what metric it is you're using that doesn't give the US a much higher moral ground than China in regards to human rights.
That's pretty much the same response that the US would have, if you tried to start a protest movement that would overthrow the US government. Should I link the the numerous examples of US protestors being arrested, and having their video cameras destroyed?
I'm not the one who asserted that the US is so obviously on the moral high ground, that was you. If you want to assert that, you'll have to come up with that metric yourself. I have no idea how you could possibly do that, though.
No, it isn't. So long as I don't incite violence, I get to talk all I want about overthrowing the US government, without repercussion.
Here's an example of a recent protest in China. The article calls it a failure, but the fact remains that there was an organized group of people right outside the government office, chanting anti-government slogan. They weren't killed, they weren't sent to prison, nothing. They didn't really accomplish anything, because most Chinese support their government, but they weren't punished at all either.
Yeah? Let's look at the news a day later for those protests.
I'd also still like to know what metric it is you're using that doesn't give the US a much higher moral ground than China in regards to human rights.
That's pretty much the same response that the US would have, if you tried to start a protest movement that would overthrow the US government. Should I link the the numerous examples of US protestors being arrested, and having their video cameras destroyed?
I'm not the one who asserted that the US is so obviously on the moral high ground, that was you. If you want to assert that, you'll have to come up with that metric yourself. I have no idea how you could possibly do that, though.
No, it isn't. So long as I don't incite violence, I get to talk all I want about overthrowing the US government, without repercussion.
Well, not entirely true.
Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010:
Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 115 > Section 2384 Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
I guess it depends on how a court would interpret a person's actions and considering the US has a common law system rather than a civil law one it certainly wouldn't be out of the question to jail people for talking about overthrowing the government. I'm not really familiar with any previous precedents but I admit its a bit of a stretch.
Also, I really hope you aren't picturing China as a country where there are secret police and wire taps into people's phone looking to arrest anyone who even utters anything negative about the Chinese government.
Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010:
Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 115 > Section 2384 Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
I guess it depends on how a court would interpret a person's actions and considering the US has a common law system rather than a civil law one it certainly wouldn't be out of the question to jail people for talking about overthrowing the government. I'm not really familiar with any previous precedents but I admit its a bit of a stretch.
Also, I really hope you aren't picturing China as a country where there are secret police and wire taps into people's phone looking to arrest anyone who even utters anything negative about the Chinese government.
As this is actually applied, you are pretty much only going to be convicted if you are involved in a concrete plan to throw bombs through government windows. The US is extremely lax when it comes to anti-government speech, even including advocating violent action.
Now, as a disclaimer, you will get hassled by law enforcement for stuff that isn't illegal, which I don't really have a problem with in some cases. If you talk about how soon will be the coming of a time of bloody revolution, well, I don't mind if the FBI decides to ask a couple questions.
Here's an example of a recent protest in China. The article calls it a failure, but the fact remains that there was an organized group of people right outside the government office, chanting anti-government slogan. They weren't killed, they weren't sent to prison, nothing. They didn't really accomplish anything, because most Chinese support their government, but they weren't punished at all either.
Yeah? Let's look at the news a day later for those protests.
I'd also still like to know what metric it is you're using that doesn't give the US a much higher moral ground than China in regards to human rights.
That's pretty much the same response that the US would have, if you tried to start a protest movement that would overthrow the US government. Should I link the the numerous examples of US protestors being arrested, and having their video cameras destroyed?
I'm not the one who asserted that the US is so obviously on the moral high ground, that was you. If you want to assert that, you'll have to come up with that metric yourself. I have no idea how you could possibly do that, though.
No, it isn't. So long as I don't incite violence, I get to talk all I want about overthrowing the US government, without repercussion.
Well, not entirely true.
Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010:
Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 115 > Section 2384 Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
I guess it depends on how a court would interpret a person's actions and considering the US has a common law system rather than a civil law one it certainly wouldn't be out of the question to jail people for talking about overthrowing the government. I'm not really familiar with any previous precedents but I admit its a bit of a stretch.
Also, I really hope you aren't picturing China as a country where there are secret police and wire taps into people's phone looking to arrest anyone who even utters anything negative about the Chinese government.
You do know that in the United States, right now, there are various militia groups who not only constantly talk about overthrowing the US government, they actively train for the day it happens?
Also, China definitely is a country where there is secret police and wire taps. Man, China doesn't even have uncensored internet.
Oh and something I've always been curious about after watching a documentary on it, what's the opinion within China on the buying and selling of children that goes on?
Who is discussing from a solely western perspective here though? Your arguments are attempting to equivocate the two cultures in some kind of comparison. The arguments presented in opposition so far here are only contesting this.
China is making progress in regards to what's being discussed, but it's very very slow for a lot of reasons. It's ridiculous to apply some sort of cultural relativity here though.
Just trying to give people a broader perspective so they won't demonize The Chinese government quite as much. I wouldn't say their equivalent at all, I just don't think that the US government is inherently superior.
It's not really about being better though. The US, Britain, Canada, etc all grant more individual liberty and freedoms than that of the PRC. It really doesn't seem like an arguable point. This isn't to say that they're perfect, but this is different than better or worse.
I'm not the one who asserted that the US is so obviously on the moral high ground, that was you. If you want to assert that, you'll have to come up with that metric yourself. I have no idea how you could possibly do that, though.
Oh, in addition to not breaking up any protest that goes against the ruling party, we don't exile leaders of religious groups that disagree with the leading party, the government doesn't censor the press in what they can report, it doesn't censor the internet, it doesn't restrict the movement of rural citizens to the cities, doesn't widely abuse psychiatry as an excuse for arresting people, and nowhere nearly as many executions per capita to say nothing of the "unofficial" executions.
I'm not the one who asserted that the US is so obviously on the moral high ground, that was you. If you want to assert that, you'll have to come up with that metric yourself. I have no idea how you could possibly do that, though.
Oh, in addition to not breaking up any protest that goes against the ruling party, we don't exile leaders of religious groups that disagree with the leading party, the government doesn't censor the press in what they can report, it doesn't censor the internet, it doesn't restrict the movement of rural citizens to the cities, doesn't widely abuse psychiatry as an excuse for arresting people, and nowhere nearly as many executions per capita to say nothing of the "unofficial" executions.
True, all of these things are terrible. But let's compare that with the US. With some of these you're exaggerating how much they happen (most protests aren't broken up, and most religious leaders aren't exiled). The one about censoring the press is an interesting comparison- the US government doesn't actively censor the press, but there's clearly close ties between politicians and the media which warps how news is portrayed, most notably FOX news. The US doesn't abuse psyciatry as an excuse for arresting people- it abuses drugs and race instead. Executing people is bad, but the US also executes a rather large number of prisoners, and our incarceration rate is far higher than China's. Then you look at the number of people killed in foreign wars those nations have started, and the US is just off the chart. So it's certainly not clear which government is most evil.
True, all of these things are terrible. But let's compare that with the US. With some of these you're exaggerating how much they happen (most protests aren't broken up, and most religious leaders aren't exiled).
The anti government ones are. That a few slip by or CNN fails to cover the aftermath doesn't make this less true.
The one about censoring the press is an interesting comparison- the US government doesn't actively censor the press, but there's clearly close ties between politicians and the media which warps how news is portrayed, most notably FOX news.
I'm going to have to say being stuck with FOX news is still better than being stuck with absolute government control of the media. Also the absolute zero censorship of the internet and other forms of media that you left out.
The US doesn't abuse psyciatry as an excuse for arresting people- it abuses drugs and race instead.
Are you claiming the government makes up reasons based on race to arrest people? Because I am saying the Chinese government literally makes up reasons using psychiatry to arrest anyone that dissents.
Executing people is bad, but the US also executes a rather large number of prisoners,
A quarter the rate of China.
and our incarceration rate is far higher than China's.
Going by China's official numbers anyway. Though while I agree our imprisonment rate is much worse, the conditions of the prisoners is far better. They aren't forced to work overseas for one.
Then you look at the number of people killed in foreign wars those nations have started, and the US is just off the chart.
Are we still going with events that took place after WWII?
Cause China's got that number quashed.
So it's certainly not clear which government is most evil.
You pointed out a lot of things China's worse about or comparable to America with. It's not really hard to figure out which still has the larger short comparative comings.
Which brings us back to: You do not want them deciding the fates of third world countries. America's bad enough, the addition of an even bigger bully will not improve things.
China is showing a possibly provable model for economic property while also enforcing horribly regressive social policy, in ways that cause no one to revolt. Censorship of the media IS the central issue, it's censorship and laws detailing morality which make the SBC green with envy they can't have the same here. The populace largely believes it's a good thing. I do not see ANY good for allowing a country to prove that it can be successful doing this long term.
China jailing dissidents is one thing, and it's something we've seen governments do since time eternal. What's entirely new is for a first world nation to have enforced such harsh laws dictating morality from any kind of first world nation. That's the scary part, because guess what happens when the rest of the world learns to demagogue that well? It won't be pretty for almost anyone.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Also, China definitely is a country where there is secret police and wire taps. Man, China doesn't even have uncensored internet.
Well I don't understand how you can definitively say that unless you are all knowing. I wasn't trying to say that the government doesn't censor media and the internet or try and prevent civil unrest but more that you're not going to be suddenly grabbed off the street or out of your home just because you said something bad about the government. Which is something that I suspect a lot of people think happens all the time in China.
Oh, in addition to not breaking up any protest that goes against the ruling party, we don't exile leaders of religious groups that disagree with the leading party, the government doesn't censor the press in what they can report, it doesn't censor the internet, it doesn't restrict the movement of rural citizens to the cities, doesn't widely abuse psychiatry as an excuse for arresting people, and nowhere nearly as many executions per capita to say nothing of the "unofficial" executions.
To be fair, most Chinese are not particularly fond of the Dalai Lama and pretty much think the Falun Gong are a bunch of crazies. Not that I am necessarily saying its right to them out of the country. And it is not like religion is completely illegal as many people seem to believe. My cousin and her family are Christians and they go to church every week. They live in Taizhou, Zhejiang so its not like they go to the one showpiece church in the country that the government has set up or something.
Also the rural to city thing is just more a thing of logistics. There is a permit system for being able to live in some of the big cities but I would say it is pretty necessary in a country with 1.3 billion people. It is not like it has stopped urban populations to swell. The government just can't handle that big a migration of people nor does it want a bunch of slums springing up in the cities like you find in places like Lagos, Nigeria.
but more that you're not going to be suddenly grabbed off the street or out of your home just because you said something bad about the government. Which is something that I suspect a lot of people think happens all the time in China.
If you could point out posters here that think this, that would be nice.
To be fair, most Chinese are not particularly fond of the Dalai Lama and pretty much think the Falun Gong are a bunch of crazies. Not that I am necessarily saying its right to them out of the country.
Then why even bring it up? The fact that the average Chinese person doesn't like them is immaterial.
Also the rural to city thing is just more a thing of logistics. There is a permit system for being able to live in some of the big cities but I would say it is pretty necessary in a country with 1.3 billion people. It is not like it has stopped urban populations to swell. The government just can't handle that big a migration of people nor does it want a bunch of slums springing up in the cities like you find in places like Lagos, Nigeria.
Right, they want the poor out of sight and out of mind.
but more that you're not going to be suddenly grabbed off the street or out of your home just because you said something bad about the government. Which is something that I suspect a lot of people think happens all the time in China.
If you could point out posters here that think this, that would be nice.
Right now all that really happens is that every time some protests flair up people will get detained and some prominent figures get put under house arrest. Its really more of a belligerent dictatorship than some of you are making it out to be with posts like:
You're talking about a country that jails people for discussing democracy.
At least if you don't want to actually go to prison and do hard labor for daring to suggest the government needs to be removed.
Also the rural to city thing is just more a thing of logistics. There is a permit system for being able to live in some of the big cities but I would say it is pretty necessary in a country with 1.3 billion people. It is not like it has stopped urban populations to swell. The government just can't handle that big a migration of people nor does it want a bunch of slums springing up in the cities like you find in places like Lagos, Nigeria.
Right, they want the poor out of sight and out of mind.
/facepalm Yeah cause its totally good to have unsafe and unsanitary shantytowns springing up once people come to Shanghai and realize they can't afford the 180 000 Renminbi a square metre housing prices. I wouldn't say this is an overly oppressive policy. Its like how many municipalities make it illegal to sleep in public places or in your car. The logistics are also just different when dealing with a country of this size. Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Nanjing etc. all these cities can barely handle the influx of migrants they are receiving now. Its not like the permit system has prevented a bunch of migrant workers from legally moving to the cities anyway.
You also need a specific permit in addition to a drivers license to be able to own a car also. Its not cause the government wants to oppress the working class or anything. The government needed a way to curb the amount of new vehicles getting on to the road because traffic is a nightmare in the large cities. Their solution was to set a quota on permits which you have to purchase.
China is showing a possibly provable model for economic property while also enforcing horribly regressive social policy, in ways that cause no one to revolt. Censorship of the media IS the central issue, it's censorship and laws detailing morality which make the SBC green with envy they can't have the same here. The populace largely believes it's a good thing. I do not see ANY good for allowing a country to prove that it can be successful doing this long term.
China jailing dissidents is one thing, and it's something we've seen governments do since time eternal. What's entirely new is for a first world nation to have enforced such harsh laws dictating morality from any kind of first world nation. That's the scary part, because guess what happens when the rest of the world learns to demagogue that well? It won't be pretty for almost anyone.
Ah, its statements like this that make me so frustrated sometimes. China post-Tiananmen is much better than it was before and China post-1978 and Deng Xiaoping's reform is much better than it was under Mao. China is gradually moving towards a more and more liberal society. But the key is gradually. The Chinese have put economic development ahead of everything else in importance and the government is afraid that political instability will interfere with this. You have to understand that the Chinese as a people are very collectivist in nature and perhaps do not value the welfare of an individual as much as Westerners would. A small example is the Chinese way of writing an address on a letter which would usually go PRC, Province, City. To them the larger entity is the most important.
They are however also a culture that is very meritocratic. In ancient China anyone could be a government official as long as they could pass the imperial examinations regardless of social status and wealth. Right now the CCP is full of a lot of technocrats, relatively pragmatic in its dealings and has largely delivered on its promise of greater economic prosperity so in general people support the government. Its not an inherent thing that the populace will just be subservient to an authoritarian regime.
As I've said in a previous post there are in fact direct elections at the village level and once the hardliners and current generation of leadership gets replaced with people who were all born post-Cultural Revolution you will continue to see more and more liberalization. China will become a democracy it will just take time. South Korea and Taiwan were also hugely corrupt and authoritarian during their economic booms but now are democratic countries. China will undergo the same route eventually.
I feel like China gets a lot more flak than it deserves because of all the media attention. I would rather live in China that the majority of the other countries in the world. You don't see as much criticism of countries that are much worse like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait. Hell, even Singapore is hugely authoritarian but nobody bitches about them all the time.
I would honestly suggest that some of you guys visit China should you ever get the chance. It will give you a different perspective on the country.
From the African bush to Indonesia's shores, the number of wars worldwide has dropped to a new low, peace researchers report. But the face of conflict is changing, they say, and free-for-all violence in such places as Congo can defy definitions.
Yes, there are fewer wars by the strict definition of the term, but that doesn't mean that fewer armed conflicts are happening or that fewer people are dying in them.
You have to understand that the Chinese as a people are very collectivist in nature and perhaps do not value the welfare as much as an individual as much as Westerners would. A small example is the Chinese way of writing an address on a letter which would usually go PRC, Province, City. To them the larger entity is the most important.
Why must we accept collectivism? If you're going to posit this as a talking point, could you elaborate on what you believe are the benefits of such a society in comparison to the individualistic nature of western society? Again, I don't think better or worse applies to something like this, and it's somewhat beside the point. It's an important aspect to how cultures are shaped but in overall terms regarding how governments treat citizenry(ethically) it's kind of an aside.
You don't see as much criticism of countries that are much worse like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait. Hell, even Singapore is hugely authoritarian but nobody bitches about them all the time.
Saudi Arabia gets plenty of attention for the oppressive aspects of its culture. Other places don't get as much attention as China because they are not as significant in various aspects. The bigger you are(so to speak) the more scrutiny you enjoy.
You have to understand that the Chinese as a people are very collectivist in nature and perhaps do not value the welfare as much as an individual as much as Westerners would. A small example is the Chinese way of writing an address on a letter which would usually go PRC, Province, City. To them the larger entity is the most important.
Why must we accept collectivism? If you're going to posit this as a talking point, could you elaborate on what you believe are the benefits of such a society in comparison to the individualistic nature of western society?
Its not that you have to accept collectivism its more I am trying to explain why Chinese society doesn't have the same values as Western society does and why the average Chinese person generally doesn't think there is as huge a problem with their government as the average American person does. It is definitely an intrinsic American/Western belief that all people around the world strive for a democracy but that desire is perhaps a bit more muted among the Chinese.
In terms of the benefits of collectivism I would say it along with Confucian principles leads to the stronger family bonds among Chinese and other East Asians than perhaps Westerners. To the Chinese taking care of your parents is one of the most important things and an absolutely necessary duty. You see a lot of Chinese living with or very close to their parents as working adults. There are probably other things but it is late and I am too tired to think of them. There are obviously also downsides in comparison to a more individualistic nature.
EDIT:
It's an important aspect to how cultures are shaped but in overall terms regarding how governments treat citizenry(ethically) it's kind of an aside.
Its actually relevant because it shows you why the Chinese government will sometimes disregard the complaints of a few for what they perceive to be the overall "greater good." Like when they have to relocate citizens and tear down old houses to make way for a new highway or a highrise condo. Or why a Chinese person might not be as outraged at the rights of a single person being infringed upon as a Brit or an American would. Of course that's not to say they would totally stand for the government just stepping all over people but they would probably tend to overlook smaller grievances without as much sympathy.
You don't see as much criticism of countries that are much worse like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait. Hell, even Singapore is hugely authoritarian but nobody bitches about them all the time.
Saudi Arabia gets plenty of attention for the oppressive aspects of its culture. Other places don't get as much attention as China because they are not as significant in various aspects. The bigger you are(so to speak) the more scrutiny you enjoy.
Saudi Arabia is perhaps one of the more high profile ones but it definitely doesn't get brought up as much as China/Tibet. I just think that China seems to get talked about as if it was as oppressive as these countries when it is more socially liberal and actually showing noticeable signs of progress whereas the situation in many places is just stagnant. I would much, much rather live in Shanghai or Nanjing than Riyadh or Jeddah.
The more and more I read about this, the more I think the use of the term "Soviet-era" is primarily an attempt to keep nervous people from freaking out and spilling their lattes.
As oppose to "Soviet-manufactured" or "Russian-manufactured" or something similar. You know those awesome, super expensive blue ocean carriers that the United States has 10 of? The first one was started in 1968 and commissioned in 1975. Aircraft carriers last a really long fucking time. The earliest of the class of aircraft carrier China purchased, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was commissioned in 1991. You know, recently. The "Soviet era" ended in the winter of 1991, which is still somewhat recent in the scope of military design, development, and warship lifetimes. Would it be nice for the Chinese if it wasn't as old? Yes, probably. But that's not what people should be harping on, if they are.
If people are worried about this carrier, they shouldn't be using its age as some sort of soothing balm. Use the fact that China only has one, or that it's small compared to the Nimitz-class, or the fact that China isn't spending a good half of the entire world's military expenditures (unlike, say, the United States). Those should be enough to allay those same fears, I think. On the other hand, while it's tiny compared to contemporary supercarriers, the actual Admiral Kuznetsov is armed to the teeth, and basically a missile cruiser that happens to carry a small number of jet aircraft. I have no idea if the Chinese would pursue a similar design, but, as it happens, the west has no specific analog--which is not to say it would be much of a match for ten gigantic carriers even if they aren't packed with their own ship-launched missiles.
Of course, the United States started out with one carrier too--more than seventy years ago. You literally have to start with one ship--unless you happen to build two simultaneously, which still leaves you with a tiny number compared to the existing naval powers, who use aircraft carriers to celebrate their awesomeness or find their lost house keys.
Ah, its statements like this that make me so frustrated sometimes. China post-Tiananmen is much better than it was before and China post-1978 and Deng Xiaoping's reform is much better than it was under Mao. China is gradually moving towards a more and more liberal society. But the key is gradually. The Chinese have put economic development ahead of everything else in importance and the government is afraid that political instability will interfere with this. You have to understand that the Chinese as a people are very collectivist in nature and perhaps do not value the welfare of an individual as much as Westerners would. A small example is the Chinese way of writing an address on a letter which would usually go PRC, Province, City. To them the larger entity is the most important.
Why is collectivism at the expense of the individual in any way a good thing? Especially when every other nation on earth can do the same things without this kind of individual suppression of urges?
They are however also a culture that is very meritocratic. In ancient China anyone could be a government official as long as they could pass the imperial examinations regardless of social status and wealth. Right now the CCP is full of a lot of technocrats, relatively pragmatic in its dealings and has largely delivered on its promise of greater economic prosperity so in general people support the government. Its not an inherent thing that the populace will just be subservient to an authoritarian regime.
I used to actually have random conversations with people in China. Admittedly not as much in the last several years but I used to always ask them why they would support what the government did and they all repeated the same lines about believing the Government knows what's best to prevent social unrest and maintain a stable society.
You hear the same crap in the USA from people advocating we should jail gays. It is particularly disturbing not because of China's socio-political status. It's because those same people in the U.S.A. are watching and taking lessons from the Chinese on how they keep the people buying lines that American citizens won't swallow. Eventually they're going to be just as good at it as the Chinese, and then we can say bye bye to the last forty years of social progress. THAT is what particularly troubles me about China. If they don't liberalize within a relatively short time span the same demagogues over here and in other places abroad are going to learn exactly how the Chinese government fought such things successfully, without the rest of the world intervening (or their own people), and they WILL implement them.
As I've said in a previous post there are in fact direct elections at the village level and once the hardliners and current generation of leadership gets replaced with people who were all born post-Cultural Revolution you will continue to see more and more liberalization. China will become a democracy it will just take time. South Korea and Taiwan were also hugely corrupt and authoritarian during their economic booms but now are democratic countries. China will undergo the same route eventually.
I truly hope so, because if anything I'd read lately about crackdowns getting much harsher. Also, village level elections aren't always a good in it of itself. Tribalism can be a powerful force to stymie social progress. Also, I'm talking about attitudes towards things like sexuality and gender acceptance. Obviously the USA is still far lagging behind Europe in this regard but China, modern China, is a juggernaut economically without having to have those same social institutions or recognitions as any other first world nation does. The fact is that Taiwan and Korea aren't quite like that today at all, when they were authoritarian we were also pretty heavy handed about bashing us some gays and such. But today, when we fight tooth and nail to try and bring ourselves out of the muck and act more like sensible, accepting, kind human beings towards our fellow man the forces of Social conservatism are clawing tooth and nail at every way they can to utterly destroy such progress.
I feel like China gets a lot more flak than it deserves because of all the media attention. I would rather live in China that the majority of the other countries in the world. You don't see as much criticism of countries that are much worse like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait. Hell, even Singapore is hugely authoritarian but nobody bitches about them all the time.
I would honestly suggest that some of you guys visit China should you ever get the chance. It will give you a different perspective on the country.
The Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia is a problem however the real issue I see here is that those countries do not have the technological savvy of China. It's entire population is embracing technology, science and all forms of advancement EXCEPT for social advancement. That's wherein the danger lies. It used to be thought that if you educated people they would naturally trend towards more liberal, accepting and open societies and China is proving that does not have to be the case. In fact they may eventually prove the opposite can be true. That's why the censorship, media control and all other things is really particularly worrisome.
If they can prove it, Social conservatives around the world will rejoice as they throw us back into the dark ages and we all go along with it because we get our bang for our buck. I don't know who wouldn't be scared of that possibility.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Why is collectivism at the expense of the individual in any way a good thing? Especially when every other nation on earth can do the same things without this kind of individual suppression of urges?
Again not trying to argue the merits of either one just the different values of the societies. Its also not like collectivism is objectively worse than individualism. The Japanese are still very much an "Eastern" country in the sense that they are more collectivist and Confucian despite having Western style institutions and government and I wouldn't say that it has hindered their progress as a nation.
They are however also a culture that is very meritocratic. In ancient China anyone could be a government official as long as they could pass the imperial examinations regardless of social status and wealth. Right now the CCP is full of a lot of technocrats, relatively pragmatic in its dealings and has largely delivered on its promise of greater economic prosperity so in general people support the government. Its not an inherent thing that the populace will just be subservient to an authoritarian regime.
I used to actually have random conversations with people in China. Admittedly not as much in the last several years but I used to always ask them why they would support what the government did and they all repeated the same lines about believing the Government knows what's best to prevent social unrest and maintain a stable society.
You hear the same crap in the USA from people advocating we should jail gays. It is particularly disturbing not because of China's socio-political status. It's because those same people in the U.S.A. are watching and taking lessons from the Chinese on how they keep the people buying lines that American citizens won't swallow. Eventually they're going to be just as good at it as the Chinese, and then we can say bye bye to the last forty years of social progress. THAT is what particularly troubles me about China. If they don't liberalize within a relatively short time span the same demagogues over here and in other places abroad are going to learn exactly how the Chinese government fought such things successfully, without the rest of the world intervening (or their own people), and they WILL implement them.
I don't think that will happen because Chinese society is unique in the values they have as I previously mentioned about being collectivist and meritocratic. Its also not that they are okay with just having an authoritarian government. More so that they will put up with it as long as everyone's standard of living keeps on improving and the government doesn't intrude hugely into the average person's life.
I really doubt that any of the kind of people in the US you are talking about would ever be able to seize power. The US political system and democratic values are much too entrenched in American society for such a fringe group of people to change the system.
As I've said in a previous post there are in fact direct elections at the village level and once the hardliners and current generation of leadership gets replaced with people who were all born post-Cultural Revolution you will continue to see more and more liberalization. China will become a democracy it will just take time. South Korea and Taiwan were also hugely corrupt and authoritarian during their economic booms but now are democratic countries. China will undergo the same route eventually.
I truly hope so, because if anything I'd read lately about crackdowns getting much harsher. Also, village level elections aren't always a good in it of itself. Tribalism can be a powerful force to stymie social progress. Also, I'm talking about attitudes towards things like sexuality and gender acceptance. Obviously the USA is still far lagging behind Europe in this regard but China, modern China, is a juggernaut economically without having to have those same social institutions or recognitions as any other first world nation does. The fact is that Taiwan and Korea aren't quite like that today at all, when they were authoritarian we were also pretty heavy handed about bashing us some gays and such. But today, when we fight tooth and nail to try and bring ourselves out of the muck and act more like sensible, accepting, kind human beings towards our fellow man the forces of Social conservatism are clawing tooth and nail at every way they can to utterly destroy such progress.
I don't think you'd have to worry about tribalism, China is pretty ethnically homogeneous and people don't have the same tribal mentality that you would find in some African or Middle Eastern countries. The elections are just for local councils which deal with disputes between residents and other local issues.
China is still a very poor country in general. The aggregate size of its economy is huge but it has a massive population living in poverty. It is very behind both Korea and Taiwan in terms of average standard of living and views on homosexuality and gender roles in Korea and Taiwan are also not modern in comparison to Canada or the US. South Koreans are known to be very chauvinistic in their views on gender roles and Asian countries in general still aren't very accepting of homosexuality.
I feel like China gets a lot more flak than it deserves because of all the media attention. I would rather live in China that the majority of the other countries in the world. You don't see as much criticism of countries that are much worse like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait. Hell, even Singapore is hugely authoritarian but nobody bitches about them all the time.
I would honestly suggest that some of you guys visit China should you ever get the chance. It will give you a different perspective on the country.
The Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia is a problem however the real issue I see here is that those countries do not have the technological savvy of China. It's entire population is embracing technology, science and all forms of advancement EXCEPT for social advancement. That's wherein the danger lies. It used to be thought that if you educated people they would naturally trend towards more liberal, accepting and open societies and China is proving that does not have to be the case. In fact they may eventually prove the opposite can be true. That's why the censorship, media control and all other things is really particularly worrisome.
If they can prove it, Social conservatives around the world will rejoice as they throw us back into the dark ages and we all go along with it because we get our bang for our buck. I don't know who wouldn't be scared of that possibility.
I'm not sure if I really agree with this because I feel like the younger generation is definitely more socially progressive and liberal than the older generation. If you watch any mainland Chinese dramas or television, topics like sex are being talked about more openly and even things like homosexuality are being joked about. There are also increasing amounts of collaboration with Taiwan and Hong Kong as well as huge popularity of South Korean film and TV shows. Its all exposing Chinese society to more open social views than it was before. Of course there are still a lot of mainland produced Chinese films that get banned or edited for domestic screening. However, I think its ridiculous to argue that China now hasn't advanced socially compared to China of the 80s or 90s. Heck, Shanghai even has an annual week long gay pride festival though they do not have an actual parade because the authorities weren't too keen on that.
Also I think you are perhaps overestimating how developed China is. Yes, there is a large group of super rich Chinese, the urban population is relatively well off but they are generally still worse off than the American middle class and there is a huge rural population (we're talking something like several hundred million people) that don't have laptops or internet connections.
I think the best way with reassuring you that China will one day be democratic is their stewardship of Hong Kong and Macau. There were a lot of fears leading up to the handover that the PRC would come in and suppress social freedoms in Hong Kong, but they have left it mainly alone by giving it SAR status and promising not to interfere with it for 50 years. There are large yearly demonstrations to remember the Tiananmen massacres in Hong Kong as well as open protests against the government.
I think the CCP is pretty pragmatic and they will move China more and more towards a democratic society as the economic situation continues to improve. Their greatest fear is that mainland China is too poor, too underdeveloped and too uneducated to move too suddenly towards social and democratic liberalization. The greatest challenge facing the central government is not becoming a democracy but fighting against serious internal corruption, growing inequality between the richer coastal provinces and the poorer Chinese interior and environmental degradation.
arcticmonkeysfan on
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
Everyone seems believe that the US is somehow hugely morally superior to China, and I find it hard to deal with that kind of bias.
And I find calling that bias is laughable. I mean seriously. I know being jaded about America is the norm around here but last I checked marching against the government's policies doesn't win me free hands on job training in the mining industry.
If you march in the wrong place without permission, and stir up enough trouble, you'll get sent to prison where you'll be doing hard labor and not getting paid. We have a higher proportion of our population in prison than China does. That's not being jaded, that's just the truth.
not that I have any kind of facts to back me here but I wonder what would happen if you removed all the drug, sex, and violence related prisoners out of the equation and left only protestors, non-conformist news media journalists, bloggers, and public dissenters? Would those prisoner/population proportions flip in one way or the other?
Its not that you have to accept collectivism its more I am trying to explain why Chinese society doesn't have the same values as Western society does and why the average Chinese person generally doesn't think there is as huge a problem with their government as the average American person does. It is definitely an intrinsic American/Western belief that all people around the world strive for a democracy but that desire is perhaps a bit more muted among the Chinese.
Its not that you have to accept collectivism its more I am trying to explain why Chinese society doesn't have the same values as Western society does and why the average Chinese person generally doesn't think there is as huge a problem with their government as the average American person does. It is definitely an intrinsic American/Western belief that all people around the world strive for a democracy but that desire is perhaps a bit more muted among the Chinese.
bad words under spoiler (1006 to be exact):
Again a study by Pew Research Institute found that 86% of Chinese citizens were pro-government. If you talk to any Chinese living abroad the vast majority of them will also be pro-China. The Chinese don't think that their government is perfect but they are content with the status quo as long as the standard of living continues to improve. They don't care as much about the fact that their country isn't totally "free" at the moment. The Chinese as a people are more about pragmatism, meritocracy and collectivism so they don't value the same ideals as Westerners do.
If you were to talk to my parents, they'd tell you that they think democracy is inefficient and joke about how long it takes government over here to make a decision on starting new infrastructure projects. Whereas in China the government is frantically putting up new metro systems, new highways, new bridges and tunnels and all sorts of other infrastructure at breakneck speed. They point to how India is a democracy and things take much longer to get done in China or how their government has like 37 parties. Many, many other Chinese living abroad will share this same view even though they live in democratic countries.
Posts
Well you all seem to think it's obvious that the US government has a much higher moral ground than the Chinese government. Nobody has offered a shred of evidence for that stance of course. You seem to think that it's better for the US to have unquestioned hegomony over the world- I would only support that if the US had a spotless record. Since it doesn't, and (arguably) seems to be getting worse, I would rather have it share power with another country, even if that other country is also severely flawed.
Looking at the progress that China has made in the past 30 years... yes, I'd say it has actually gone pretty well for them. When you consider that at the end of WW2 they were poorer and more oppressed than sub-saharan Africa, it's quite remarkable that they've come this far this fast.
Hey there's a couple things and that was just me.
Nope! You keep making assumptions based on nothing beyond not agreeing with you. The world is not black and white. That I don't want what you do doesn't mean I want the opposite.
And thus doom the rest of the world to suffering and the suspense of another, horrific war? No thanks. I prefer the option where a government that isn't horrible checks America's power.
I was referring to the fact that any time the people didn't like what the government was doing and just revolted against it it resulted in a horrible, bloody mess.
But you're right, the government's doing just fine since it crushes any and all opposition within their borders. What a great system.
You know most of the Chinese are still in the most desperate poverty right? And that's just in Han China. Tibet is undergoing borderline ethnic cleansing.
Oh, my mistake. Apparently what you're hoping for is the fantasy scenario where a country that doesn't actually exist will manage world affairs. I'm only discussing scenario's that are likely to actually happen, here. The EU, for example, has shown zero interest in seriously opposing US foreign policy, and they've got plenty of problems of their own.
That's really not an accurate portrayal of modern China, at all. They've changed a lot since the 80's.
Compare where they are now to where they were 30 years ago- the government is making a massive effort to lift its people out of poverty, and they've made a lot of progress. In the US, our government doesn't give a fuck about helping the average poor person, and instead prefers to shovel more money at the richest corporations.
Correct. So given an ideal can't be achieved I'd prefer having just the US rather than another cold war between the US and China which if it's anything like the last one would lead to far, far more wars in other countries as has been pointed out.
Yeah? When was the last anti government protest? How did that go?
So as long as the money comes in human rights are fungible?
HTC is a great example. They've been making phones for years, and now with everyone talking about Android, they're rapidly becoming the major player in the mobile phone market. Nokia, a company from a `morally correct' western nation, are dying in the arse and its unlikely that they'll be able to compete; I think they are going to become the first high profile high-tech casualty of this shift.
Western brand value will continue to be undermined, and companies like Honda, Hyundai and so on have set a good Asian standard for Chinese companies to follow in the future. You will buy more product that is not only produced in China, but is designed in China, and with royalties/surcharges that ultimately end up in China.
Maintaining control of intellectual properties, and supporting their value to customers, is going to be the big challenge for the West if it wants to maintain its current powerbase. The rest of the world don't care if their brand `tribute' goes to the US or not, as long as they have cool shit.
You're talking about a country that jails people for discussing democracy. Present tense. Jails. And you're suggesting that the force that will effectively keep the government in check is fear of revolt? I think that is an extremely naive idea.
--LeVar Burton
I would also highly recommend this talk, on the falacy of trying to view China entirely through a western perspective.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang/eng//id/1059
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2052860,00.html
People arrested, any information vaguely related to the protests locked down, and footage recorded by journalists forcibly destroyed. What an excellent protest that was.
I'd also still like to know what metric it is you're using that doesn't give the US a much higher moral ground than China in regards to human rights.
Who is discussing from a solely western perspective here though? Your arguments are attempting to equivocate the two cultures in some kind of comparison. The arguments presented in opposition so far here are only contesting this.
China is making progress in regards to what's being discussed, but it's very very slow for a lot of reasons. It's ridiculous to apply some sort of cultural relativity here though.
I'm not the one who asserted that the US is so obviously on the moral high ground, that was you. If you want to assert that, you'll have to come up with that metric yourself. I have no idea how you could possibly do that, though.
Look, as someone who was born in China, has family and friends in China and visits often I understand that the country is not perfect. However, I seriously question how much outsiders truly know about the country. Yes the government often deals pretty forcefully with protesters but it is certainly not to the extent that you all think. There are a lot of prominent intellectuals who frequently get put under house arrest, but they certainly don't just "disappear" or get sent to work camps or anything like that. In fact last time I was in Beijing I actually saw Ai Wei Wei at a restaurant I was eating at.
The reason that the riots in Xinjiang got violent last time was due to Uyghurs targeting Han Chinese or destroying Han Chinese businesses. Of course the same thing happened in Indonesia in the 90s when Indonesians rioted against the local ethnic Chinese because of animosity that the wealthier Chinese owned the vast majority of the businesses there and were somehow subverting their prosperity. Of course when the same thing happens in China its because the government is entirely evil and they are trying to ethnically cleanse areas to set up Han majorities, completely ignoring the affirmative action laws in China that allow minorities to have more than 1 child.
China is an authoritarian country and the government does censor the internet and films but the country is probably not what you picture. There are actually elections at the town and village level though this seems to not be reported at all in the media. The Chinese both domestically and abroad are also largely approving of the government. Pew Research Institute conducted a study and found that 86% of Chinese supported the government. White people also always seem to be surprised at how the vast, vast majority of overseas Chinese are still very much approving of the government despite living in "free" countries. Hell, my dad lived through the Cultural Revolution and he is still pro-CCP. The Chinese as a society value social stability greatly, especially after what they consider 200 years of humiliation and foreign dominance at the hands of the West and the Japanese. They are generally very proud of the progress their country has made since economic reforms in 1978 and its re-emergence as a great power. If you ask most Chinese about protesters they will probably be quite annoyed at what they view as "troublemakers" rather than activists.
Sorry if what I wrote is a little disjointed, I didn't really have a very organized train of thoughts.
Just trying to give people a broader perspective so they won't demonize The Chinese government quite as much. I wouldn't say their equivalent at all, I just don't think that the US government is inherently superior.
No, it isn't. So long as I don't incite violence, I get to talk all I want about overthrowing the US government, without repercussion.
--LeVar Burton
Well, not entirely true.
Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010:
Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 115 > Section 2384 Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
I guess it depends on how a court would interpret a person's actions and considering the US has a common law system rather than a civil law one it certainly wouldn't be out of the question to jail people for talking about overthrowing the government. I'm not really familiar with any previous precedents but I admit its a bit of a stretch.
Also, I really hope you aren't picturing China as a country where there are secret police and wire taps into people's phone looking to arrest anyone who even utters anything negative about the Chinese government.
Hell, there are entire organizations dedicated to secession from government rule who operate openly and freely.
As this is actually applied, you are pretty much only going to be convicted if you are involved in a concrete plan to throw bombs through government windows. The US is extremely lax when it comes to anti-government speech, even including advocating violent action.
Now, as a disclaimer, you will get hassled by law enforcement for stuff that isn't illegal, which I don't really have a problem with in some cases. If you talk about how soon will be the coming of a time of bloody revolution, well, I don't mind if the FBI decides to ask a couple questions.
You do know that in the United States, right now, there are various militia groups who not only constantly talk about overthrowing the US government, they actively train for the day it happens?
Also, China definitely is a country where there is secret police and wire taps. Man, China doesn't even have uncensored internet.
Oh and something I've always been curious about after watching a documentary on it, what's the opinion within China on the buying and selling of children that goes on?
Oh, in addition to not breaking up any protest that goes against the ruling party, we don't exile leaders of religious groups that disagree with the leading party, the government doesn't censor the press in what they can report, it doesn't censor the internet, it doesn't restrict the movement of rural citizens to the cities, doesn't widely abuse psychiatry as an excuse for arresting people, and nowhere nearly as many executions per capita to say nothing of the "unofficial" executions.
True, all of these things are terrible. But let's compare that with the US. With some of these you're exaggerating how much they happen (most protests aren't broken up, and most religious leaders aren't exiled). The one about censoring the press is an interesting comparison- the US government doesn't actively censor the press, but there's clearly close ties between politicians and the media which warps how news is portrayed, most notably FOX news. The US doesn't abuse psyciatry as an excuse for arresting people- it abuses drugs and race instead. Executing people is bad, but the US also executes a rather large number of prisoners, and our incarceration rate is far higher than China's. Then you look at the number of people killed in foreign wars those nations have started, and the US is just off the chart. So it's certainly not clear which government is most evil.
I'm going to have to say being stuck with FOX news is still better than being stuck with absolute government control of the media. Also the absolute zero censorship of the internet and other forms of media that you left out.
Are you claiming the government makes up reasons based on race to arrest people? Because I am saying the Chinese government literally makes up reasons using psychiatry to arrest anyone that dissents.
A quarter the rate of China.
Going by China's official numbers anyway. Though while I agree our imprisonment rate is much worse, the conditions of the prisoners is far better. They aren't forced to work overseas for one.
Are we still going with events that took place after WWII?
Cause China's got that number quashed.
You pointed out a lot of things China's worse about or comparable to America with. It's not really hard to figure out which still has the larger short comparative comings.
Which brings us back to: You do not want them deciding the fates of third world countries. America's bad enough, the addition of an even bigger bully will not improve things.
China jailing dissidents is one thing, and it's something we've seen governments do since time eternal. What's entirely new is for a first world nation to have enforced such harsh laws dictating morality from any kind of first world nation. That's the scary part, because guess what happens when the rest of the world learns to demagogue that well? It won't be pretty for almost anyone.
Well I don't understand how you can definitively say that unless you are all knowing. I wasn't trying to say that the government doesn't censor media and the internet or try and prevent civil unrest but more that you're not going to be suddenly grabbed off the street or out of your home just because you said something bad about the government. Which is something that I suspect a lot of people think happens all the time in China.
To be fair, most Chinese are not particularly fond of the Dalai Lama and pretty much think the Falun Gong are a bunch of crazies. Not that I am necessarily saying its right to them out of the country. And it is not like religion is completely illegal as many people seem to believe. My cousin and her family are Christians and they go to church every week. They live in Taizhou, Zhejiang so its not like they go to the one showpiece church in the country that the government has set up or something.
Also the rural to city thing is just more a thing of logistics. There is a permit system for being able to live in some of the big cities but I would say it is pretty necessary in a country with 1.3 billion people. It is not like it has stopped urban populations to swell. The government just can't handle that big a migration of people nor does it want a bunch of slums springing up in the cities like you find in places like Lagos, Nigeria.
Right, they want the poor out of sight and out of mind.
Right now all that really happens is that every time some protests flair up people will get detained and some prominent figures get put under house arrest. Its really more of a belligerent dictatorship than some of you are making it out to be with posts like:
/facepalm Yeah cause its totally good to have unsafe and unsanitary shantytowns springing up once people come to Shanghai and realize they can't afford the 180 000 Renminbi a square metre housing prices. I wouldn't say this is an overly oppressive policy. Its like how many municipalities make it illegal to sleep in public places or in your car. The logistics are also just different when dealing with a country of this size. Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Nanjing etc. all these cities can barely handle the influx of migrants they are receiving now. Its not like the permit system has prevented a bunch of migrant workers from legally moving to the cities anyway.
You also need a specific permit in addition to a drivers license to be able to own a car also. Its not cause the government wants to oppress the working class or anything. The government needed a way to curb the amount of new vehicles getting on to the road because traffic is a nightmare in the large cities. Their solution was to set a quota on permits which you have to purchase.
Ah, its statements like this that make me so frustrated sometimes. China post-Tiananmen is much better than it was before and China post-1978 and Deng Xiaoping's reform is much better than it was under Mao. China is gradually moving towards a more and more liberal society. But the key is gradually. The Chinese have put economic development ahead of everything else in importance and the government is afraid that political instability will interfere with this. You have to understand that the Chinese as a people are very collectivist in nature and perhaps do not value the welfare of an individual as much as Westerners would. A small example is the Chinese way of writing an address on a letter which would usually go PRC, Province, City. To them the larger entity is the most important.
They are however also a culture that is very meritocratic. In ancient China anyone could be a government official as long as they could pass the imperial examinations regardless of social status and wealth. Right now the CCP is full of a lot of technocrats, relatively pragmatic in its dealings and has largely delivered on its promise of greater economic prosperity so in general people support the government. Its not an inherent thing that the populace will just be subservient to an authoritarian regime.
As I've said in a previous post there are in fact direct elections at the village level and once the hardliners and current generation of leadership gets replaced with people who were all born post-Cultural Revolution you will continue to see more and more liberalization. China will become a democracy it will just take time. South Korea and Taiwan were also hugely corrupt and authoritarian during their economic booms but now are democratic countries. China will undergo the same route eventually.
I feel like China gets a lot more flak than it deserves because of all the media attention. I would rather live in China that the majority of the other countries in the world. You don't see as much criticism of countries that are much worse like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait. Hell, even Singapore is hugely authoritarian but nobody bitches about them all the time.
I would honestly suggest that some of you guys visit China should you ever get the chance. It will give you a different perspective on the country.
Yes, there are fewer wars by the strict definition of the term, but that doesn't mean that fewer armed conflicts are happening or that fewer people are dying in them.
Its not that you have to accept collectivism its more I am trying to explain why Chinese society doesn't have the same values as Western society does and why the average Chinese person generally doesn't think there is as huge a problem with their government as the average American person does. It is definitely an intrinsic American/Western belief that all people around the world strive for a democracy but that desire is perhaps a bit more muted among the Chinese.
In terms of the benefits of collectivism I would say it along with Confucian principles leads to the stronger family bonds among Chinese and other East Asians than perhaps Westerners. To the Chinese taking care of your parents is one of the most important things and an absolutely necessary duty. You see a lot of Chinese living with or very close to their parents as working adults. There are probably other things but it is late and I am too tired to think of them. There are obviously also downsides in comparison to a more individualistic nature.
EDIT:
Its actually relevant because it shows you why the Chinese government will sometimes disregard the complaints of a few for what they perceive to be the overall "greater good." Like when they have to relocate citizens and tear down old houses to make way for a new highway or a highrise condo. Or why a Chinese person might not be as outraged at the rights of a single person being infringed upon as a Brit or an American would. Of course that's not to say they would totally stand for the government just stepping all over people but they would probably tend to overlook smaller grievances without as much sympathy.
Saudi Arabia is perhaps one of the more high profile ones but it definitely doesn't get brought up as much as China/Tibet. I just think that China seems to get talked about as if it was as oppressive as these countries when it is more socially liberal and actually showing noticeable signs of progress whereas the situation in many places is just stagnant. I would much, much rather live in Shanghai or Nanjing than Riyadh or Jeddah.
As oppose to "Soviet-manufactured" or "Russian-manufactured" or something similar. You know those awesome, super expensive blue ocean carriers that the United States has 10 of? The first one was started in 1968 and commissioned in 1975. Aircraft carriers last a really long fucking time. The earliest of the class of aircraft carrier China purchased, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was commissioned in 1991. You know, recently. The "Soviet era" ended in the winter of 1991, which is still somewhat recent in the scope of military design, development, and warship lifetimes. Would it be nice for the Chinese if it wasn't as old? Yes, probably. But that's not what people should be harping on, if they are.
If people are worried about this carrier, they shouldn't be using its age as some sort of soothing balm. Use the fact that China only has one, or that it's small compared to the Nimitz-class, or the fact that China isn't spending a good half of the entire world's military expenditures (unlike, say, the United States). Those should be enough to allay those same fears, I think. On the other hand, while it's tiny compared to contemporary supercarriers, the actual Admiral Kuznetsov is armed to the teeth, and basically a missile cruiser that happens to carry a small number of jet aircraft. I have no idea if the Chinese would pursue a similar design, but, as it happens, the west has no specific analog--which is not to say it would be much of a match for ten gigantic carriers even if they aren't packed with their own ship-launched missiles.
Of course, the United States started out with one carrier too--more than seventy years ago. You literally have to start with one ship--unless you happen to build two simultaneously, which still leaves you with a tiny number compared to the existing naval powers, who use aircraft carriers to celebrate their awesomeness or find their lost house keys.
Why is collectivism at the expense of the individual in any way a good thing? Especially when every other nation on earth can do the same things without this kind of individual suppression of urges?
I used to actually have random conversations with people in China. Admittedly not as much in the last several years but I used to always ask them why they would support what the government did and they all repeated the same lines about believing the Government knows what's best to prevent social unrest and maintain a stable society.
You hear the same crap in the USA from people advocating we should jail gays. It is particularly disturbing not because of China's socio-political status. It's because those same people in the U.S.A. are watching and taking lessons from the Chinese on how they keep the people buying lines that American citizens won't swallow. Eventually they're going to be just as good at it as the Chinese, and then we can say bye bye to the last forty years of social progress. THAT is what particularly troubles me about China. If they don't liberalize within a relatively short time span the same demagogues over here and in other places abroad are going to learn exactly how the Chinese government fought such things successfully, without the rest of the world intervening (or their own people), and they WILL implement them.
I truly hope so, because if anything I'd read lately about crackdowns getting much harsher. Also, village level elections aren't always a good in it of itself. Tribalism can be a powerful force to stymie social progress. Also, I'm talking about attitudes towards things like sexuality and gender acceptance. Obviously the USA is still far lagging behind Europe in this regard but China, modern China, is a juggernaut economically without having to have those same social institutions or recognitions as any other first world nation does. The fact is that Taiwan and Korea aren't quite like that today at all, when they were authoritarian we were also pretty heavy handed about bashing us some gays and such. But today, when we fight tooth and nail to try and bring ourselves out of the muck and act more like sensible, accepting, kind human beings towards our fellow man the forces of Social conservatism are clawing tooth and nail at every way they can to utterly destroy such progress.
The Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia is a problem however the real issue I see here is that those countries do not have the technological savvy of China. It's entire population is embracing technology, science and all forms of advancement EXCEPT for social advancement. That's wherein the danger lies. It used to be thought that if you educated people they would naturally trend towards more liberal, accepting and open societies and China is proving that does not have to be the case. In fact they may eventually prove the opposite can be true. That's why the censorship, media control and all other things is really particularly worrisome.
If they can prove it, Social conservatives around the world will rejoice as they throw us back into the dark ages and we all go along with it because we get our bang for our buck. I don't know who wouldn't be scared of that possibility.
Again not trying to argue the merits of either one just the different values of the societies. Its also not like collectivism is objectively worse than individualism. The Japanese are still very much an "Eastern" country in the sense that they are more collectivist and Confucian despite having Western style institutions and government and I wouldn't say that it has hindered their progress as a nation.
I don't think that will happen because Chinese society is unique in the values they have as I previously mentioned about being collectivist and meritocratic. Its also not that they are okay with just having an authoritarian government. More so that they will put up with it as long as everyone's standard of living keeps on improving and the government doesn't intrude hugely into the average person's life.
I really doubt that any of the kind of people in the US you are talking about would ever be able to seize power. The US political system and democratic values are much too entrenched in American society for such a fringe group of people to change the system.
I don't think you'd have to worry about tribalism, China is pretty ethnically homogeneous and people don't have the same tribal mentality that you would find in some African or Middle Eastern countries. The elections are just for local councils which deal with disputes between residents and other local issues.
China is still a very poor country in general. The aggregate size of its economy is huge but it has a massive population living in poverty. It is very behind both Korea and Taiwan in terms of average standard of living and views on homosexuality and gender roles in Korea and Taiwan are also not modern in comparison to Canada or the US. South Koreans are known to be very chauvinistic in their views on gender roles and Asian countries in general still aren't very accepting of homosexuality.
I'm not sure if I really agree with this because I feel like the younger generation is definitely more socially progressive and liberal than the older generation. If you watch any mainland Chinese dramas or television, topics like sex are being talked about more openly and even things like homosexuality are being joked about. There are also increasing amounts of collaboration with Taiwan and Hong Kong as well as huge popularity of South Korean film and TV shows. Its all exposing Chinese society to more open social views than it was before. Of course there are still a lot of mainland produced Chinese films that get banned or edited for domestic screening. However, I think its ridiculous to argue that China now hasn't advanced socially compared to China of the 80s or 90s. Heck, Shanghai even has an annual week long gay pride festival though they do not have an actual parade because the authorities weren't too keen on that.
Also I think you are perhaps overestimating how developed China is. Yes, there is a large group of super rich Chinese, the urban population is relatively well off but they are generally still worse off than the American middle class and there is a huge rural population (we're talking something like several hundred million people) that don't have laptops or internet connections.
I think the best way with reassuring you that China will one day be democratic is their stewardship of Hong Kong and Macau. There were a lot of fears leading up to the handover that the PRC would come in and suppress social freedoms in Hong Kong, but they have left it mainly alone by giving it SAR status and promising not to interfere with it for 50 years. There are large yearly demonstrations to remember the Tiananmen massacres in Hong Kong as well as open protests against the government.
I think the CCP is pretty pragmatic and they will move China more and more towards a democratic society as the economic situation continues to improve. Their greatest fear is that mainland China is too poor, too underdeveloped and too uneducated to move too suddenly towards social and democratic liberalization. The greatest challenge facing the central government is not becoming a democracy but fighting against serious internal corruption, growing inequality between the richer coastal provinces and the poorer Chinese interior and environmental degradation.
not that I have any kind of facts to back me here but I wonder what would happen if you removed all the drug, sex, and violence related prisoners out of the equation and left only protestors, non-conformist news media journalists, bloggers, and public dissenters? Would those prisoner/population proportions flip in one way or the other?
edit:
bad words under spoiler (1006 to be exact):
Again a study by Pew Research Institute found that 86% of Chinese citizens were pro-government. If you talk to any Chinese living abroad the vast majority of them will also be pro-China. The Chinese don't think that their government is perfect but they are content with the status quo as long as the standard of living continues to improve. They don't care as much about the fact that their country isn't totally "free" at the moment. The Chinese as a people are more about pragmatism, meritocracy and collectivism so they don't value the same ideals as Westerners do.
If you were to talk to my parents, they'd tell you that they think democracy is inefficient and joke about how long it takes government over here to make a decision on starting new infrastructure projects. Whereas in China the government is frantically putting up new metro systems, new highways, new bridges and tunnels and all sorts of other infrastructure at breakneck speed. They point to how India is a democracy and things take much longer to get done in China or how their government has like 37 parties. Many, many other Chinese living abroad will share this same view even though they live in democratic countries.