Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[Agathon]

Tiananmen is the reason China won't have an easy time becoming democratic. The point of Tiananmen wasn't 'if it succeeded it would have caused China to colapse.' I agree that the protestors demands should not have been met. The problem was the way it was handled. It was a peaceful protest met with military assault and the death and imprisonment of many innocent people who just wanted a better system. It showed the Chinese people that resistence would be met with extreme prejudice. Even today, very few people here speak out about the government. No one would dare form another political party. Had it been solved peacefully without giving into demands, a budding democracy could form. The idea of peaceful protests could be used as an outlet for people to express concerns. Now they are just scary. The only protests here now are government sponsered anti-japanese protests and the violent protests of the minorities and poor who have been trodden on in China rise to economic power.

I agree with you for the most part. It was handled extremely poorly. On the other hand, without Tiananmen, the overthrow of the "communist" governments in Eastern Europe would not have happened so soon, or at all.

The massacre also demonstrated how far the current leadership would go to hold onto power. Democracy would mean relinquishing some of that power. This will not happen easily. Look at Hong Kong, which was supposed to be a starting point for democracy in China. Instead China has done everything it could without violating the passover agreement to maintain strict control of the islands.

But they aren't having it all their own way.

You must also look at the history of China. There has never been a major democracy movement. The country has been ruled by one force for thousands of years.

True as far as I know.

The force has only changed through violence. But a singular force has always remained. Even at the height of the empire, the country was still ruled by one party. To think that improving the quality of life through the economy will lead to a more democratic system in China is a bit naive.

This is where I disagree. I guess this is where my Marxist leanings show themselves. Politics is largely, for me, a superstructure over the existing economic base. Change that base and politics will change, perhaps not immediately, but eventually.

The creation China of a western style bourgeoisie will, in my humble opinion, force change. Of course it will be a peculiarly Chinese form of change, and it will probably appear strange to us on the outside, but it will happen nonetheless. Politics is the shadow cast on society by its economic form of organization.

The problem (or not) with the bourgeoisie is that they get it into their heads that their silly and largely self-serving beliefs should gain public airing and be listened to. And they get very petulant if ignored (the working people don't; they are used to being ignored). Unlike the Tiananmen students (who very nearly succeeded), they have significant economic clout behind them and occupy positions of prominence.

Western police have no problems beating up on students and working class malcontents. but they will hardly ever go against the bourgeosie. In fact I can't think of a single instance in which they have.

The Chinese communist party, or at least some parts of it, probably know this already. I imagine that many have already positioned themselves to benefit from it, and it is that greed which will destroy the party as we know it.

The other big problem is their futile attempt to control information technology. But we all know that power tends to co-opt and absolute power co-opts absolutely. Nevertheless I don't envy them the task. If the party manages the transition with little or no bloodshed or economic disaster, then there will be quite a few gold stars to be put down in the giant ledger of good deeds, even though hardly anyone will notice.

So I guess I am just more of an optimist than most people.

[DaShi]

The Chinese communist party has abandoned Marxism since the late 70s. Western style bourgeoisie may force change as it did when the Communist party first fought the KMT. The party is aware of this and is following an America's example. Why don't most Americans care about the wide class gap or the injustices in its own country? Because it doesn't affect most of them personally. A strong middle class promotes stability. In addition, it is the buourgeoisie that run the government anyway. It's the same in China. Party members are just politicians. They are businessmen. Many young people don't join the party (which only a select few are admitted) to run for office. Instead they do it to gain advantages in business. So long as a healthy middle class is kept fat and satiated and the wealthy still have their say, the lower classes will ignored until it gets so bad that only another revolution can change it.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DaShi
Why don't most Americans care about the wide class gap or the injustices in its own country?

word

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Agathon

The massacre also demonstrated how far the current leadership would go to hold onto power. Democracy would mean relinquishing some of that power. This will not happen easily. Look at Hong Kong, which was supposed to be a starting point for democracy in China. Instead China has done everything it could without violating the passover agreement to maintain strict control of the islands.

But they aren't having it all their own way.

They can't for some 40 odd years, or until they have enough to strength were no one would dare to oppose them. In addition, they are meeting with great resistence from the Hong Kong people, who feel that they may lose certain rights and priveledges.

[Agathon]

Instead they do it to gain advantages in business. So long as a healthy middle class is kept fat and satiated and the wealthy still have their say, the lower classes will ignored until it gets so bad that only another revolution can change it.

Again, I agree. But a characteristic of capitalism is that it cedes central control, and that capitalists compete with each other. They've let the cat out of the bad, but it hasn't started scratching people yet.

As for another revolution to rid us of our overlords. Count me in 110%

Why don't most Americans care about the wide class gap or the injustices in its own country?

Because they are more worried that gay people might be having sex.

Really, it's because the media is controlled by capital. They control the consensus of what is considered respectable opinion. Most working class Americans do not like the system, it's just that they are constantly told that there is no alternative, so they put up with it.

Moreover, it is almost impossible for radical change to happen in the US political system. It is heavily biased against new movements. This means that they get co-opted and diluted so that the capitalists and their enablers (or most of them) don't lose out.

[Agathon]

They can't for some 40 odd years, or until they have enough to strength were no one would dare to oppose them. In addition, they are meeting with great resistence from the Hong Kong people, who feel that they may lose certain rights and priveledges.

Primarily the bourgeoisie are motivating the whole thing. I was thinking about this when I wrote.

[Agathon]

Anyway, I have to go to bed. I have to corrupt some of Canada's youth tomorrow.

Good posts DaShi.

Ted Striker.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Agathon

Instead they do it to gain advantages in business. So long as a healthy middle class is kept fat and satiated and the wealthy still have their say, the lower classes will ignored until it gets so bad that only another revolution can change it.

Again, I agree. But a characteristic of capitalism is that it cedes central control, and that capitalists compete with each other. They've let the cat out of the bad, but it hasn't started scratching people yet.

As for another revolution to rid us of our overlords. Count me in 110%

But in reality, the result is the big business seeks control of the government. Money is useless without power. Think of how many reforms could be passed in America, if big businesses weren't holding them back.

Why don't most Americans care about the wide class gap or the injustices in its own country?

Because they are more worried that gay people might be having sex.

Really, it's because the media is controlled by capital. They control the consensus of what is considered respectable opinion. Most working class Americans do not like the system, it's just that they are constantly told that there is no alternative, so they put up with it.

Moreover, it is almost impossible for radical change to happen in the US political system. It is heavily biased against new movements. This means that they get co-opted and diluted so that the capitalists and their enablers (or most of them) don't lose out.

The media is controlled by the party here, which tells them that things are always getting better and bad news is from foreigners. Also, China is just as resistent to new movements unless the party supports them. Just look at Falun Gong for a simple example.

Primarily the bourgeoisie are motivating the whole thing. I was thinking about this when I wrote.

Yes, because they rightfully fear being replaced by their mainland "Communist" counterparts. Those with party connections have the most power in business, especially in newly acquired territory.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Agathon
Anyway, I have to go to bed. I have to corrupt some of Canada's youth tomorrow.

Good luck with that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Nukes have shown themselves to be the ultimate deterrant. Unlike your inane insurance analogy, having insurance doesn't prevent disease from infecting you.

The very idea of war was supposed to be the ultimate deterant among Europeans in the 30's. Where did that get them?

[Drake Tungsten]

None of it means that they want to invade Japan.

Who said anything about invading Japan? Cutting off Japan's oil supplies is enough to bring the country to its knees, something that will be hard to prevent if China gets a thoroughly modern military and control of Taiwan...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Woah, I didn't know that Europe selling weapons to China will be the direct cause of a billion people getting nuked to death. Where can I buy such accurate magic 8-balls?

You should read the post which I responded to and then not leap to a false conclusion. You really do need a better magic 8-ball.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
I agree with you for the most part. It was handled extremely poorly. On the other hand, without Tiananmen, the overthrow of the "communist" governments in Eastern Europe would not have happened so soon, or at all.

You're on crack if you think Tiananmen had anything to do with the fall of the wall.

That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen a supposedly intelligent person post, ever.

[Straybow]

Thank you, GePap, for showing that you are both ideologically obtuse and don't understand the principle of peace through strength.

Originally posted by GePap

Originally posted by Straybow
...How they were too weak just 5 years later to oppose Hitler, the Brits and French turning their backs as Hungary was forced to surrender the Sudatenland.

OH, invoking Godwin already! Good for you, first Nazi reference! ...

Ah, invoking Godwin so that you can ignore valid comparisons to Hitler! Good for you, awarding yourself internet nebbish brownie points instead of actually making a point in debate!

But lets take your little rant- lets say China became "fascist"- how does that directly threaten Europe? Answer, it does not.

First, China already has become "fascist" (or at least the twisted misinterpretation that the term has come to mean). The language of China talking about the need to include the ethnic Chinese living on the island of Formosa into One China is exactly parallel to Hitler "uniting" the German peoples in Austria and in Polish and Hungarian border regions with the Fatherland.

Second, some people have this grand idea about opposing oppression on principle, rather than waiting until an oppressor's tanks are rolling in our own streets to do something about it. We thought our allies in Europe agreed, but the last decade has proven their agreement to be more academic than practical.

If you are weak, your enemies are encouraged to take advantage of that weakness. There was no WW3 against the Soviets because we never let down our guard. There will be no WW3 with the Chinese if we continue to keep our guard up.

You realize that this goes ditto for the other side? Unless you assume some basic aggresive intent on only one side, and assume the other side is made up fo sugar, spice and everything nice? Yes, the US kept its guard up - AND SO DID THE SOVIETS. Do you think that is the US had seen a window of opportunity to destroy the Soviets because of Soviet military weakness, the US would not have taken it?

This means that China has a huge incentive to build itself up, to prevent any possible hostile US intent- I know you will haw about how that is insane, and other crap, but you know what? The US has as good a record of foreign aggression as China, heck, in the last 50 years a much bigger one.

I know this is hard to comprehend, contradicting Hollywood/New England leftism and all, but please try.

First, the US does not want to rule over our neighbors Canada and Mexico, or Europe, Russia, etc. That goes for the red states as well as the blue states. We've pretty much got what we want here. Before WW2 we tried, really hard, to live in isolation from the political and military strife outside our fair continent. We had a small army and navy sufficient for our own border security.

The Soviets were not satisfied with what they had. At the first opportunity they casually divided Poland with Germany and invaded Finland. In the wake of WW2 they conquered and maintained a de facto empire in Eastern Europe. As much as the French and Germans would be better off under our enlightened rule ( ) we did not make ourselves an empire.

Second, the USSR and PRC were founded on, and deeply held, the Marxist doctrine that capitalist societies had to be overthrown by force and capitalist property owners killed off or turned into chattel. The USA is founded on, and deeply holds, that self-determination is a fundamental virtue and is generally sought by all peoples to whom the idea has ever been introduced.

Third, the USSR and PRC acted internationally on their doctrine by funding and training terrorists and revolutionaries in nearly every country in the world. I suppose a few countries like New Zealand and Leichtenstein escaped their attention.

Fourth, US aggression during the period was almost exclusively directed to countering Soviet/PRC supported activity against legitimate governments. Y'know, the whole self-determination thing. Invasion of Nicaragua to depose Noriega is perhaps the sole exception (but note that it wasn't for conquest, either).

Fifth, there was never, at any time, military planning or political posturing to invade (much less conquer and rule) the USSR. Kick the damn Commies all the way back to Russia, as Patton desired? Perhaps in response to an initial move by the Eastern Bloc. Only in twisted Hollywood visions of warmongery were limited nuclear exchanges "acceptible risk."

In fact, the Soviets did falter, yet we never made a move to exploit that weakness militarily. We didn't move against China either, with their love-hate neighbor USSR on the ropes and PLA still 40 years out of date. The Soviets, by contrast, had Cyrillic street signs for every major city in Western Europe prepared and warehoused for the day their opportunity came.

Please allow a moment for this to sink in. Refrain from swimming or operating heavy machinery until your equilibrium returns by either a) reconciling your thinking to the real world or b) resuming your ingrained political beliefs as though nothing happened.

So do pray tell why, when you have people going on and on about the grave Chinese threat in the US, should the Chinese not say : these people are ideologicall nutters, and lets be armed to the teeth to make them think twice.

Once more, please educate yourself before opening your virtual mouth. The threat we perceive is primarily not to us but to our allies whom we'd rather not see under a Chinese empire. Y'know, that whole self determination/anti-oppression thing again.

Is this principle something you honestly don't understand, or are you merely ideologically obtuse? "If we all just laid down our guns there'd be no more war."

NO, in fact, unlike you, I realize all conflicts have two sides. It works better when you see this, instead of living in some fantasy charicature world were your side is eminetly good and pure, and evryone who does not see that must be some satan spawn. Or is that too hard for you to understand?

Incorrect. Not all conflicts have two sides. Some are decidedly unilateral, like Hitler wanting to conquer Europe when nobody had the least interest in conquering Germany. And then there's that whole Marxist "overthrow the capitalists and murder the bourgeoise landowners" thing. Russia has relinquished the Baltic, Slavic, Caucasus, and central Asian republics. Yet China still holds Tibet.

If Mao and his heirs had been content to enslave his own people instead of preaching murderous revolution abroad there would be little conflict except for that sticky bit about Taiwan, Tibet, and maybe a couple other border regions. If the Chicomms weren't oppressing their own people (and Tibet, and ethnic minorities, etc) there wouldn't be any conflict at all.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why are you ragging on the Chinese so much? They've done miraculously well in the last 15 years. China is a much better place than it was and it is becoming a much wealthier society.

Because they seem intent on taking Taiwan militarily, or at the least bullying Taiwan militarily, rather than dealing with the very real political divide.

"Tibet's f***ed anyway, so they're not worth worrying about." Another shining example of Aggy's leftie compassion.

That is not what I said.

The whole Tibet thing was unfortunate, but inevitable. This is what happens when you have a very weak state in a strategically important location right between two enemies (China and India) If China hadn't taken Tibet, India would have. I would feel the same way if India had invaded Tibet.

I see a Poland between Germany and Russia. If neither had plans of conquest there would be no need for either to swallow up Poland, nor for the two to partition Poland. This pattern is repeated several times over the last thousand years.

The very fact that China feels the pressing need to hold Tibet indicates the unwillingness to have a buffer between China and India. That's an aggressive stance.