China bans Buddhist monks from reincarnating

[Cort Haus]

I don't get the western obsession with Tibet, or the hypocrisy of people wringing their hands about "doing business" with the country which is now the engine of the world manufacturing economy, supplying cheap goods which raise living standards for ordinary people around the world.

Well, in fact I do get it. It's old fashioned foreigner-bashing with a respectable icing of moral grandstanding.

As absurd as the story in the OP is, I saw a programme about Tibet recently which gave evidence of modernisation and improved transport and living standards in Tibet. Whether this is an acceptable trade-off for lack of self determination, you'd have to ask the Tibetans - and not just the old ruling class.

Meanwhile Britain still occupies part of Ireland, the USA still occupies part of Mexico, Spain still occupies Catalonia, and so on and so on....

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I don't get the western obsession with Tibet, or the hypocrisy of people wringing their hands about "doing business" with the country which is now the engine of the world manufacturing economy, supplying cheap goods which raise living standards for ordinary people around the world.

Well, in fact I do get it. It's old fashioned foreigner-bashing with a respectable icing of moral grandstanding.

As absurd as the story in the OP is, I saw a programme about Tibet recently which gave evidence of modernisation and improved transport and living standards in Tibet. Whether this is an acceptable trade-off for lack of self determination, you'd have to ask the Tibetans - and not just the old ruling class.

Meanwhile Britain still occupies part of Ireland, the USA still occupies part of Mexico, Spain still occupies Catalonia, and so on and so on....

Wow...what an incredibly well thought out piece of crap.

"Moral Grandstanding"? There is such a thing as right and wrong. It is wrong that China forceably took over Tibet. It does not matter the "good" they supposedly do. Who is to say that Tibet might not have accomplished more on their own? Still, that is not the issue. Tibet was a peaceful country that was simply annexed against its will...that is wrong. And yes, I think it would be very enlightening to see what the population of Tibet would say about wanting the Dalai Lama back or not...I would bet you just about anything that China would not like the result.

WRT China supplying "cheap goods". You do understand that China uses slave labor and near slave labor to achieve these things, right? And you are okay with this because it raises living standards? Once again, there is right and wrong and this is wrong.

The world may have to do business with China because of her economic might and influence, but it is wrong not to stand up for the things that are important.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Meanwhile the USA still occupies part of Mexico....

Eh?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by PLATO
There is such a thing as right and wrong. It is wrong that China forceably took over Tibet. It does not matter the "good" they supposedly do.

Yeah, what have the Romans ever done for us? I'm not supporting China's policy, I'm putting into context.

WRT China supplying "cheap goods". You do understand that China uses slave labor and near slave labor to achieve these things, right? And you are okay with this because it raises living standards? Once again, there is right and wrong and this is wrong.

The world may have to do business with China because of her economic might and influence, but it is wrong not to stand up for the things that are important.

By 'near slave labour' I expect you mean low wages. Hey, welcome to Capitalism. I used to work for Tandy in the late 80's- an American company. Back then they were amongst the first to move their production to China.

The relocation of world manufacturing to China is a product of capitalism. Feel free to oppose that system if you like. Don't blame China though, for just catching up with the rest of the capitalist world. Or would you prefer it to remain strictly communist?

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Eh?

I think he means Southern California

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
By 'near slave labour' I expect you mean low wages.

No, I mean 20 hour days, 7 days a week until people literally die of exhaustion. Of course, they do have the alternative of starvation if they don't work. I guess that makes it all okay? But then they could try to organize to demand better working conditions, but that would then land them in prison...where they will be working 20 hour days, 7 days a week...but for no money instead of low wages. Yep...capitalism...

[Arrian]

Yes, unregulated capitalism will result in that. Look at mid-19th century in Britain, for example.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

I do find it strange that the country which most closely resembles the 19th century Britain where Marx developed his theories about the necessity for organised labour movements to oppose the ravages of capitalism - is one of only about two remaining nominally communist countries in the world.

Do they still teach Marxism in China, I wonder?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yes, unregulated capitalism will result in that. Look at mid-19th century in Britain, for example.

-Arrian

No! It is when government supports the abuse of labor. In an unregulated capitalistic society then the worker would leave the unbearable job for a company that supplied better working conditions. It is only when their is an oversupply of labor or an artificial support of industry (overtly or not) that near slave labor conditions begin to develop. In the case of China, it is active government support and a vast over supply of labor. The active support of the government removes it from a theory of unregulated capitalism. BUT, whatever it is...it is wrong by any definition and should be opposed.

[Arrian]

No! It is when government supports the abuse of labor. In an unregulated capitalistic society then the worker would leave the unbearable job for a company that supplied better working conditions.

That's a fantasy, sorry. I understand that's the theory, but lots of theories don't survive contact with reality.

The reality is that without some regulation, the company wields far more power & influence than the worker.

These "unusual conditions" that result in virtual slave labor are not actually unusual, if you know your history. It's pretty much the norm in developing countries... whether it be 21st century China or 19th century Britain.

Regardless, I agree with your closing statement. Setting aside how you define it, it's wrong. The Chinese will, at some point, have to resolve that. I hope it doesn't result in a bloodbath.

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian


That's a fantasy, sorry. I understand that's the theory, but lots of theories don't survive contact with reality.

The reality is that without some regulation, the company wields far more power & influence than the worker.

-Arrian

This is the case when there is an oversupply of labor...which is the case in China and was also the case in GB during the time. You are correct so far as the economy is not running at a "full employment" or better rate. When imbalance occurs then government is needed to address the imbalance. The problem in China is that the government is actively working to foster the imbalance.

I share your hope that it doesn't end in a bloodbath.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
I think he means Southern California

That makes no sense though as the land isn't Mexcian in anyway. Hawaii would have been the better choice if he wanted to draw any comparisons.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That makes no sense though as the land isn't Mexcian in anyway. Hawaii would have been the better choice if he wanted to draw any comparisons.

It was a joke.

[DinoDoc]

Your comment was. Cort's wasn't.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Meanwhile Britain still occupies part of Ireland, the USA still occupies part of Mexico,

Im willing to wager the Tibetans would be delighted if the Chinese would agree to occupy only PART of Tibet.