Can China survive depression and deglobalisation?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi

Moron.

I find it hillarious that you think your parcel posting answers anything for anyone.

Newsflash Dashi - thankfully, no one else is able to read your "thoughts" (thank goodness).

Your "answer" actually wasn't one - it was a historical comment making what can most charitably be described as a completely vague and nebulous "argument."

So either put up, or shut up. Make an arguement, or become a better troll.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap




I find it hillarious that you think your parcel posting answers anything for anyone.

Newsflash Dashi - thankfully, no one else is able to read your "thoughts" (thank goodness).

Your "answer" actually wasn't one - it was a historical comment making what can most charitably be described as a completely vague and nebulous "argument."

So either put up, or shut up. Make an arguement, or become a better troll.

I stand by my moron remark. I wasn't making an argument. I was giving a counterpoint to your argument. Bloody hell. Why can't you understand this?

[DaShi]

And now you're just resorting to childish games: changing the question, ad hominen, and being annoyingly obtuse.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi
And now you're just resorting to childish games: changing the question, ad hominen, and being annoyingly obtuse.

Pot, meet Kettle

I stand by my moron remark. I wasn't making an argument. I was giving a counterpoint to your argument. Bloody hell. Why can't you understand this?

I tackled your counterpoint in another post. You replied with insults.

Just being insulting doesn;t make you a good troll.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap




Pot, meet Kettle

Oh yes, the no, you are approach. Darius' favorite.

I tackled your counterpoint in another post. You replied with insults.

Just being insulting doesn;t make you a good troll.

I wasn't trolling. But if I was, I suppose I would have to call this a success. :yawn:

Anyway, I addressed your counterpoint and your naive belief that the CCP is immune to collapse. Your response was narrowminded and I called you on it. Everything afterward was an attempt to save face. Even now your desperate clinging to only further demonstrates this. But really, we've discussed all this before and you showed irrationality then too. I was curious, if you changed. You haven't, you still are ignorant of Chinese politics, yet try to pretend otherwise. I'm not really here to insult you. Just to correct you because of my own interest in the topic (I'm not going to make some facetious claim that I'm doing this for your benefit). Since the sum of your posts are now , and I've made my points, I have nothing more to say to you. Please continue your writhing. I'm done with this.

[GePap]

I gave my reasons why I believe that the current Chinese political system is robust enough to survive the kind of crisis that Aneeshm provided. All you have done is claim that belief "naive" without any counterarguments except to claim you have demonstrated something in the past. If that were true, then you could always do so again. Your refusal to do so while claiming you had is pretty sad.

You can claim all the expertise in Chinese politics you want, but you have never demonstrated that supposed expertise here on Poly, either with clear and well defined arguments backed by evidence, nor with any predictions that have come true that you could point to.

Even if you claim I am ignorant, I have the backbone to state the reasons why I think what I think about China. You hide behind a professed expertise you have never shown. If you claim to have shown it in the past, at least provide a link to some past argument, if you are truly do lazy as to refuse to show it again.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap
I gave my reasons why I believe that the current Chinese political system is robust enough to survive the kind of crisis that Aneeshm provided. All you have done is claim that belief "naive" without any counterarguments except to claim you have demonstrated something in the past. If that were true, then you could always do so again. Your refusal to do so while claiming you had is pretty sad.

I did offer a counterpoint. I have no argument. I'm not interested in debating with you. I've given my reasons already.

You can claim all the expertise in Chinese politics you want, but you have never demonstrated that supposed expertise here on Poly, either with clear and well defined arguments backed by evidence, nor with any predictions that have come true that you could point to.

Neither have you though. And I've made no predictions. However, the point I did make here was based on historical fact. What are your arguments based on? Theory?

Even if you claim I am ignorant, I have the backbone to state the reasons why I think what I think about China. You hide behind a professed expertise you have never shown. If you claim to have shown it in the past, at least provide a link to some past argument, if you are truly do lazy as to refuse to show it again.

I am too lazy. It was a long time ago, maybe in the archive, maybe not. It was the one where you claimed that the CCP was totally invincible. My argument was that it was not entirely invincible, but you stuck to that one-sided, narrowminded belief giving no actually examples related to China until I just got sick of your nonsense. And here we see it again, only I'm not biting.

However, bravo for making me respond. You post was actually worth reading that time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi

Neither have you though. And I've made no predictions. However, the point I did make here was based on historical fact. What are your arguments based on? Theory?

Your point was stating a historical fact. Stating a fact free of context isn't a counterpoint to anything. Just stating that the CCP was born of a much bigger crisis than what Aneeshm postulated doesn't counter statements made about the CCP being able to survive that theoretical crisis.

I am too lazy. It was a long time ago, maybe in the archive, maybe not. It was the one where you claimed that the CCP was totally invincible. My argument was that it was not entirely invincible, but you stuck to that one-sided, narrowminded belief giving no actually examples related to China until I just got sick of your nonsense. And here we see it again, only I'm not biting.

However, bravo for making me respond. You post was actually worth reading that time.

I have never claimed the CCP is "totally invincible." Nothing is. Perhaps you chose to interpret it that way, but that is your problem, not mine. I certainly believe the political system in China to be far less fragile than you claim it to be. As for why I believe so, its simply because I haven't see any reports of there being in China political opponents of the current system with sufficient demonstrable popular backing to challenge it, nor have I seen any reports about there being internal issues within the party large enough to fracture it permanently.

You can claim all you want to believe that is false, that is your perogative, but acting like a dick hardly makes your case, specially when you state clearly that you are too lazy to make it with arguments or evidence.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap
Your point was stating a historical fact. Stating a fact free of context isn't a counterpoint to anything. Just stating that the CCP was born of a much bigger crisis than what Aneeshm postulated doesn't counter statements made about the CCP being able to survive that theoretical crisis.

That's ridiculous. Of course it's a counterpoint. The conditions that created one revolution could very well possibly create another. I'm not saying that it will happen (which it seems that you think that I am: then again reality and what you think seem to be the crux of the issue), I'm just stating it is possible. Of course, this possibility was the point of the last argument. You denied that any possibility could exist.

I have never claimed the CCP is "totally invincible." Nothing is. Perhaps you chose to interpret it that way, but that is your problem, not mine. I certainly believe the political system in China to be far less fragile than you claim it to be. As for why I believe so, its simply because I haven't see any reports of there being in China political opponents of the current system with sufficient demonstrable popular backing to challenge it, nor have I seen any reports about there being internal issues within the party large enough to fracture it permanently.

How fragile have I claimed it to be? My argument then is the same as it now (bleh, I actually have to make one): it is possible that the CCP could collapse given the right conditions. You denied that any such conditions were an impossibility. Now I don't have the link and you are free to claim otherwise. But don't accuse me of mistating your claims without evidence when you did it just now. Frankly, your hypocrisy in this thread is astounding.

You can claim all you want to believe that is false, that is your perogative, but acting like a dick hardly makes your case, specially when you state clearly that you are too lazy to make it with arguments or evidence.

Where is your evidence? You're the one making a big deal about arguments. It hardly seems fair to ask it of me when you won't do it yourself. Plus, you first sentence needs proofreading.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi


That's ridiculous. Of course it's a counterpoint. The conditions that created one revolution could very well possibly create another. I'm not saying that it will happen (which it seems that you think that I am: then again reality and what you think seem to be the crux of the issue), I'm just stating it is possible. Of course, this possibility was the point of the last argument. You denied that any possibility could exist.

I did not nor have I said such a thing. I have laid out what I think is most likely to happen based on the information I have and the ideas I use to process that information. Anything is "possible"; a giant asteroid could hit Beijing in five years for all we currently know. I laid out what I think is probable, and why. Fell free to disagree with what I think is probable.

How fragile have I claimed it to be? My argument then is the same as it now (bleh, I actually have to make one): it is possible that the CCP could collapse given the right conditions. You denied that any such conditions were an impossibility. Now I don't have the link and you are free to claim otherwise. But don't accuse me of mistating your claims without evidence when you did it just now. Frankly, your hypocrisy in this thread is astounding.

Hypocrasy? Where have I contradicted myself in this thread. Stating what I believe would happen is not the same as claiming that nothing else can happen. Even arguing against other possibilities as improbable and lacking evidence is not the same as claiming that nothing else is possible. It is not my problem if you are unable to accept the difference between those things.

Where is your evidence? You're the one making a big deal about arguments. It hardly seems fair to ask it of me when you won't do it yourself. Plus, you first sentence needs proofreading.

You do know it is impossible to show evidence about a hypothetical scenerio, right? What I can provide is evidence of how the CCP has survived several past crises, such as Mao's cultural revolution, the political manuevering after Mao's death, and the crisis of 1989. The party has been able to change with the times to maintain its hold on power. Even as the USSR and most other communist regimes collapsed the CCP succeeded in using force to crush democratic dreams. It has created a new vision of itself, as the provider of social order, of economic growth, and the champion of Chinese (more specifically, Han) nationalism. I think it has done so successfuly. A simple example would be the Tibet crisis earlier this year. Most people within Chine backed the Chinese government, not those advocating for greater political and social freedom in Tibet.

A system doesn;t collapse out of nowhere. You need either internal or external shocks. The current Chinese leadership is strong enough to overcome most credible external enemies. And I have not seen any evidence, as I already stated, of credible internal threats. Even if you point to a million home grown dissidents, that is hardly going to bring down a system in a country of 1.3 Billion, specially if that system has been successful at crushing any attempts to organize. The Chinese leadership has bought its support, but they have also used nationalism to give themselves a reason even without economic growth. From everything this year surrounding Tibet and the Olympics, the best evidence I can see is that most Chinese, including most Chinese elites, are willing to put up with the current authoritarian rule because they buy into the idea of it being the best way to maintain China strong and fully sovereign.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


I did not nor have I said such a thing. I have laid out what I think is most likely to happen based on the information I have and the ideas I use to process that information. Anything is "possible"; a giant asteroid could hit Beijing in five years for all we currently know. I laid out what I think is probable, and why. Fell free to disagree with what I think is probable.

Didn't I do that?

Hypocrasy? Where have I contradicted myself in this thread. Stating what I believe would happen is not the same as claiming that nothing else can happen. Even arguing against other possibilities as improbable and lacking evidence is not the same as claiming that nothing else is possible. It is not my problem if you are unable to accept the difference between those things.

Annoyingly obtuse? You obviously didn't read what I wrote. And yet, you expect me to read your posts. That's hypocrisy.

And another pathetic . You accuse me of being as ass while acting like one yourself. Hypocrisy.

You do know it is impossible to show evidence about a hypothetical scenerio, right?

Then why are you asking it of me? That's hypocrsiy.

A system doesn;t collapse out of nowhere. You need either internal or external shocks. The current Chinese leadership is strong enough to overcome most credible external enemies. And I have not seen any evidence, as I already stated, of credible internal threats. Even if you point to a million home grown dissidents, that is hardly going to bring down a system in a country of 1.3 Billion, specially if that system has been successful at crushing any attempts to organize. The Chinese leadership has bought its support, but they have also used nationalism to give themselves a reason even without economic growth. From everything this year surrounding Tibet and the Olympics, the best evidence I can see is that most Chinese, including most Chinese elites, are willing to put up with the current authoritarian rule because they buy into the idea of it being the best way to maintain China strong and fully sovereign.

But that rests on China having a strong economy. Remember, China is not a democracy. China has no means of addressing grievances other than taking to the streets. But seriously, you argue like aneeshm: only considering the side of the issue that supports your points and ignore or dismiss everything else. That's why I called you narrowminded and still stand by it. Continue to throw a fit if you want, but I've given you enough attention. It's no wonder you think you win your arguments, you just give yourself different rules than others. You just want to masterbate to yourself and have other people watch.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi

Annoyingly obtuse? You obviously didn't read what I wrote. And yet, you expect me to read your posts. That's hypocrisy.

I obviously read what you wrote.

And another pathetic . You accuse me of being as ass while acting like one yourself. Hypocrisy.

Of course I can both accuse you of being an ass and act like an ass myself. It is only hypocrasy if I claim not to have insulted you. Hence the 'Pot, Kettle' comment.

Then why are you asking it of me? That's hypocrsiy.

I said you had not shown evidence in the past of the supposed expertise you claim to have. Given that even you state to have made no argument in this thread, it would be impossible for you to have provided any evidence in this thread.

But that rests on China having a strong economy. Remember, China is not a democracy. China has no means of addressing grievances other than taking to the streets.

And there have been tens of thousands of protests in villages this year and the last. But each of those has been isolated, a single protest about a specific set of grivences in one village or area, most of which are against local corruption, and asking for action from the center. The lack of any ability to link these large numbers of protests into something wider is exactly the kind of evidence of the ability of the center to prevent the organization of opposition I spoke about. The center in Beijing knows that local corruption and abuse by locals is probably the biggest political problem they face, which is why they carry out show trials and swift executions of corrupt officials at the periphery and closer to the center all the time. At the end though, all those villagers are asking for the autocratic center to help them remove corrupt locals. They are demanding local relief, not general political change in China. As long as this is the case, and as long as the central authorities can swiftly intercept attempts to organize the dissatisfaction they can divide and conquer.

But seriously, you argue like aneeshm: only considering the side of the issue that supports your points and ignore or dismiss everything else. That's why I called you narrowminded and still stand by it.

I am well aware of the "counterevidence". I have stated above why I don;t think it to be sufficient to disprove my argument.

For you to talk about narrowmindedness is rich though.

Continue to throw a fit if you want, but I've given you enough attention. It's no wonder you think you win your arguments, you just give yourself different rules than others. You just want to masterbate to yourself and have other people watch.

Its hard to win an argument when the other side has never really argued.

And again, its rich for someone who started in this thread by posting his supposed disgust at the other "pathetic" competitors to speak about self-congratulatory statements and intellectual masturbation.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


I obviously read what you wrote.

Clearly, you didn't. Otherwise, you would not have asked about the hypocrisy?

Of course I can both accuse you of being an ass and act like an ass myself. It is only hypocrasy if I claim not to have insulted you. Hence the 'Pot, Kettle' comment.

You can't win unless you bend the rules to your favor, can you? Criticizing me for being insulting and then doing it yourself is hypocrisy.

I said you had not shown evidence in the past of the supposed expertise you claim to have. Given that even you state to have made no argument in this thread, it would be impossible for you to have provided any evidence in this thread.

Well, there are plenty of threads outlining my experiences in China. Plus, China is a topic in my current course of studies.

And there have been tens of thousands of protests in villages this year and the last. But each of those has been isolated, a single protest about a specific set of grivences in one village or area, most of which are against local corruption, and asking for action from the center. The lack of any ability to link these large numbers of protests into something wider is exactly the kind of evidence of the ability of the center to prevent the organization of opposition I spoke about. The center in Beijing knows that local corruption and abuse by locals is probably the biggest political problem they face, which is why they carry out show trials and swift executions of corrupt officials at the periphery and closer to the center all the time. At the end though, all those villagers are asking for the autocratic center to help them remove corrupt locals. They are demanding local relief, not general political change in China. As long as this is the case, and as long as the central authorities can swiftly intercept attempts to organize the dissatisfaction they can divide and conquer.

Wouldn't you say that the period before many revolutions had moments like this? Smaller disconnected groups expressing dissent.

I am well aware of the "counterevidence". I have stated above why I don;t think it to be sufficient to disprove my argument.

I stand by my aneeshm comparison. You two argue exactly alike.

For you to talk about narrowmindedness is rich though.

"No, I'm not. You are." Please, how old are you? At least, I respond and give proper weight to your points. You're just ready to jump into an "I'm right, you're wrong" dance. Which is exactly what you did after I pointed out the history of the CCP's revolution in my first point. You did it to Pat as well. Blithely dismissed his points and went into a rant of your own.

And, at least I back up my insults as well.

Its hard to win an argument when the other side has never really argued.

I'm not here to argue. You want the win/lose arena of arguing. I don't care for it.

And again, its rich for someone who started in this thread by posting his supposed disgust at the other "pathetic" competitors to speak about self-congratulatory statements and intellectual masturbation.

Perhaps you're partially right. I've grown so weary of dealing with people like you that I tend to give a strike first response. But I'm right here.

[GePap]

Wouldn't you say that the period before many revolutions had moments like this? Smaller disconnected groups expressing dissent.

Yes, but then of course there have been such periods as well that haven't led to revolutions, and there have been attempted revolutions or revolts that have failed.

Just saying that there is discontent in China, and that in past times such discontent has sometimes lead to revolution isn;t enough to argue that this time it must be the same, or that it is likely to be the same.

And when a theoretical is posted like this time, it makes sense to work within the supposed constraints of it. I think an outside driven political crisis like this would not bring down the CCP because as I already stated it discredits some of the intellectual opposition to the Party more than the party itself, and because the CCP (which is now communist only in name) has shown itself capable of significant policy changes as long as the central aim of keeping its authoritarian hold on political power is kept. They are willing to be flexible when they think it prudent and brutal when they feel its necessary.

[Kuciwalker]

GePap's argument is a good one.