• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

China

The Atheist said:
Pfft. Dictator or democrat, your fat pig in an orange suit has shown the world you don't need to be a dictator to behave badly, and right now, if I had to pick the lesser of two evils, I'd sit down with Pooh rather than the disgusting thing in the White House.
Click to expand...
What things do you imagine you would be discussing with either of them?

Actually important people (you aren't one, and neither am I) don't determine whether or not to speak to someone just based on whether or not they like them personally. That's not how global politics works. Your criteria are irrelevant.
 
the big difference is that Putin did not care (or actually preferred) if Ukraine ended up economically devastated.
China cares a lot about Taiwanese manufacturing not ending up in rubble, because the Mainland is one of the biggest trading partners of the Island.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It is fascinating how little attention China is getting on this forum.

It is also revealing that, in the face of a self-declared Communist Country being more successful economically than the capitalist US, the goalposts are shifted to "actually, it's not really communist" instead of asking how capitalism has failed the US.
Click to expand...
The biggest difference between Chinese style and US style capitalism is that the Chinese are better at cooking the books.
 
strong disagree.

it's not a Capitalist system without protection of Private Property from everyone - including The State. China very much considering its Right to confiscate any wealth in hands it feels are insufficiently aligned with The Party.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
strong disagree.

it's not a Capitalist system without protection of Private Property from everyone - including The State. China very much considering its Right to confiscate any wealth in hands it feels are insufficiently aligned with The Party.
Click to expand...
There is quite a strong argument that China is a fascist dictatorship these days.
 
It's too technocratic and not enough expansionist/xenophobic for that, IMO: China didn't get rich by stealing from its wealthy minorities or plundering other countries. It is pretty much unprecedented for a country with a military its size compared to its neighbors not to go conquering.

I think China is very much its own thing, as there has never been in human history a country of a billion people tightly ruled by a single government.
It couldn't succeed by emulating others, and others won't succeed by trying to copy it.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
It's too technocratic and not enough expansionist/xenophobic for that, IMO: China didn't get rich by stealing from its wealthy minorities or plundering other countries. It is pretty much unprecedented for a country with a military its size compared to its neighbors not to go conquering.
Click to expand...
It's probably the first time in history that a fascist dictatorship has been constrained by the dual horns of MAD and the Pax Americana. (Russia, meanwhile, offers a counterexample: The first time since the advent of MAD and the Pax Americana, that a fascist dictatorship has not felt itself so constrained.
 
US Main Character Disease on display.

how ... is China constrained by MAD ?
There are plenty of countries around it not under the nuclear umbrella of the US. It's incredibly unlikely that the US would put boots on the ground or get into a nuclear shooting war if China started gobbling up choice bits of its neighbors.

China has worked hard, and is now at the point were it could absolutely push US naval forces out of what it considers its waters - but what would be the upside?

What has constrained China more than anything else is the prospect of full entry into the Global Club of WTO etc. and be a critical player in global diplomacy.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It's probably the first time in history that a fascist dictatorship has been constrained by the dual horns of MAD and the Pax Americana. (Russia, meanwhile, offers a counterexample: The first time since the advent of MAD and the Pax Americana, that a fascist dictatorship has not felt itself so constrained.
Click to expand...
What pax Americana? When did that happen?
 
theprestige said:
It got started sometime around the Korean War.
Click to expand...
Ah, with the vietnam peace, the continuous peace in the Middle East supporting US interests, the ever lasting peace in US backed dictatorships in South America from the 1960's to the 1990's, the peace in Iraq, the peace in Afghanistan, the second peace in Iraq etc.
1984 peace.
Got it.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
strong disagree.

it's not a Capitalist system without protection of Private Property from everyone - including The State. China very much considering its Right to confiscate any wealth in hands it feels are insufficiently aligned with The Party.
Click to expand...
Perfectly capitalist thinking that, the party owns everything, therefore it is entitled to do what it wants with everything. Remember, the biggest innovation of capitalism is that the owners of capitalism should have complete lack of restraint imposed on them.
 
But that idea is just the transference of State Power being absolute with no accountability.

China is Not a capitalist country - it's a State Run economy in which Capitalism is allowed to exist in a bathtub and drowned at any time - which is what's happening now, with The Party deliberately letting companies and individuals go bust on their speculations with no intention to bail them out.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
in which Capitalism is allowed to exist in a bathtub and drowned at any time
Click to expand...
Isn't this the same in any country, be it a dictatorship, or a democracy? The ruling power can always restrict capitalism if it wishes so, for instance by imposing anti-cartel laws.
 
steenkh said:
Isn't this the same in any country, be it a dictatorship, or a democracy? The ruling power can always restrict capitalism if it wishes so, for instance by imposing anti-cartel laws.
Click to expand...
sure, that's the way it's supposed to be - but it isn't.

one look at the West, with its spiral to lower tax rates for companies and the wealthy faster than the neighbor shows you that it is not.
One look a the bailouts in recent decades instead of just nationalizing shows you its not.
One look at the damage done to countries by their drug companies and polluters who can go on with minimum fines shows you it is not.


One look at the massive underfunding of tax collection and regulation agencies shows you that the government does not think it should or can control Capitalists.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
One look at the massive underfunding of tax collection and regulation agencies shows you that the government does not think it should or can control Capitalists.
Click to expand...
It is true that some governments may not think they should or can control capitalists, but that does not change that they can. I gave the example of anti-cartel laws. There are other examples like worker protection, consumer protection, environment protection. Even the U.S. government tries to control capitalism by introducing tariffs that hinder capitalism in other other countries.

The difference between China and the West seems then to be that China does think it can and should control capitalism. But China too does not hinder capitalism very much. The riches of China have not been created by communism. In China, the powers of government are used to determine who should continue to lead the country, and the answer is the communist party. In the U.S. the same happens, and the answer is Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom