Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@OP: Thanks for putting that up. It's a long read, and I'd decided to sit on it for a little bit. I'm going to reply just ONCE in this thread, and that's it.

While I understand your POV, IMO, the biggest problem with you (and most other Western viewers), is that you look at China as though it's some big monolithic thing that actively controls people's lives in a Soviet sense. Having spent quite some time there, and with several friends (US Residents & US Citizens) who have deliberately chosen to go *back* to China, a lot of what you say is at odds with my understanding of reality on the ground. If China really were an oppressive, evil place (e.g. N. Korea), well-educated, intelligent people wouldn't go there, much less go back.

The other primary criticism is that you (and others) seem to imagine that human rights / democracy *must* be linked to progress. China v India put that statement to the test. Is it better to bring over 1.6 BILLION people (more than 4x the population of the US) out of medieval / subsistence poverty, though Industrialization, and into the Modern age (China), or is it better to encourage "democracy" among the elite while condeming well over 1 BILLION people to poverty as subsistence farmers (India)? For example, all Indians have the right to vote, however, they have more illiterates than the entire population of the United States, so what good does it do them when they can't even read the ballot? Or, Indians have human rights, but are so poor that they cannot even think of leaving their little plots, with such little economic opportunity to make the gamble worthwhile (unlike rural China's "migrants"). When you consider that Chinese have virtually unlimited economic freedom, which means that they have the opportunity to do (and buy) pretty much whatever they want within their personal capabilities, life isn't so bad under a strongly progressive regime.

And that's really the heart of things. China's Mandarins follow a very different philosophy than what we have in the West. They have a few very clear ground rules, lay down necessary infrastructure, and let people figure out the details on their own. The result is that China is moving the Industrial Revolution through their country with a speed and stability that boggles the mind, and rapidly moving towards a Information / Service economy. Hence, more Chinese on the Internet, than the entire US population.

Worse, yet, they choose not to listen to the West, choosing to forge their own way ahead. As a pre-emptive question, what if China were to militarily defeat the US, and annex Manhattan & Long Island (feel free to substitute Toronto for Canada, or all of Wales for the UK) for the next 100 years? 100 years later, what would be your perspective on China then? Given their history, it's not hard to see why China isn't necessarily going to take Western thought as a given. They're still pretty pissed over the Opium Wars & Hong Kong. They're also pretty pissed at Japan, but that's another issue.

The key point to the above is questioning what "ethics" are in a geopolitical discussion. The notion of "good" for a well-intentioned American is very different from the notion of "good" for an equally well-intentioned Chinese. Perhaps the Chinese have a different sense of what "good" means for a huge, developing country in a world of decreasing resources consumed by a small number of extremely rich people? Perhaps Americans should reconsider whether an economy and government built on consumption far in excess of our "fair" share is "good" or "ethical"? If one were in charge of the Chinese government, would democracy really be so important?

____

nintendoeats wrote:The Chinese government is built on power-lust, lies, supression of information and (least importantly in the long run, but still horribly evil) Murder.

If we don't agree that China is totally nasty and not something that we want around in its current form than I'm afraid this whole argument is pointless.

I fail to see how the US government is any different, and the murder bit is a bit OTT unless you have something specific and systemic in mind. Gitmo says that we can't complain about Chinese controls.

I agree the arugment is pointless, which is why I limit myself to just this one post. I think that the Chinese government has measurably done more to improve the day-to-day lives of the Chinese people over the last 30+ years than most Westerners can begin to imagine. I would not second-guess them, as I sorely doubt that I could have done better.

nintendoeats wrote:Chinese also controls a sixth of the worlds workforce, and since the government is about power and not it's own people that workforce is used like any other resource.

Huh? China doesn't "control", more that they "channel" or "encourage". This isn't the Soviet Union.

nintendoeats wrote:In this way, China has grown fantasticly wealthy. Not the people of course, but certainly the government.

Huh? China has tremendous foreign currency reserves, but the people are far wealthier than ever before. Remember that the average Chinese was a peasant (subsistence farmer) 30 years ago. China now has a "middle class" that is certainly larger than the Canadaian population, and most people in the cities live lives that wouldn't appear that different from what you'd see in any other city in the world.

nintendoeats wrote:Further it means that China has the ability to greatly screw with us any time that they want because they control the means of production.

Actually, China has the ability to screw with us because they hold a boatload of US dollars, and they buy a ton of them every day. If China *really* wanted to screw the US, they'd adjust their currency habits and *sell* dollars. Actually, they don't even need to do that - they simply need to say that they won't buy any more dollars, and will only buy Euros. The US economy could be destroyed overnight.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to find that that China has started to screw with us already, kind of like Japan, but we're too stupid and proud to figure it out...

nintendoeats wrote:I now quote the Communist Manifesto

Cute, but *completely* irrelevant to how China actually works. Most people work for companies of some sort. My in-laws have their own factories and companies, they don't report to the government. Again, China isn't Soviet Russia.

nintendoeats wrote:Their government exists purely to exploit them in order to sustain itself

Holy crap, you really believe this? I think you read way too much Orwell for your own good. Rather than bury your nose in _1984_, perhaps you should buy a ticket to Shanghai or Shenzhen and take a look around?

That said, all governments and institutions act in their own self interest. But the idea that that is the only reason for existence is wrong. The Chinese government thinks about this question a lot, and lately gives their reason as to advance the China nation.

nintendoeats wrote:If China was paying fair wages and giving good hours and benefits than they would become just like any country

Your evidence here? China doesn't pay any wages aside from their bureaucrats and soldiers. The wages, hours and benefits are dictated by companies, and people are free to work (or not) where they like. Also, the thing you miss is that Chinese get paid less, but also pay less. It balances out to a large degree.

nintendoeats wrote: If our production was taken out of China than there would of course be a very nasty period (a billion people aren't going to become self-sustainable overnight)

Actually, China isn't pure export. They fact that they're growing when everybody else is spending less shows that their domestic consumption is going up. China probably would be self-sustaining, after the shock. But then then the world suddenly losing lower-cost goods would also be in for a shock when we can't get clothes, toys, computers, etc. and their costs go up dramatically due to a massive drop in supply. If you think GW raises prices, imagine what all domestic production would do...

nintendoeats wrote: starving people tend to have less fear of death from other means.

OK, that's just not right. China isn't poverty-stricken like India. Widespread starvation isn't the issue.

nintendoeats wrote:It is therefore unethical to buy things made in china because it abuses these small cracks in the system.

These aren't cracks. They're just the standard free-market economy, which is running pretty strong in China. China is extremely competitive. Probably moreso than anywhere else in the world.

nintendoeats wrote:I buy things from China. This is simply because it is impossible not to.

This is patently false. You can buy non-Chinese goods, but you will pay more and have less. It's *very* possible.


Thanks,

/John

John, I think that's the most interesting post I've seen you make on Dakka.

Ok, I'm not sure how much eeffort into my response if Jhon's not coming back, but A few quick points

A)Is the chinese Government epic bad? I recind my statement that it isn't debateable, but any system that is built on a deliberate and organised (as opposed to the disorganised version in deomcracies) misleading of the public is going to have to go at some point, and I sure wouldn't do anythign to support it. Even if everybody drove Ferarris, the system would still leave them exposed ot exploitation and enslavement. Just enslavement with big cars.

B)Without going into details, you seem to agree with my main line of reasoning that China and the west can screw eachother over AND have reason to do so. You even admit that China may well be doing so.

C)Third to last line you quoted me on: there are a few points here where you seem to have lost my train of thought, which could well be a failure on my part. I am saying that IF we decided to cripple China overnight the chinese people would have alot more motivation to fight their government, because the immediate threats against them would be at worst equivalent to the threat of having no money. This is a hypothetical scenario, not a description of the current state of affairs.

D) The second to last quote: You have taken me out of context somewhat here. I am reffering to cracks in free market economies as a whole (or at least ones without government regulation to counter-act them). Personnaly, I support the free market as a concept but with the caveat that there be some kind of government "band-aid" regulation to cover up these holes. I'm not at all certain that a perfect economic theory could exist that did not rely on people being essentially decent to each other.

I could go into some other things, but this was the stuff that I felt was most important to address. Thanks for the response.

Only one follow-up point:

nintendoeats wrote:I am saying that IF we decided to cripple China overnight the chinese people would have alot more motivation to fight their government,

You obviously don't understand how the Chinese people think. Given the track record over the past few decades, I think it extremely unlikely that the Chinese people would fight their government. They will ask for more freedoms in time, but not at the expense of the rise of their country. If the West decided to try to "cripple" China, it would be correctly (and accurately) perceived as another attempt by the West to subjugate the Chinese.

This would only further legitimize the Chinese government as the protector of Chinese interests and sovereignty. The Chinese people would back their government unconditionally, and the government would go completely "hands off" in terms of allowing reprisals against foreign entities (short of government-sponsored direct acts of war). China collectively would be willing to go a *LOT* farther than any Western country or people in this regard, simply because they have a lot less to lose than we do.

That unwavering support is PRECISELY what it is that I am afraid of. Until we can find a better way to fight it, not supporting the government is my/our best option.

BluntmanDC wrote:You don't need to be educated to rebel, there will come a point when the last straw is reached and people will rebel.

History says otherwise. The idea of a popular uprising drawn from the ranks of the working class doesn't happen, while the end game will have the poor and working poor engaged in mass demonstrations, the drive for revolution comes from the middle classes.

And China has nothing like that. As John points out in his excellent post, the idea some people seem to have of China as this dystopian hell-hole is just wrong. I think China has a long way to go in developing individual rights and freedoms, but that is not the same thing as what some people in this thread are assuming.

You mean other than China, Russia, Cuba, etc etc right?