|
China
Oct 3, 2019 12:36:40 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Oct 3, 2019 12:36:40 GMT -8
However poor they may have been at it in the past, Soviet and Chinese Communism is interested in producing a maximum of goods -- as long as it doesn't require sacrificing power. Originally that meant socialist economics, which failed miserably. Later, both came up with corrupt forms of fascism -- private ownership but government domination of business. This is workable in its way. Both also had/have very poor environmental records, as anyone who looks up what used to be the world's fourth largest lake (the Aral Sea between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) will learn. Hence the book Ecocide in the USSR.
Western leftism is very different, based on acceptance of a peculiar elitist ideology and a form of self-congratulation. The Soviet goal is to produce; the progressive goal is to feel good about themselves for paying obeisance to this peculiar ideology.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
China
Oct 3, 2019 12:55:31 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 3, 2019 12:55:31 GMT -8
It’s difficult to understand the Soviet state unless one has lived in it. But I think in terms of thought control, we can definitely understand it even if a hell of a lot more goods and services are produced and available here — many, ironically, produced inside of the Communist country of China.
And I absolutely love their merit-based system of gaining social credits for entering university, etc. I mean, at least there is a meritocracy of sorts. Yes, what one is given credit for may be little more than obedience to the party. But that is more rational than rewards based on race or some pretend-gender — or believing in fanciful notions such as "white guilt" or "climate change."
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 3, 2019 13:11:50 GMT -8
Over the last twenty-five years we in the West take for granted the moral and ethical bankruptcy of Communism demonstrating its weakness as an economic and political system. Today it is difficult for generations that have grown up without the threat of Communism to understand how seductive it was. For the Cold War generations Marxism was not an esoteric form of despotism but a persuasive explanation of how the world works, however, the evidence seems clear that a society in which the educated are closely allied with the governing class is capable of a brilliant beginning but not of continued growth and development. Such a society often attains heights of excellence early in its career and then stops. Such was the case of East Germany and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union.
The vast majority of Marxists chose to define themselves as the new left; a form of elitist rebellion or rather an intellectual elite more characterized by fashion then action. However, in Europe many supported by Soviet intelligence services, KGB and military intelligence actively took action and killed, wounded, kidnapped, and bombed in pursuit of their political goals. The Soviet response to unrest in the 1980s by Gorbachev was Perestroika and Glasnost, openness and relaxation in an effort to bring a more human face to Marxist culture. Thus, The critical moment for the Communist regimes will come when they begin to reform, that is to say, when they begin to show liberal tendencies.
But will there ever be any real reform without violence? I think not.
|
|
|
China
Oct 3, 2019 13:28:03 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Oct 3, 2019 13:28:03 GMT -8
I believe you have a point, the key dispute is between orthodox Communists and the New Left, who are a strange mix of totalitarianism and anarchism. (The Spanish anarchists were rather authoritarian and murderous in the areas they controlled at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, though they may have been no worse than the various other factions involved.)
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 3, 2019 16:02:38 GMT -8
Artler, I remember this old puzzle back in high school. It was likely even earlier than that when a friend showed it to me. You had a grid of three by three equally-spaced dots and had to trace a straight line that ran through all them them using just four connected strokes without lifting your pencil. Get out a pencil and pad and try that right now. Here’s the answer. But be a good sport and try it first. My point is that within the framework of indoctrinated Leftism/Progressivism/Socialism, people are going to be asked to connect all these dots using four strokes. It will never occur to them to literally think outside the box. They will never question white guilt, group racism (aka “group identity), victimhood status of anyone who isn’t white, “climate change,” Christians as knuckle-dragging unscientific Troglodytes, and, of course, themselves as virtuous Golden Children, born special and never having to look back. It’s Trump’s fault. America is racist. Big oil is bringing down climactic Armageddon. Men are pigs. Muslims are inherently peaceful. High taxes are good. Soaking the rich is the cure to all money problems. And on and on. You all know the spiel. You are all aware as anyone of the basic tenets of the Left…better than Leftists themselves. And they can never make any of this work inside the box. And that’s because the answers aren’t inside the box. The answers require questioning their basic beliefs. So what we are doomed to witness is not only the Left but the GOP trying to make things work inside this box. And it is a fool’s errand. And there is no shortage of fools.
|
|
|
China
Oct 3, 2019 16:16:16 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Oct 3, 2019 16:16:16 GMT -8
I think I saw that, or a similar puzzle, way back when. In fact, I've encountered many such puzzles, some simple (or not so simple) logic puzzles, others similar to that. They're not too hard once the basic idea occurs to you. An interesting example in one of Graves's Claudius books involves a druid placing three seeds in a row on the palm of Claudius's hand, then challenging him to blow one aside without moving the others. (The key in that case was putting fingers on each of the other two seeds.)
|
|
|
China
Oct 3, 2019 18:01:12 GMT -8
Post by artraveler on Oct 3, 2019 18:01:12 GMT -8
And there is no shortage of fools. And there is no shortage of boxes, but for the left all the boxes MUST be the same.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
China
Oct 4, 2019 8:45:47 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 4, 2019 8:45:47 GMT -8
I would suppose, Artler, analogously speaking, the Left would decry the unfairness and privilege of straight lines. They would simply connect the dots with one curvy line and call it good.
And, literally, this is what they do in regards to their ideology. It’s a mish-mash of baloney that doesn’t make sense on the surface, in the middle, or underneath and is constantly tripping over itself (See: men with testicles competing in women’s sports). It’s a bunch of scribbled nonsense by Monster Children.
It would all be so very funny if they didn’t have us in their sights.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
China
Oct 8, 2019 20:01:47 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 8, 2019 20:01:47 GMT -8
The link is to an excellent video on Tucker Carlson's show. It lays out in clear terms just how dependent the NBA is on China, as well as the hypocrisy on display by the phony "woke" players and coaches in the NBA.
The Chinese have infiltrated much of American business and politics, just as the Saudis have done. But the Chinese are much more dangerous.
|
|
|
China
Oct 8, 2019 20:59:10 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Oct 8, 2019 20:59:10 GMT -8
What we are learning is that power, contrary to Chairman Mao's view, doesn't always spring from the barrel of a gun. After all, money talks -- and they have a lot of it available. It isn't even the government's money, it's the people's. But it's only available to those allowed into the world's largest market. And that isn't allowed to people who displease the Chicoms.
But then, newsliars have known for decades that their value depends on access, and that access can be denied them by those displeased by what they report. Walter Duranty was an anti-Communist, but he learned that he couldn't get any good stories in Moscow that way. You will recall where that insight led him.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
China
Oct 10, 2019 7:24:48 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 10, 2019 7:24:48 GMT -8
Why the NBA Kowtowed to China by Tobia Hoonhout Stated reason: Money Unstated: Because they view your average American as the enemy, not Red China. Summing up, Hoonhout writes: The NBA and ESPN are not “woke” enough to care about the million Muslims in re-education camp. Why should they? These ideological goons have turned their sports programs into reeducation camps for the masses. [Disclaimer: I’m not sure that China isn’t doing the right thing in that regard.]
|
|
|
China
Oct 10, 2019 9:31:25 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Oct 10, 2019 9:31:25 GMT -8
That's an important point about reverse osmosis. Trading with minor dictatorships can be harmless because they have little market power. But China has enough power through control over access to its marketplace that it now calls the tune.
Dictatorships have always done this, especially to reporters. Walter Duranty was an anti-Communist who found that he couldn't get good stories in Stalinist Russia with his views. So he switched, and got lots of big stories. Never mind that they were lies -- he got a Pulitzer Prize for it, didn't he? That made it all worthwhile.
But now we have one with enough power to make it effective. And others will learn, particularly about the possibility of combining forces. Speak out against Putin or Erdogan, Castro or Maduro, the Sandinistas or the Iranian mullahs, and they may all close you out. Soon America will be the only country they're allowed to criticize. Now that the wokesters of the NBA will care, since America is the only country they particularly want to criticize.
Business is amoral by nature. The reason for Jim Crow laws was that discrimination was bad for business, so they preferred not to discriminate. But what if it were good for business?
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
China
Oct 23, 2019 21:15:54 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 23, 2019 21:15:54 GMT -8
The link is to an article in the South China Morning Post which details how the USA is finally giving the PRC a taste of its own medicine as regards to diplomatic contacts in each other's country. Reciprocity Anyone who has lived or visited communist countries knows that foreigners in general are not allowed freedom to visit whomever one pleases. Till now, only the fools in our government seem to have played the game according to the commie rules which are basically, "We do what we want, but pretend to follow international treaties and agreements, but you must strictly abide by every such agreement down to the last comma." This new USA policy is another wonderful result of Trump's harder-line policy toward China.
|
|
|
China
Oct 24, 2019 5:10:09 GMT -8
Post by artraveler on Oct 24, 2019 5:10:09 GMT -8
That is ok and it is a good first step. However, if the intent is to make China squirm we must reduce the number of visas issued to students. Large parts 0f STEM programs on university campus are infested with n0n-citizens who suck up resources and are often not much more than spies for the PRC. To lesser degree India should also be on the same restrictions.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
China
Oct 24, 2019 5:36:49 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 24, 2019 5:36:49 GMT -8
I couldn't agree more. For decades, I have been telling people about the problems with so many foreign students in our colleges and universities. One of the main reasons the cost of a university education has outpaced inflation significantly and become so expensive is because so many foreigners come here and pay very high prices for such an education. Can anyone be surprised that the education lobby is so pro open borders?
|
|
|
China
Oct 24, 2019 7:08:52 GMT -8
Post by artraveler on Oct 24, 2019 7:08:52 GMT -8
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
China
Oct 24, 2019 8:36:43 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 24, 2019 8:36:43 GMT -8
That video of Jimmy Lai was excellent.
I was living in Hong Kong when Tiananmen Square happened. Lai had been a well known figure in Hong Kong due to his success with his clothing brand Giordano. (My son still wears a sweater my bought for me in the mid-1980s from one of the Giordano shops in Hong Kong) But when the Reds slaughtered the people in Beijing, Lai sold his stores and put his money where his mouth was. He went into the publishing business with the intent of exposing the Reds for what they are. He is still doing it.
He points out the unprecedented power the Reds now have due to technology. I had to smile because from the time I was a teenager I have warned people about the dangers of computers in the hands of governments.
He also points out that the Chinese see competition as war. This is similar to my old joke that "if you have two Chinese together you have a battle, if you have three Chinese together you have a war." Over the years, many people have found my joke very droll, but I have been quite serious when I tell it.
I also like the way that Lai points out that "modernity" is Western in its origins and values, and that if China doesn't adapt to it and accept Western values, their growth will be in jeopardy. I personally don't think this will matter so much to them. Power is the object.
Lai is a good example of a certain type of Chinese. They are convinced in their beliefs and have the guts and stubborness to stick by them. Money and pain does not get in the way. Sacrifice for their goals is worth it, in their minds. These people will not back down.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
China
Oct 30, 2019 18:40:38 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 30, 2019 18:40:38 GMT -8
The link is to a brief piece which details some of modern Asian history and points out there are differences between dictators. Good and Bad Dictatorships
|
|
|
China
Oct 30, 2019 19:05:51 GMT -8
Post by timothylane on Oct 30, 2019 19:05:51 GMT -8
The article makes some good points. One difference is between authoritarian and totalitarian governments. This reflects how restricted freedom is. The military dictatorship in Chile, for example, instituted free market by University of Chicago economists trained by Milton Friedman. A corollary is that authoritarians are usually less murderous to their people. Certainly it would be hard to match Communist dictators in that regard.
Another consequence is that authoritarian governments can turn democratic. South Korea did, and so did the Philippines after Marcos. Taiwan did so, and even Japan changed from a one-party state to a genuine multi-party democracy. By contrast, many Communists countries (such as China) remain dictatorships, and many others are corrupt simulacra of democracy. The only ones to go genuinely democratic were in Europe, and had been occupied by the Soviet Empire. Many also had democratic pasts, especially Czechoslovakia and, to some extent, East Germany.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
China
Nov 28, 2019 21:28:38 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 28, 2019 21:28:38 GMT -8
At least some in Hongkong appreciate what America has done to support the protestors. The laws signed by Trump are not very drastic, but send a clear message to China. China is pissed off. Thank You AmericaNow I wonder how long it will take for these people to forget what America has done for them. As I read once, "gratitude is the shortest lived emotion."
|
|