The Tibet bandwagon

[Ellipsis]

This whole thing is crazy. I am sorry, I understand that the Chinese have abused human rights and if I was Chinese/Tibetan (if I was not afraid of being put to death) I would be relaying with the monks. But the fact is I live in Canada and have no interest in China other then it manufacturing Xbox 360s.

Moreover, there are atrocities going at this moment that are more frightening than this.. Let me get this straight: we are going against China because it has oppressed the Tibetan people culturally and not allowed them self governance while other governments are actually killing more then 200 protestors (some who may or may not have been killed in self defence). While this whole thing has been happening more people have probably died as a result of the invasion of Iraq (some of which may or may not have been killed in self defence). More people have died in a single day then during this whole thing and that has received less coverage then the death toll it Tibet.

This whole thing is media hype, crazy and dangerous media hype. Elected officials listen to this kind of media hype as they did with Iraq (except those who believe themselves above the law). This is the kind of hype that leads to bad things happening and representative democracy which revolves around "educated" law makers arguing and making decisions by actually putting some effort into their stances. Sometimes law makers need to step outside the moment, sometimes they need to do something which is not popular with the voting public. This is one of those times where they need to stop and take a deep breath.

But of course they do not and this is what happens:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/09/house.olympics/index.html

I believe in the rational nature of the human race but I also believe that the human race is emotional and easily influenced by this crap in the short term. The media instead of covering stories of more importance (don't get me wrong Tibet is a issue but not a HUGE issue) and relevance to our daily lives. The media has instead gone to get the most views with drama. "The death toll has reached 90?? the tsunami nearly got as much coverage and that was with the deaths of thousands and much more exciting coverage. You can bet now that so many more people will watch the Olympics and that ratings will be high.

[Titania]

I don't even know where to start on this one. The thought of even trying exhausts me.

[panda]

It'd be easy to make the case that it's a very important issue, due to the fact that we're talking about motherfucking China.

[Oso Mocoso]

My wife has an opinion on this. She's pro-Tibet. Why? Because she feels like she needs an excuse for why she doesn't want to watch the Olympics. Her co-workers talk about them occasionally, and I guess she thinks having a political reason sounds better than just going "Meh."

I think a lot of pro-Tibet people hold their opinion for pretty similar reasons. They think the Dalai Lama looks friendly on TV. They've seen Free Tibet! bumper stickers. Why shouldn't mean old China give the smiling old bald dude his country back? Richard Gere likes him too. And Bono! That's so cute. Never mind that the Dalai Lama historically used to be a medieval warlord.

Sheesh. Liberals.

[Ellipsis]

Umm I probably should not have deleted my posts...

[sandwich]

Since ... neglected to write anything in the OP, I will use this opportunity to announce that I will be sitting in the presence of His Holiness this weekend.

[Titania]

Never mind that the Dalai Lama historically used to be a medieval warlord.But isn't now.

In any case, yes, let's just piss all over the idea of self-determining states and free speech for Tibetans because it's a popular cause and because the rule by previous Dalai Lamas was imperfect. Great idea.

[Ellipsis]

But isn't now.

In any case, yes, let's just piss all over the idea of self-determining states and free speech for Tibetans because it's a popular cause and because the rule by previous Dalai Lamas was imperfect. Great idea.

No it is a cuase for the west. What if you strip China's soverignity and self determination away? You then also say to Tibet and its people: "we are the ones in control"...meanwhile you alienate China....

[Titania]

No it is a cuase for the west. What if you strip China's soverignity and self determination away? You then also say to Tibet and its people: "we are the ones in control"...meanwhile you alienate China....Hahah, wow.

[Oso Mocoso]

But isn't now.

The only way he derives any authority is because he is supposedly the reincarnation of a warlord.


In any case, yes, let's just piss all over the idea of self-determining states and free speech for Tibetans because it's a popular cause and because the rule by previous Dalai Lamas was imperfect. Great idea.

Free speech for Tibetans? How ridiculous to single them out. How about free speech for anyone living in a country that doesn't have it? How about the right of free speech for anyone in China, or for the people of Australia?

Are you familiar with the history of China and how it came to be unified as a nation state? They've been redrawing borders quite a bit during the 20th century. Somehow, no one ever cries over the loss of Manchukuo. Historically, "self-determining nation states" haven't enjoyed a lot of respect over there. The whole Free Tibet! nonsense just focuses on one of them.

[thirtyshackles]

China will take what it wants, and the US doesn't have the resources to do anything about it. Whatever they say is hot air, but moreover has nothing to do with Tibet. America has never been altruistic.

[Titania]

Oh come on now, the policy change required to make Tibet into its own state would increase free speech and civil liberties in China.

I'd rather take up one popular cause than none of them. Yes, China is a clusterfuck. So let's ignore it, hm? Let's take up zero grievances, let's pretend it doesn't exist?

What the fuck ever. The people who are concerned about Tibet are concerned about China. Tibet just has a vocal group of refugees and former leaders able to state their case and speak out about Tibet. So they shouldn't? So nobody should give a damn? Bullshit.

[Ellipsis]

Oh come on now, the policy change required to make Tibet into its own state would increase free speech and civil liberties in China.

I'd rather take up one popular cause than none of them. Yes, China is a clusterfuck. So let's ignore it, hm? Let's take up zero grievances, let's pretend it doesn't exist?

What the fuck ever. The people who are concerned about Tibet are concerned about China. Tibet just has a vocal group of refugees and former leaders able to state their case and speak out about Tibet. So they shouldn't? So nobody should give a damn? Bullshit.

No I am not saying that I am saying the should give less of a dam and polticains should think things through.

[thirtyshackles]

So they shouldn't? So nobody should give a damn?

They shouldn't fight knowing they can't win. It's selfish, and will only cause more harm. When faced with those odds, you submit, run or get yourself killed.

Why is it any more complicated than that?

And pissing on China's Olympic parade is the lowest of the low - passive or not. Little countries can't cry to the international scene like children running from one parent to another, trying to get a second opinion. Bad idea. Where's their filial piety? Wahaha.

[Ellipsis]

They shouldn't fight knowing they can't win. It's selfish, and will only cause more harm. When faced with those odds, you submit, run or get yourself killed.

Why is it any more complicated than that?

Well I also believe in the prime directive...

[Oso Mocoso]

I'd rather take up one popular cause than none of them. Yes, China is a clusterfuck. So let's ignore it, hm? Let's take up zero grievances, let's pretend it doesn't exist?

You were the one talking about self-determining nation states. China is generally recognized as a self-determining nation state. Tibet is not. Territorial control of Tibet was given to China in a treaty with the U.K. Tibet was able to rebel during the Chinese Civil War. WW1 broke out. The whole thing was a mess. As soon as China got their shit together enough to do so, they re-annexed Tibet.

If you follow the relevant treaties, Tibet ceded their right to be an independent nation several times. They have pretty much no legal claim to nationhood.

[HilbertSpace]

In hindsight, the whole "China: Often not as bad as North Korea" PR campaign probably could have been done better.

CSM (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0410/p04s01-woap.html) has a piece today on civil rights in China.

[Titania]

They shouldn't fight knowing they can't win. It's selfish, and will only cause more harm. When faced with those odds, you submit, run or get yourself killed.

Why is it any more complicated than that?Why (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/lynching.jpg) ever (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/TriangleShirtwaist.jpg) care (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/tsquare.jpg) about (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/LittleRock.jpg) anything? (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/images/life/kentstate.jpg)

Those selfish people. They just made it hard for themselves. :rolleyes:

[Oso Mocoso]

Those selfish people. They just made it hard for themselves. :rolleyes:

Well, historically in the case of Tibet, they fight a pointless was, surrender, wait until they think no one is looking, and assert that they are a country again until someone smacks them down and annexes them.

Titania, do you know very much about international law? Tibet isn't a country. They're like The Basque or Kurdistan with better public relations.

[Karl]

I see no reason why "Greater Tibet" should not have more autonomy within the context of China. Edit: And no, they don't have a political claim, but it's not that hard to argue Greater Tibet constitutes a stateless nation in the same manner as Hawaii or Puerto Rico.

[Rhu]

Umm I probably should not have deleted my posts...
OP restored. Nothing can be done for the other one.

[Titania]

International law is pretty much the rules everyone but superpowers are forced to follow.

Whether or not Tibet is freed, they sure as fuck shouldn't be denied their basic human rights to not get shot if they don't like their government. Isn't shooting nonviolent protestors against international law?

Oh, wait. Forgot, doesn't apply to China.

[Karl]

International law is pretty much the rules everyone but superpowers are forced to follow.

Whether or not Tibet is freed, they sure as fuck shouldn't be denied their basic human rights to not get shot if they don't like their government. Isn't shooting nonviolent protestors against international law?

Oh, wait. Forgot, doesn't apply to China.

When have they done that recently? I mean we've done that in the US too if you want to go back far enough, but has that been happening recently?

[Karl]

Since ... neglected to write anything in the OP, I will use this opportunity to announce that I will be sitting in the presence of His Holiness this weekend.

Wait really?

[Titania]

Last month. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4468783)

Unfortunately, it's uncorroborated because there is a media blackout in the region, with every journalist kicked out of it. How convenient. I GUESS WE SHOULD BELIEVE CHINA.

Wait, also Last week. (http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?article=Chinese+police+fire+on+Tibetan+protesters+two+days+after+killing+eight+Tibetans+in+Sichuan+province&id=20466) Again, China's too busy making sure there's no freedom of speech in the region on pain of imprisonment and possibly death, so we have to believe they're violently repressing free speech. Nothing to see here!

[Karl]

Last month. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4468783)

Unfortunately, it's uncorroborated because there is a media blackout in the region, with every journalist kicked out of it. How convenient. I GUESS WE SHOULD BELIEVE CHINA.

There has been rioting, and no matter what's going on China is going to suppress information because they don't want other people to use this issue against them. So at best we can say this might be true.

[Oso Mocoso]

Unfortunately, it's uncorroborated because there is a media blackout in the region, with every journalist kicked out of it. How convenient. I GUESS WE SHOULD BELIEVE CHINA.

Ha ha ha, oh right so I guess we should just believe the propaganda mouthpiece of the other side instead. :grin: You're so cute when you're all young, credulous and idealistic.

[Titania]

You asked if something recent happened, it's very unlikely, given China's recent human rights record, it hasn't been.

No, you do not give fucking China the benefit of the doubt on human rights issues.
Ha ha ha, oh right so I guess we should just believe the propaganda mouthpiece of the other side instead. :grin: You're so cute when you're all young, credulous and idealistic.China has zero credibility on human rights or free speech issues, and that's nobody but China's fault.

And what are you, eighty?

[C.J.Woolf]

Tibet isn't a country. They're like The Basque or Kurdistan with better public relations.
They all want independence, and the Basques and the Kurds wish they had better PR. Why begrudge Tibetans for doing the best they can to get what they want? If everybody STFU then nobody's free.

PR is a weapon of the weak. Be glad their PR is good, otherwise they would resort (more?) to terrorism, another weapon of the weak.


When have they done that recently? I mean we've done that in the US too if you want to go back far enough, but has that been happening recently?
That kind of thinking kills progress. We must ask: What is right here and now?

[Karl]

That kind of thinking kills progress. We must ask: What is right here and now?

Um, that's what I asked.

[C.J.Woolf]

Um, that's what I asked.
I misread you; sorry.

[Titania]

That kind of thinking kills progress. We must ask: What is right here and now?No, I agree. Demanding that all wrongs be 100% current and corroborated in a state with zero freedom of the press and which does have a record of killing dissenters (and has apparently only gotten really good at making sure it's impossible to verify, instead of actually changing) only supports totalitarianism.

[thirtyshackles]

Just like record companies don't want you to own the music you buy, governments don't want you to own the rights they grant. Yeah, you have free speech, right up until you start causing problems with it, then you're a terrorist/separatist/etc and they have loopholes to make sure you never existed. It's an illusion, and any government calling China out on this needs to take a look at their own closet (or warehouse) of skeletons.

There are no such things as human rights, only times of despotism, and times of socialism. The bottom line is that history is written by victors, and truth woven by the mouthpieces of power - both come from force, which China has in abundance.

Peace is waiting for Tibet, but they don't want it. They want to be martyrs for some pointless, subjective ideal. Eh, let them have their romance at the end of a barrel.

They really only have two choices: manipulate their way into becoming a pseudo-colony of the American Empire, or return to China (where they belong.) Things would be far worse for them in our hands, considering their proximity to the mainland, and our diminishing power.

[Oso Mocoso]

No, you do not give fucking China the benefit of the doubt on human rights issues.China has zero credibility on human rights or free speech issues, and that's nobody but China's fault.

Yeah, actually. If you want to have any credibility yourself, you sorta do. You can't just convict them without any evidence. You cited a really poorly informed article. "Separatist rebels accuse China of shooting people!" Yawn.

Stuff I've heard from more believable sources say there were police quelling a rowdy protest where they arrested around 400 people. Yes, getting arrested in China is probably pretty inhumane.


They all want independence, and the Basques and the Kurds wish they had better PR. Why begrudge Tibetans for doing the best they can to get what they want? If everybody STFU then nobody's free.

I don't begrudge them anything. If they can win nationhood from China, more power to them. But their PR is very deceptive. That makes it well crafted from a marketing standpoint, but it still annoys me when people apparently just accept it with no scrutiny whatsoever.

[Titania]

Yeah, actually. If you want to have any credibility yourself, you sorta do. You can't just convict them without any evidence.There's been plenty of evidence in the past, and there is no way of collecting credible evidence now because doing so could get you killed.

This is not difficult to understand.

[Karl]

No, I agree. Demanding that all wrongs be 100% current and corroborated in a state with zero freedom of the press and which does have a record of killing dissenters (and has apparently only gotten really good at making sure it's impossible to verify, instead of actually changing) only supports totalitarianism.

China does not have 0 freedom of the press. Much of it is actually done in an indirect way. Sense we basically have capitalism, we have news companies that operate independently, but China sets guidelines about what they can't say, and on certain issues they tell them exactly what they can say.

I wouldn't say that's freedom of the press there, but to say that the news companies have no individual initiative is inaccurately.

Edit: Totalitarianism? Mussolini and Hitler would be offended at the comparison. At worst China is your run-of-the-mill dictatorship, and I wouldn't call that obvious.

[mgb]

Somehow, no one ever cries over the loss of Manchukuo.

Are you shitting me?

[Oso Mocoso]

Are you shitting me?

:grin: What do you think?

[mgb]

:grin: What do you think?

I think the people above me should be embarrassed for not catching that.

[Oso Mocoso]

My point was that they didn't seem to know much about the history of the region they were being opinionated about. Basically the analogy is discussing Europe's politics while being ignorant of the Holocaust.

Thanks, MGB.

[Titania]

I think the people above me should be embarrassed for not catching that.Oso trolling the thread doesn't make him magically more right. If he wanted to look like an idiot, I wasn't going to stop him.

[mgb]

Oso trolling the thread doesn't make him magically more right. If he wanted to look like an idiot, I wasn't going to stop him.

I don't know home-fry, you could have disarmed him 6 posts earlier. You're kind of saying that you were in a chess match and you just wanted it to go a little longer because you felt like it not because you missed a mistake he made.

It's ok, I think even Oso knows he's wrong to some extent and he's just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Titania]

I dunno, I've never seen someone that wrong bother much with these "fact" things, so it's not like pointing out he's wrong on one of them would have helped.

Arguing with someone who is mind-bogglingly wrong is not so much a chess match as it is swing dancing on a floor covered in termites-- you can go for a big one, but there are like a thousand more, so meh.

[mgb]

I dunno, I've never seen someone that wrong bother much with these "fact" things, so it's not like pointing out he's wrong on one of them would have helped.

Arguing with someone who is mind-bogglingly wrong is not so much a chess match as it is swing dancing on a floor covered in termites-- you can go for a big one, but there are like a thousand more, so meh.

Let's not let Ellipsis off the hook so easily though. He started this thread.

;)

[Titania]

Let's not let Ellipsis off the hook so easily though. He started this thread.

;)He already has that avatar. We can't possibly be worse enemies to him than he is to himself.

[mgb]

He already has that avatar. We can't possibly be worse enemies to him than he is to himself.

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

It does kind of make you want to pants him though, no?

[MadamI'madaM]

Before I trail off, I'd like to state that I am a good witch and I want super happy sugar fun time for all the sad little children and would-be countries of the world.


...but do I believe the same about Congress, the good people in the Pentagon, the news media, or our current administration?

I'm not exactly sure which paranoid angle to come from right away, but this is just plain fucking fishy. Tibet is pretty damn far down on the laundry list of foreign fixer uppers (although much higher than Iraq ever was, granted). We have absolutely nothing to gain from this on the surface level. This either seems like a really misguided way to validate Bush's "concern" about Iraqis or a lame excuse to stir shit up with the largest current threat to our coveted 'world supremacy'. I'm already having flashbacks about UN sanctions and Congressional hearings agaist Saddam, and I haven't even been drafted yet.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Well, historically in the case of Tibet, they fight a pointless was, surrender, wait until they think no one is looking, and assert that they are a country again until someone smacks them down and annexes them.

Titania, do you know very much about international law? Tibet isn't a country. They're like The Basque or Kurdistan with better public relations.

International law has nothing to do with being a genuine nation. The Tibetan people have a common and distinct cultural identity and language, and this makes them a nation. International law - by definition made by states - can hardly be expected to define as legitimate the opressed nations within those very states.

Regarding the issue in general: The Tibetans are discriminated gaainst purely for being Tibetans anyway. You have to speak Chinese to get a well-paid job in Tibet - i.e. a job above the poverty line. They are kicked off their land and replaced with Han Chinese settlers. The Chinese government takes resources out of the region for use for economic growth in the rest of the coutnry.

All of this makes Tibetans grievances completely legitimate, and turns them into a nation by common experience even regardless of history.

Yes, other states do equally bad things, or worse things. So what? That doesn't mean we can't support the Tibetans right to self-determination - something they clearly need, because by very virtue of being Tiebtans within China, they are second -class citizens, so they hardly even have an option apart from nationalism.

Yes, the western powers do undoubtedly use the Tibet issue as justification for certain measures of comeptition with China over resources and markets. Guess what, great powers have always hypocritically done that. The US, Britain and France hypocritically pretended to care about Jews, gypsies and homosexuals in Germany for years! We fought two world wars against "evil empires" based on competition between great powers justified by ideological rhetoric about liberating others.

So yeah, in 1914 it would have been compeltely correct to refuse to join in with anti-German hysteria in Britain. It wouldn't have been correct as an extension of that to simply switch sides and support them or refuse to criticise them just because you hate your own government - the equivalent of what the OP is doing, and place yourself against people in Germany just like yourself who were in turn fighting their own oppressive government. That is like nationalism in reverse, the belief that all that matters is your own oppositon to your own government based on your own grudge, and who cares what happens to people under some other regime.

[V Profane]

Grown-up politics goes up in flames (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4956/)


Yesterday’s public grappling with the Olympic torch shone a light on the self-satisfied, cartoonish nature of contemporary China-bashing.

Personally, the Olympics would have to be held on the moon before I gave a fuck about it. Incidentally, I was in China 8 years ago when they won the bid. They seemed pretty pleased.

[HilbertSpace]

It's good to know that, after 72 years, the Olympic torch carrying ceremony gets to return to its original purpose.

[Oso Mocoso]

International law has nothing to do with being a genuine nation. The Tibetan people have a common and distinct cultural identity and language, and this makes them a nation. International law - by definition made by states - can hardly be expected to define as legitimate the opressed nations within those very states.

I thought this thread died already, jeez DS. Fine, I'll play with you too.

Not unless a previously recognized nation or group of nations is willing to recognize them as a sovereign nation with their own territories and borders. Residing in the U.K. I am sure you are aware that this is an activity that your own nation state has been known to engage in because it was the proper and gentlemanly thing to do.


They are kicked off their land and replaced with Han Chinese settlers. The Chinese government takes resources out of the region for use for economic growth in the rest of the coutnry.

True. Again, I'm seeing shades of the U.K. I am looking at you in particular, Belfast. "I had four green fields, each one was a jewel But strangers came and tried to take them from me..." You know that one, right?


All of this makes Tibetans grievances completely legitimate, and turns them into a nation by common experience even regardless of history.

Kurds? Palestinians? For a little while there, Tibet had its chance. Timeline: The UK took it over. When they were done with it, they traded it to China for some sheep or something. China dropped the ball. Tibet declared independence. But it didn't last long. Mean old China beat up little Mengkukuo and got around to reannexing Tibet. As countries go, Tibet doesn't seem very capable of protecting itself.


Yes, other states do equally bad things, or worse things. So what? That doesn't mean we can't support the Tibetans right to self-determination - something they clearly need, because by very virtue of being Tiebtans within China, they are second -class citizens, so they hardly even have an option apart from nationalism.

I really don't think they have it as bad as the Palestinians. I also don't think there's any reason to take on China over Tibet. It's not like the Tibetans have lots of oil or anything. Priorities, man!

If we're going to fight injustice based on how unjust things are for how large a number of people, we could go fix Burma. They don't have anything important over there either, but there's a lot more people effected by injustice. It also wouldn't mean picking a very expensive fight with China.

[Titania]

There are non-militaristic means of pressuring a nation, you know.

[Oso Mocoso]

There are non-militaristic means of pressuring a nation, you know.

No there aren't. Ask DS about India. Those Indians are ferocious in battle. That's why they're a country.

[Hustler]

How many of these anti-China Olympic flame protesters wear clothes that were made in China when they go out to protest? I'll put the figure at somewhere around 80%. Those who don't are probably wearing clothes from Bangladesh or India, where things are even worse.

[Hustler]

As countries go, Tibet doesn't seem very capable of protecting itself.
Yeah, kind of like Kuwait.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Not unless a previously recognized nation or group of nations is willing to recognize them as a sovereign nation with their own territories and borders.

No that's a state, not a nation.


True. Again, I'm seeing shades of the U.K. I am looking at you in particular, Belfast. "I had four green fields, each one was a jewel But strangers came and tried to take them from me..." You know that one, right?

True, I support Irish resistance for that reason.



Kurds? Palestinians? For a little while there, Tibet had its chance. Timeline: The UK took it over. When they were done with it, they traded it to China for some sheep or something. China dropped the ball. Tibet declared independence. But it didn't last long. Mean old China beat up little Mengkukuo and got around to reannexing Tibet. As countries go, Tibet doesn't seem very capable of protecting itself.

This doesn't really mean anything for the future does it?


If we're going to fight injustice based on how unjust things are for how large a number of people, we could go fix Burma.

Who is "we"? I would oppose any aggression against china by my government but I wouldn't therefore not support Tibet's right to self-determination. That was the whole point of my OP.

[Titania]

How many of these anti-China Olympic flame protesters wear clothes that were made in China when they go out to protest? I'll put the figure at somewhere around 80%. Those who don't are probably wearing clothes from Bangladesh or India, where things are even worse.There were a great many abolitionists who benefitted from the existence of slavery whose political action still sped up the end of slavery.

Even if you choose to minimize your involvement in the dynamic, you still benefit. That is not an argument against involvement, as you know.

[Oso Mocoso]

No that's a state, not a nation.

There are tons of states that do not consist of a single nation, and tons of nations without states. Certain special nations or groups of nations get to be sovereign nations or nation states. The Tibetans are a really weak and powerless nation. They're not special enough to get to be a sovereign nation. They're the sort of nation the U.K. trades to China in exchange for some sheep.


True, I support Irish resistance for that reason.

I support Irish resistance because I used to live in London, and I wanted to bomb it too. My heart goes out to the Irish.


This doesn't really mean anything for the future does it?

Yes, that Tibet is a wuss and there's pretty much no way they could resist being gobbled up by one of their neighbors unless they were essentially used as a foreign military base or something.


Who is "we"?

The rest of the world who would buy Bono records supporting Tibet, or put Free Tibet! stickers on our skateboards.


I would oppose any aggression against china by my government but I wouldn't therefore not support Tibet's right to self-determination. That was the whole point of my OP.

But more importantly, if I put "Free Tibet" on a t-shirt with an attractive design, would you buy it?

[Hustler]

China does not have 0 freedom of the press. Much of it is actually done in an indirect way. Sense we basically have capitalism, we have news companies that operate independently, but China sets guidelines about what they can't say, and on certain issues they tell them exactly what they can say.

I wouldn't say that's freedom of the press there, but to say that the news companies have no individual initiative is inaccurately.

Just today I was watching a British TV show here on my computer in America thanks to a video streaming site in China. Now that's the kind of freedom of the press I like to see, the kind that gives a big FU to cable companies and TV networks.

I think this is a nice metaphor for a larger thing that is missing from this thread: cultural perspective. What constitutes freedom or justification according to certain sociological models doesn't constitute freedom or justification according to others.

If every ethnic minority in the world had its own nation, we'd probably have about 5,000 countries in the world instead of 193. The whole of history since the agricultural revolution comprises ethnic groups butting heads, leading to eradication, displacement, subjugation, or merger, which trends towards larger nation building. I don't know if this is superior to the 5,000 country model of global politics, but I do know it has always been the trend, and it seems more likely everyday that the trend will continue and conglomerations of states will continue to crop up, giving rise to an era of supernations. Tibet seeking its independence is anathema to this trend, which is why it is probably a losing proposition. Too many people (in China) have invested too much time and too many resources into Tibet to just let it go because, in doing so, it is likely it will get left in the dust by the rest of China (little backwater nations always do), and all of that investment will completely tank.

Anyway, it is all pretty pathetic when you have westerners wagging their fingers at China for its continued perpetration of human rights abuses when the United States and its citizens lead the world in benefiting from the fruits of human rights abuse, though Europe and Canada are certainly close behind. If you wear clothes, drive a car, eat chocolate, possess any gold or jewelry or shop for discounted merchandise of any variety anywhere and still want to be judgmental about China having authority over Tibet, then you're a giant hypocrite. You could do more for global human rights by simply not driving a gas-powered automobile or making your own clothes.

[Titania]

Since only the hypocrites have the power to change a damn thing, what do you propose?

I own no car, and I buy nearly everything but my shoes second hand.

[demagogic_schizoid]

There are tons of states that do not consist of a single nation, and tons of nations without states. Certain special nations or groups of nations get to be sovereign nations or nation states. The Tibetans are a really weak and powerless nation. They're not special enough to get to be a sovereign nation. They're the sort of nation the U.K. trades to China in exchange for some sheep.



I support Irish resistance because I used to live in London, and I wanted to bomb it too. My heart goes out to the Irish.



Yes, that Tibet is a wuss and there's pretty much no way they could resist being gobbled up by one of their neighbors unless they were essentially used as a foreign military base or something.



The rest of the world who would buy Bono records supporting Tibet, or put Free Tibet! stickers on our skateboards.



But more importantly, if I put "Free Tibet" on a t-shirt with an attractive design, would you buy it?



hmmm what is it with 99% of INTP's and Current Affairs? Threads on this board always degenerate into rambling along the lines of "WHO ARE YOU SAY WHATS RIGHT AND WRONG!?!?!?!1/"

Normal people, even some intp's, have opinions, make judgements, and believe politics goes beyond simply stating what "is", and in fact developing a model of what "should be". Deal with it, and don't reply to current affairs threads until you've stopped trying to reject that very simple human desire to not just observe, but improve. Sheesh some people.

No offence Oso I like most of your posts though. ;)

[Hustler]

There were a great many abolitionists who benefitted from the existence of slavery whose political action still sped up the end of slavery.

Even if you choose to minimize your involvement in the dynamic, you still benefit. That is not an argument against involvement, as you know.

As a consumer in America, you have choices. You can choose to not buy anything from China if you don't believe in Chinese politics. In doing so, you stop supporting the Chinese government. To berate Chinese policy while you give it money is hypocrisy and, in fact, is just a way to make yourself feel good, while not actually doing anything to alleviate the world's problems.

[Titania]

As a consumer in America, you have choices. You can choose to not buy anything from China if you don't believe in Chinese politics. In doing so, you stop supporting the Chinese government. To berate Chinese policy while you give it money is hypocrisy and, in fact, is just a way to make yourself feel good, while not actually doing anything to alleviate the world's problems.I can agree that's the most effective thing to do (in fact, I for the most part already do this), but I don't believe it's the only pressure that can be brought to bear. Protests and the like have helped with problems like awareness and complacency in the past.

I will agree, protests in foreign nations do very little compared to boycotts, but I won't say protests do nothing.

[fripping]

mgb's avatar is a chinese pun, although the tones are different mao is both the syllable for the chairman and for a cat. isn't that cute. human rights? tibet? what? don't know anything about that. *slams door*

[Hustler]

Since only the hypocrites have the power to change a damn thing, what do you propose?

I own no car, and I buy nearly everything but my shoes second hand.

I propose you get a car so that you can more ably drive to anti-China rallies.

[C.J.Woolf]

If every ethnic minority in the world had its own nation, we'd probably have about 5,000 countries in the world instead of 193. The whole of history since the agricultural revolution comprises ethnic groups butting heads, leading to eradication, displacement, subjugation, or merger, which trends towards larger nation building. I don't know if this is superior to the 5,000 country model of global politics, but I do know it has always been the trend, and it seems more likely everyday that the trend will continue and conglomerations of states will continue to crop up, giving rise to an era of supernations. Tibet seeking its independence is anathema to this trend, which is why it is probably a losing proposition.
I suppose the consolidation of superstates is a trend, but there were two major reversals of that trend in the 20th century: the breakoff of ethnic states from the Austrian, Russian, and Turkish empires after the Great War, and the second fragmentation of the mostly restored Russian empire called the Soviet Union. The first happened to states that had lost a major war and were powerless to resist it, but the Soviets could have prevented the second if it was willing to fight it. I think the Soviet Union would have fought to maintain control the republics (and the Warsaw Pact countries) if it still felt threatened by the West, but it didn't. But I'm guessing Russia will bide its time and try to absorb some of the breakoff states someday, one way or another.

Oh yeah, China. I don't know why China is so damned set on keeping a mountainous province in the middle of fucking nowhere. Does the Chinese government fear other independence movements if they relent in Tibet? Do they fear India would move into Tibet if China left? Is it simply a national prestige thing? China must consider it worth the trouble for some reason.

[Hustler]

Normal people, even some intp's, have opinions, make judgements, and believe politics goes beyond simply stating what "is", and in fact developing a model of what "should be". Deal with it, and don't reply to current affairs threads until you've stopped trying to reject that very simple human desire to not just observe, but improve. Sheesh some people.

You speak as though you actually know which actions to take to improve things. Your arguments in this thread don't back you up. Are we supposed to accept your opinions just because you have them and think they're right? Do you have a logical argument for what should happen to Tibet, why that should happen, and what someone like Oso Mocoso can realistically do to see that it does happen? Furthermore, what about all of the other subjugated ethnic minorities in the world who simply don't have a voice as loud as Tibet's? What should be done about all of them, and what implications would your plans have for the global economic, social and political outlook for the next hundred years?

And this all falls under the even broader assumption that global politics (and its myriad concomitant moralities) is somehow evolutionary outside of the realm of technological and natural forces, which is likely unprovable.

If you don't like how people respond to your arguments, then make better arguments or, do as you already advised, and don't read the Current Events subforum. You have no greater to authority to post here than someone who happens to believe that your beliefs are all a bunch of BS.

[Oso Mocoso]

Normal people, even some intp's, have opinions, make judgements, and believe politics goes beyond simply stating what "is", and in fact developing a model of what "should be". Deal with it, and don't reply to current affairs threads until you've stopped trying to reject that very simple human desire to not just observe, but improve. Sheesh some people.

DS, I want to let you know that mostly what I was doing was trolling you. Go back and read the first response I gave you. Try to notice that I was saying utterly outrageous things that you apparently took at face value.

Did the U.K. really recognize the USA, Ireland and India just because it was the gentlemanly thing to do?

I quoted a line from a really tear jerky IRA propaganda folk song. Did you miss that?

China beat up poor little Mengkukuo? Excuse me? WTF? Also, it was pointed out previously in the thread that I was just trolling and this was the give-away.


No offence Oso I like most of your posts though. ;)

Some people just don't understand irony.

Actually, there was a little of actual opinion in what I posted - the bit about Tibet being a rather low priority action item in reducing world injustice. That's why I don't take it very seriously as something to get politically active about.

[Titania]

I propose you get a car so that you can more ably drive to anti-China rallies.I got legs. And I know how to use them. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG5gVE_B6JA)

Besides, what kind of sucker do you think I am? Yeah, I'll take on couple thousand dollar money pit in my early twenties. Sure thing.

[Hustler]

I suppose the consolidation of superstates is a trend, but there were two major reversals of that trend in the 20th century: the breakoff of ethnic states from the Austrian, Russian, and Turkish empires after the Great War, and the second fragmentation of the mostly restored Russian empire called the Soviet Union. The first happened to states that had lost a major war and were powerless to resist it, but the Soviets could have prevented the second if it was willing to fight it. I think the Soviet Union would have fought to maintain control the republics (and the Warsaw Pact countries) if it still felt threatened by the West, but it didn't. But I'm guessing Russia will bide its time and try to absorb some of the breakoff states someday, one way or another.
All pretty small compared to the consolidation of states that has been going on since the days of Ur. The Soviet Union failed miserably to achieve the type of subjugation that China has been engaging in for nearly 5,000 years. China alone has 55 ethnic minorities, all of which were "nations" of their own at some point. This does not count the large number of ethnic minorities that existed in millennia past in China but which are no longer around, either from being absorbed into Chinese culture or from having been eradicated when they refused to submit. The history of China is pretty much the history of building a supernation.


Oh yeah, China. I don't know why China is so damned set on keeping a mountainous province in the middle of fucking nowhere. Does the Chinese government fear other independence movements if they relent in Tibet? Do they fear India would move into Tibet if China left? Is it simply a national prestige thing? China must consider it worth the trouble for some reason.
I think it has to do with global warming. They aren't interested in stopping their usage of fossil fuels and dumping enormous amounts of greenhouse gas into the air. As such, they need a backup plan, and that plan involves having some of the territory with the highest elevation in the world, just in case all of the ice in Antarctica melts and floods the world. They saw Waterworld (what with their endless pirating of American movies), and they're not idiots.

[airjaw]

If China has to give Tibet autonomy, then we might as well give most of the Western US and Texas back to Mexico too. And give a buncha land back to the Indians as well.

Liberals (like me) love to defend the little guy, decrying all the abuses of foreign nations as well as our own, while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of our nation's past aggression. Hell, it'd be great if Tibet could be free as well, but china sure as hell isn't going to give it up, and you'd be crazy to think that they SHOULD. Just like the US isn't gonna give a damn thing back to Mexico, the Indians, WHOEVER.

We can criticize China, lets just admit that we're hypocrites while we do it.

[Hustler]

Besides, what kind of sucker do you think I am? Yeah, I'll take on couple thousand dollar money pit in my early twenties. Sure thing.

You can totally get yourself a 1988 Toyota Tercel with 200,000 miles for under $1000.

[Titania]

I'm more than fine with admitting hypocrisy. Like I say, usually only people with power can change anything. They didn't get it by being saints.

[camille]

You can totally get yourself a 1988 Toyota Tercel with 200,000 miles for under $1000.

Couldn't agree more with what you have said in this thread.

I purchased a reel lawnmower last year, under the impression it was American made, only to find out later all but a few parts were made overseas.

And then last week, we were out of bulk udon noodles so I bought a package of organic noodles, only to read afterwards in shock, that they were also made in China. I can only imagine how organic they are.

It takes an effort, but one worthwhile.

[Titania]

You can totally get yourself a 1988 Toyota Tercel with 200,000 miles for under $1000.Why would I want to? I don't need a car. I can bike or walk everywhere.

And it'd still need to be fed gas and insurance. Cars are for suckers.

[camille]

Cars are for suckers.

And people with children.

[Titania]

If I had a kid at my age, I'd be a sucker.

[camille]

If I had a kid at my age, I'd be a sucker.

Wow.

[Titania]

Wow.Do I really need to explain to you why it's a really terrible idea for a 23 year old woman living well below the poverty line should probably not pop out a kid, or am I going to have to pretend that other people having chosen to do different makes it a good decision?

I'mma go ahead and say that me not using a car and living in a 200 square foot apartment (minimizing my ecological footprint) and buying local produce and saving my pennies and waiting until I'm out of poverty to have a child is a better decision than not, even if that's not what you did. Sorry?

[Oso Mocoso]

China alone has 55 ethnic minorities, all of which were "nations" of their own at some point. This does not count the large number of ethnic minorities that existed in millennia past in China but which are no longer around, either from being absorbed into Chinese culture or from having been eradicated when they refused to submit. The history of China is pretty much the history of building a supernation.

In the past, the region we know as China today was commonly referred to in the West as "the Chinas". There were dozens of little kingdoms which shared a similar language and culture. During the Chinese Civil War a lot of this got sorted out through violence. The country we typically think of as China is not the only one to claim that title, but it's the one that won the war. Similarly, plenty of other countries where there was an internal struggle for dominance.

[camille]

No. It's calling people suckers, not your lifestyle. Plus, you are making the assumption that most people at 23 are still in college and living at poverty level. I commend you for making responsible choices, yet your choice isn't the only choice. Calling people suckers for having children at 23 implies that most people at 23 are where you are in your life. You never wrote, I'm 23 and living at poverty level. You wrote, "If I had a kid at my age." Nothing about your situation or income level.

How many people protesting do you think are actually refusing to buy products made in China? People get caught up in human rights' causes yet don't alter their lifestyles. It happens on a continual basis..

How many people do you think shop at Wal-mart, eat at Taco Bell, and buy their meat in grocery stores, yet complain about fair labor standards and illegal immigration?

China is one of, if not the, largest supplier to the US. All these people in America protesting, are more than likely still purchasing products which were either made in China, have pieces that were made in China, or were assembled in China.

[doob]

Isn't the point of any protest to help shape the narrative of the discussion and heighten awareness. Did the Olympic flame protesters achieve this? Those who become aware and sympathetic to the cause facilitate change at incremental levels. The masses never change anything, it is the active few who sow the seeds of change. We all are hypocrites or biased, I do think it's imperative to admit those biases (at least to yourself). I'm certainly happy there are those willing to protest and use other methods for change otherwise I'd still be looking for the "colored" water fountain.


U.S. citizens what would have been the effect if we collectively considered world opinion and anti Iraq war critics and protesters at home, and acted upon the information they gave us before the invasion began?

[Titania]

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Yes, you can safely assume I don't live in a vacuum, and when I say something is not right FOR ME, it means IN MY SITUATION since that is pretty much the primary factor in what's right for anyone.

Sheesh.

Second, far be it from me to say your decisions have implications beyond yourself, but if eating at burgerking is fair game, you bet bringing a child into a world (and therefore forcing you to do things like buy a car, which would, for example, increase my own cost of living again by half) sure as hell shouldn't be off the table for critique. But it is, because there is a major taboo against daring to tell a mother she's anything but an absolute saint who made the absolute best moral decisions possible for being one.

Truth is, your ecological and political impact on places like China will almost certainly be bigger over your lifetime than a celibate guy who ate at burgerking daily, even with how green you live, because of your kids. Can't fault you for having kids (you're human, people do that), but there's no reason why, when you had them young, you should be by default given the moral high ground over a guy who objectively will do less harm.

I'm sure you're the best mom ever etc, and of course like all young mothers, without fail, you are defensive as hell about it. I'm sorry, camille, you'll have to join the rest of the human race: you didn't make the BEST decision possible this one time, and maybe other people will choose different than you. It happens.

[Gracchus]

Might makes right bitches. China's rise will bring us back to geopolitics as usual. Post-modern West, meet human nature.

[Spartan26]

China is one of, if not the, largest supplier to the US. All these people in America protesting, are more than likely still purchasing products which were either made in China, have pieces that were made in China, or were assembled in China.About 15-20 years ago the house and senate would actually debate giving China most favored nation status. They always would give the thumbs up but now it seems like it's rubber stamped. What draws the world's ire against China also seems to change. A decade ago it was concern for Taiwan but I never hear that brought up any more. There's jailing and stripping people of employment and property based on assembly and religion, but that's not on the table any more either. Funding N. Korea's nuclear program, technology transference to nations we demanded they wouldn't supply, rampant copyright infringement from software to medicine, so many issues yet dousing out a torch going 8 miles per hour seems to be the best we can come up with. It's like the old, "'the official position is no position'...but if someone wants to retaliate on their own, we ain't mad atcha."

The trade deficit continues to grow and as China raises its standard of living, so goes their demand for oil. Now would seem like the time to push for policy change before we lose every form of leverage.

[dubbeltop]

The Tibet bandwagon

The fact that the OP does not and is not willing to live in Tibet makes him a reluctant democrat at best....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,865744,00.html?promoid=googlep

(some random article about Cuba......, Monday, Feb. 03, 1958 ), hehehehhe

[Hustler]

In the past, the region we know as China today was commonly referred to in the West as "the Chinas". There were dozens of little kingdoms which shared a similar language and culture. During the Chinese Civil War a lot of this got sorted out through violence. The country we typically think of as China is not the only one to claim that title, but it's the one that won the war. Similarly, plenty of other countries where there was an internal struggle for dominance.

You're wrong about a few points and, in addition, it's a lot more complicated than just that. First, the languages and cultures are not that similar. Many of the languages aren't even in the same family. In that way, they're as disparate as the languages of Europe. Secondly, China isn't "the one that won the war" anymore than the major nations of Europe are the ones that won the wars there. The Germans of today come from many historical nations, so too with the French, the Spanish, and so on. The Han Chinese, too, came from many historical nations, but became merged together over the millennia. If you were to trace the ancestry of many different Han people back a thousand or more years, you'd find many branches of their family tree weren't originally Han, but were other groups that were subjugated in their day, and that this chain of subjugation and culture merging leads us to the Han of today. It's the long process of mergers, displacements, eradications, and subjugations that leads us to the eventual supernation, and that is what China has been undertaking for a long time. In this sense, it is the same as if Europe were one unified into one state, with one overarching culture pervading all of its many nations.

Continuing with this process for a few more centuries will lead us to the inevitable:

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/borg_cube_tng.jpg

[Karl]

ll pretty small compared to the consolidation of states that has been going on since the days of Ur. The Soviet Union failed miserably to achieve the type of subjugation that China has been engaging in for nearly 5,000 years. China alone has 55 ethnic minorities, all of which were "nations" of their own at some point. This does not count the large number of ethnic minorities that existed in millennia past in China but which are no longer around, either from being absorbed into Chinese culture or from having been eradicated when they refused to submit. The history of China is pretty much the history of building a supernation.

Actually the Soviet Union went out of its way to give people more faith in their nations. There's another forum that has someone who grew up in the Soviet Union on it, and he mentioned once that he thought Russian should have been the only official language of the Soviet Union. He pointed out that early on in Ukraine, the vast majority of people read the Russian version of the news, and by the break up, most people were reading the Ukraninian version. He thinks that the early Soviet Union laid the basis for the nationalists of the future... and there's some truth there, although I think it was the right choice anyway. Now, there WAS an attempt to create a sort of Soviet cultural identity, but that was never completely successful.

So all this considered, I would view the breakup of the Soviet Union as more of a verification of capitalism rather than the forming of new nation-states, although these states did gain more independence from each other.

This comes down to the Marxist-Leninist conception of nations. The baltic states were small, but they were never absorbed into Russia.

[officehome&student]

How many of these anti-China Olympic flame protesters wear clothes that were made in China when they go out to protest? I'll put the figure at somewhere around 80%. Those who don't are probably wearing clothes from Bangladesh or India, where things are even worse.

That's a bad argument. Not wearing chinese made clothes is not going to have any noticeable effect on china's economic prosperity. Protesting at the olympic torch gathered world wide headlines, it was much more effective in delivering the message. Plus an economic boycott at the individual level won't work; its the prisoner's dilemma: each individual's contribution is insignificant to the result as a whole and if the individual's cost outweigh the benefiits then it is irrational for each individual to participate in the boycott.

[Vagabond]

There's one little point a few people mentioned, but the opposition consistently pretends not to hear: what China does, lousy as it may be, is what pretty much every big power does, the USA included. So why not start by protesting against and changing your own country's shortcomings in the field of human rights and imposing on nations, and when you are pure as snow yourselves, move on to "fucking" China (or whoever)? I mean, sure China is oppressive. The USA is not? How can you protest against what other governments do, while you conveniently ignore that your own government is pretty much just as bad in that sector? This is like a chain-smoker lecturing people against smoking.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Do you have a logical argument for what should happen to Tibet, why that should happen, and what someone like Oso Mocoso can realistically do to see that it does happen?

Well whoever said life was ever that simple that all opinion on everything could be reduced to an action plan. I don't think you can click your fingers and solve every problem in Tibet. I do believe that Americans who fight for what is right in their own country share a common interest with everyone ifghting oppression in China and in fact everywhere in the world, because it's exactly the same interests which rely on the poverty of one country in order to be able to undercut labour in others. At the same time it's western businesses export of capital which keeps the third world dependent, whilst at the same time meaning that profits in a country like yours are ploughed abroad ins earch of higher rates or return rather than invested in your transport, education and health systems, or in keeping people in housing who are now being bankrupted by a credit swindle underwritten by the super-explotiation of workers in China!

So yes, I think clearly, without any shadow of a doubt, the principle of solidarity on behalf of westerners with everyone oppressed and exploited in China is worth arguing for, in fact it may be more owrth arguing for than specific actions, because only a widespread understanding, on a global level, that the day to day struggles of an ordinary American and ordinary Chinese or Tibetan are inehrently interconnected, can ever really, long term, solve these kinds of problems, and in fact developing this kind of understanding at a ground level is much much more important than one off demands for specific actions to be carried out by self-interested celebrities and governments. So no, I can't give you an action rpogramme, likewise I couldn't have given you an action programme to overthrow apartheid (and I think boycotts ahd little if nay effect there), however, that doesn't mmean I wouldn't have argued with someone who said it was an ok or "natural" situation.


Furthermore, what about all of the other subjugated ethnic minorities in the world who simply don't have a voice as loud as Tibet's?

What about them? Do I oppose them? In fact if anything I personally concentrate very little on Tibet.


What should be done about all of them, and what implications would your plans have for the global economic, social and political outlook for the next hundred years?

If we can have specific examples, then that would be useful.


And this all falls under the even broader assumption that global politics (and its myriad concomitant moralities) is somehow evolutionary outside of the realm of technological and natural forces, which is likely unprovable.

A lot of things, like MBTI, are "unproveable": the proof comes from living them. Anyway I hardly see the point of your sentence above: technolgoy is developed by human beings and its development in itself represents an advancement of human understanding and ability. If we can take our understanding of a computer, build on it, and improve it, then we have a greater mass of understanding, and the understanding must come before the computer is made. Therefore saying that the advancement of technology is in itself the cause of all human development is simply like saying that trees blowing in the wind are the cause of the wind blowing itself: the development of technology indicates human intellectual advancement, it does not cause it.

In addition, of course societies and human consciousness evolve as distinct from technolgoy. Of course the two are linked, but human life doesn't simply improve as a trickle down, unconscious effect of the rational self-enlightenment of those who develop technolgoy for their own ends. Rather people have to make sure that technology is used for their own benefit,a nd this is in itself the evolution of socieities, the drive to match social organisation with productive potential. The means existed for the establishemnt of parliamentary democracies in Europe and the abolishment of absolute monarchies and the rule of the aristocracy before any of this actually happened, the merchants of the cities had long been subsidising the aristocracy and monarchy, but the development of their productive capacities didn't in iself cause the absolutist monarchies and aristocracies to "fade away", rather it took a conscious and organised leap in human social organisation itself to make social progress catch upw ith technological progress. So yes, the two fields are distinct, and the human one is the msot improtant, because humans are conscious and technology isn't, technology serves humans and not the other way around. The only question is which humans and how many of them.


If you don't like how people respond to your arguments, then make better arguments or, do as you already advised, and don't read the Current Events subforum. You have no greater to authority to post here than someone who happens to believe that your beliefs are all a bunch of BS

Hmmm, well when I ranted at someone who later admitted to trolling, then your opposition to me ranting looks a bit stupid. It's as if a.)you were either convinced by arguments which the person whow rote them himself only wrote down to amuse himself at his own abiltiy to be farcical, b.) you spotted that his arguemnts were trolling but still don't think people have the right to rant at someone who is trolling, c.) you judgement is so skewed by postmodernist texts that you can't even spot a spoof argument from a real one any more, or d.), you didn't even read the posts properly. ;)

[Titania]

There's one little point a few people mentioned, but the opposition consistently pretends not to hear: what China does, lousy as it may be, is what pretty much every big power does, the USA included. So why not start by protesting against and changing your own country's shortcomings in the field of human rights and imposing on nations, and when you are pure as snow yourselves, move on to "fucking" China (or whoever)? I mean, sure China is oppressive. The USA is not? How can you protest against what other governments do, while you conveniently ignore that your own government is pretty much just as bad in that sector? This is like a chain-smoker lecturing people against smoking.The actions I'd take to have any effect on America, are, interestingly, pretty similar, possibly identical, to the ones I'd take to lessen the US's impact on matters I care about.

These problems as you point out are universal. And fairly often, so are the elements of the remedy an individual personally has under their control.

[Vagabond]

The actions I'd take to have any effect on America, are, interestingly, pretty similar, possibly identical, to the ones I'd take to lessen the US's impact on matters I care about.

These problems as you point out are universal. And fairly often, so are the elements of the remedy an individual personally has under their control.
Okay. So what have you done to have any effect on America? Boycott? Protests? Snobbing international events? I mean, if you have, I agree you personally have every right to do the same to China or whoever else. But if not, I have to agree with whomever said you are taking the easy way out to make yourself feel better about the whole thing.

[Titania]

Well, I don't own a car for political reasons. I'm a delegate to the State convention here in Texas. I mostly buy local produce and rarely eat meat. I buy second hand clothes (and the ones I do buy new are from mostly humane or local labor). I do not own a TV and I adblock. I've protested a few things here n there, I have joined a couple special interest groups (although I'm hoping we can be rid of them soon enough, they're an unavoidable evil at this point).

It's not like snubbing China has no effect on local corporations. If I snub China, I don't shop at Wal-Mart. If I snub China in favor of local goods, and most people round here do too, local businesses stock more local goods. These issues do not exist in a vacuum, they are interconnected.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Okay. So what have you done to have any effect on America? Boycott? Protests? Snobbing international events? I mean, if you have, I agree you personally have every right to do the same to China or whoever else. But if not, I have to agree with whomever said you are taking the easy way out to make yourself feel better about the whole thing.

Actually, it's better to care about one thing than care about nothing. It's such a cynical attitude to say that people who get passioante about a cause but not another are "making themselves feel better" No-one is born with a complete understanding of the world, people develop and get poltiicised by specific events that catch their imagination, it's always been that way. She doesn't reinforce anything the US government does by caring about Tibetans, so really, your criticism is pretty worthless and just extremely negative about humanity in general. I remember your location was once West Yorkshire, right? Well I guess all those people who came out to support the miners in the 1980's were hypcorites because they hadn't been on every other picket line, ever? :rolleyes:

In fact your argument would invalidate any support for any cause ever, because no-one can in practice equally support every cause, and very few will even do so in theory.

[Vagabond]

Actually, it's better to care about one thing than care about nothing. It's such a cynical attitude to say that people who get passioante about a cause but not another are "making themselves feel better" No-one is born with a complete understanding of the world, people develop and get poltiicised by specific events that catch their imagination, it's always been that way. She doesn't reinforce anything the US government does by caring about Tibetans, so really, your criticism is pretty worthless and just extremely negative about humanity in general. I remember your location was once West Yorkshire, right? Well I guess all those people who came out to support the miners in the 1980's were hypcorites because they hadn't been on every other picket line, ever? :rolleyes:

In fact your argument would invalidate any support for any cause ever, because no-one can in practice equally support every cause, and very few will even do so in theory.
No, actually that's not at all what I said. Of course one can pick one cause, since one cannot single-handedly save the world. What I specifically said was, if you are a chain smoker, you should stop smoking yourself before you lecture me about it. In other words, correct an equally bad situation in your own home, before you go out on a mission to fix everyone else's. It's the starting point I am arguing against, not the cause.

Titania: I understand what you say and how what you do affects (even on a small scale, but I agree, better than nothing) China. What I'm asking, is what are you doing about your own homeland's shortcomings? Buying American products instead of Chinese ones affects the Chinese economy maybe, but not the American one. Sure, it affects Wal-Mart and the likes *indirectly*, but still your main cause was to snub China, not Wal-Mart. Why is that? Would you be OK shopping at Wal-Mart if their cheap stuff was homemade? Why? Have you been on the streets, protesting about Guantanamo Bay or the Iraq invasion? If you have, again, hats off, you have the right to protest China or whoever. If not, please explain why China deserves your fury so much as to deserve the qualifier "fucking", but the USA don't.


Edit: Oh, btw DS; yes, my location was once Leeds, but that should be entirely irrelevant to the discussion, since Leeds is not my place of origin, if that's what you were implying. So I have absolutely no clue what happened with the miners, but if you care to clarify, I'm all ears.

[Titania]

No, I'd say not shopping at Wal-Mart effects Wal-Mart, and choosing instead to shop at local businesses and using local products probably more strongly effects the local economy than it does China.

One of my homeland's major shortcomings is how we eat food from a thousand miles away with pretty good regularity. It's wasteful and it's not sustainable. My choice not to own a car and to use public transport for when I do need to use an automobile means my local city has a very successful public transport, which will continue as it grows.

I'm an active part of my local party. No, I have no specifically protested gitmo, but I'm sure as hell getting out to vote for the party which wants us out of Iraq, and I'm sure as hell pushing Iraq as an issue within the party.

As for what I do and don't have a right to protest, that's not within your rights. No, I can't possibly protest every wrong. It's just plain stupid to say that because I am not omni present and must occasionally eat and sleep and must prioritize, I have no right to use political power in the world, and it's disengenuious because as I have pointed out, the sort of person taking action on the political sovereignty of Tibet is probably doing things that do influence other events like Gitmo.

The women's movement put real muscle behind the abolitionist movement in the US, back in the 1800s. Convincing women they had no right to push women's rights back then because slaves weren't free would have indefinitely delayed abolition. The reality is, pushing for human rights for women pushed the cause of human rights for people. Even those early feminists who didn't contribute directly to abolition were an essential element in it.

[demagogic_schizoid]

No, actually that's not at all what I said. Of course one can pick one cause, since one cannot single-handedly save the world. What I specifically said was, if you are a chain smoker, you should stop smoking yourself before you lecture me about it. In other words, correct an equally bad situation in your own home, before you go out on a mission to fix everyone else's. It's the starting point I am arguing against, not the cause.

Titania: I understand what you say and how what you do affects (even on a small scale, but I agree, better than nothing) China. What I'm asking, is what are you doing about your own homeland's shortcomings? Buying American products instead of Chinese ones affects the Chinese economy maybe, but not the American one. Sure, it affects Wal-Mart and the likes *indirectly*, but still your main cause was to snub China, not Wal-Mart. Why is that? Would you be OK shopping at Wal-Mart if their cheap stuff was homemade? Why? Have you been on the streets, protesting about Guantanamo Bay or the Iraq invasion? If you have, again, hats off, you have the right to protest China or whoever. If not, please explain why China deserves your fury so much as to deserve the qualifier "fucking", but the USA don't.

I don't get the impression she is pro-US though. Yes there might be some cynical opportunsits who would use Tibet just as an excuse to back US expansionism as opposed to China, however, I don't think this is the case here. Also, it's not really correct to equate US citizens with the US government. The "chain smokers" doing the lecturing are the US elite, not the citizens themselves. My reasoning for saying this is quite basic and obvious: the US state was not established by ordinary Americans on a democratic basis to do their will, it is not their state any more than the US army is the army of the normal soldiers rather than the generals and the Pentagon.

And also, finally, if a chain smoker did give a good argument against smoking, I wouldn't reject the argument just because they are a chain smoker. It would be correct to say to someone who is hypocritical that, yes, you shoudl extend your logic to all cases, but I don't think it makes sense to say that their hypocrisy invalidates their arguments on all issues, even the ones where they've got it right. This kind of places "consistency" above the actual positions themselves.


Edit: Oh, btw DS; yes, my location was once Leeds, but that should be entirely irrelevant to the discussion, since Leeds is not my place of origin, if that's what you were implying. So I have absolutely no clue what happened with the miners, but if you care to clarify, I'm all ears

the coal mines were closed by Margaret Thatcher, there was a year logn strike, and lots of people supproted it who had never supported other such movements, and maybe never would again. I don't think that made them hypocrites. In fact a key argument of the government in any such struggle will be "well, isn't it funny how all these people who never opposed X, now oppose Y". In fact this argument was used against coalmining leader Arthur Scargill, who was a Stalinsit and therefore supported governments inthe Soviet Union who crushed workers. this was used as a reason to not support the miners. Arthur Scargill clearly was a hypocrite and he clearly did dream of a Stalinist dictatorship in the UK. Maybe so did a lot of his supporters. But so what, that would be no reason not to support his union against the government.

Also, I apologise if my reply came across as rude.

[C.J.Woolf]

Okay. So what have you done to have any effect on America? Boycott? Protests? Snobbing international events?
Voting? Oops, Titania beat me to it:


I'm an active part of my local party. No, I have no specifically protested gitmo, but I'm sure as hell getting out to vote for the party which wants us out of Iraq, and I'm sure as hell pushing Iraq as an issue within the party.

As for what I do and don't have a right to protest, that's not within your rights. No, I can't possibly protest every wrong. It's just plain stupid to say that because I am not omni present and must occasionally eat and sleep and must prioritize, I have no right to use political power in the world, and it's disengenuious because as I have pointed out, the sort of person taking action on the political sovereignty of Tibet is probably doing things that do influence other events like Gitmo.

The women's movement put real muscle behind the abolitionist movement in the US, back in the 1800s. Convincing women they had no right to push women's rights back then because slaves weren't free would have indefinitely delayed abolition. The reality is, pushing for human rights for women pushed the cause of human rights for people. Even those early feminists who didn't contribute directly to abolition were an essential element in it.
That sounds rather like a free market, only in the political arena, the theory being that if everyone is free to pursue their own interests, then the whole society is better off.

[Titania]

Well, money sure as hell isn't the only currency. And currency does act in remarkably similar ways to money. It does break down though.

I'm trying to get into a university that has a create your own major program. I wanna major in "power." So far, far as I can tell, that'd require economics, ethics, political science, psychology, anthropology and sociology. Sounds fun to me! :grin:

[C.J.Woolf]

I'm trying to get into a university that has a create your own major program. I wanna major in "power." So far, far as I can tell, that'd require economics, ethics, political science, psychology, anthropology and sociology. Sounds fun to me! :grin:
Sounds fun to me too. Good choices of subjects; perhaps add a course on sales and marketing if there isn't one available on the science of persuasion in general.

For what it's worth, I did minors in psychology and economics, and took a course in ethics. What I learned in Psychology of Organizations is especially useful to me in real life.

[Madrigal]

Okay. So what have you done to have any effect on America? Boycott? Protests? Snobbing international events? I mean, if you have, I agree you personally have every right to do the same to China or whoever else. But if not, I have to agree with whomever said you are taking the easy way out to make yourself feel better about the whole thing.

I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that making a personal decision to boycott products from China won't make a difference. The intention is noble though (sorry if that sounds patronizing - I don't really mean it that way, I just think the policy is wrong). The irony here is that the "little grain of sand" philosophy can apply to just about any political effort, be it individual or collective. Anybody making efforts and sacrifices to fight for the underdog could be easily labelled as an ineffective element in the great scheme of things. I think the debate should be on another more strategic level.

Just a story, I was a vegetarian for 5 years because I was against the "abuses" animals were subjected to. In my mind, boycotting meat products made perfect sense. Just the way tiny ethical decisions made daily won't change the world, but at least you wouldn't be "part of the problem". Later on I realized that if I was going to boycott meat, I may as well boycott anything that implied exploitation and abuse. That meant I'd practically have to be living on a farm and walking around naked or maybe covering myself with leaves. I exaggerate, but you get the picture.

I see no sense in radically changing my personal habits to avoid consuming these products, nor do I think it is a policy to agitate among the impoverished and exploited sectors of the population. They will continue to eat meat or genetically modified crops and buy cheap shit from China or whatever it is they can afford with their little time and money. Often they are more concerned with actually eating something and making ends meet. It isn't a viable option to agitate on a massive scale. This is why I find vegans to have a profoundly anti-popular and individualistic stance, at least if they expect it to be a policy for social change and not just making themselves feel better. I am not against people making themselves feel better; it is when political and economic strategy is involved that it becomes something to critisize.

I eat at McDonalds, I buy shit made by children, I buy crap made by companies who literally kill their workers. Changing my consumption habits will not bring the culprit (capitalism) to its knees.

[Hustler]

That's a bad argument. Not wearing chinese made clothes is not going to have any noticeable effect on china's economic prosperity. Protesting at the olympic torch gathered world wide headlines, it was much more effective in delivering the message. Plus an economic boycott at the individual level won't work; its the prisoner's dilemma: each individual's contribution is insignificant to the result as a whole and if the individual's cost outweigh the benefiits then it is irrational for each individual to participate in the boycott.

So then organize protests against good produced in China being sold at your local Wal-Mart. That would raise awareness, right? And, in this case, it would be raising awareness in a way that's actually meaningful. The Olympics will come and go and nothing will change. It represents a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of Chinese goods being sold daily around the world. If you support China in meaningful ways (economic) yet disapprove of it in meaningless ways (fleeting protests surrounding a brief event such as the Olympics), then you're ultimately wasting your time, which is no less irrational than participating in a boycott that takes a personal economic toll on you.

[Hustler]

Actually the Soviet Union went out of its way to give people more faith in their nations.

Yeah, great. I never said why the Soviet Union failed to become a lasting supernation like China, only that it did. It could all come down to phonetic vs. ideographic writing, for all we know, which relates to the "one official language" point you brought up.

[Madrigal]

So then organize protests against good produced in China being sold at your local Wal-Mart. That would raise awareness, right? And, in this case, it would be raising awareness in a way that's actually meaningful. The Olympics will come and go and nothing will change. It represents a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of Chinese goods being sold daily around the world. If you support China in meaningful ways (economic) yet disapprove of it in meaningless ways (fleeting protests surrounding a brief event such as the Olympics), then you're ultimately wasting your time, which is no less irrational than participating in a boycott that takes a personal economic toll on you.
I think that a march to the Chinese embassy would be an adequate symbolic action. And it doesn't imply the mistaken notion that the battle should be waged on a consumer level, making people think it's a question of "which capitalist to support." As my bible-thumping friend used to say about false idols, "They will let you DOWN." (Did I just pull an omnirook? :D)

[mgb]

I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that making a personal decision to boycott products from China won't make a difference. The intention is noble though (sorry if that sounds patronizing - I don't really mean it that way, I just think the policy is wrong). The irony here is that the "little grain of sand" philosophy can apply to just about any political effort, be it individual or collective. Anybody making efforts and sacrifices to fight for the underdog could be easily labelled as an ineffective element in the great scheme of things. I think the debate should be on another more strategic level.

Just a story, I was a vegetarian for 5 years because I was against the "abuses" animals were subjected to. In my mind, boycotting meat products made perfect sense. Just the way tiny ethical decisions made daily won't change the world, but at least you wouldn't be "part of the problem". Later on I realized that if I was going to boycott meat, I may as well boycott anything that implied exploitation and abuse. That meant I'd practically have to be living on a farm and walking around naked or maybe covering myself with leaves. I exaggerate, but you get the picture.

I see no sense in radically changing my personal habits to avoid consuming these products, nor do I think it is a policy to agitate among the impoverished and exploited sectors of the population. They will continue to eat meat or genetically modified crops and buy cheap shit from China or whatever it is they can afford with their little time and money. Often they are more concerned with actually eating something and making ends meet. It isn't a viable option to agitate on a massive scale. This is why I find vegans to have a profoundly anti-popular and individualistic stance, at least if they expect it to be a policy for social change and not just making themselves feel better. I am not against people making themselves feel better; it is when political and economic strategy is involved that it becomes something to critisize.

I eat at McDonalds, I buy shit made by children, I buy crap made by companies who literally kill their workers. Changing my consumption habits will not bring the culprit (capitalism) to its knees.

Actually, that's a great point. It kind of goes along with the ecology of commerce (http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-Commerce-Paul-Hawken/dp/0887307043/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207956898&sr=8-1) idea that the whole system has to change in order for things to change on an individual level. It's not that the individual efforts are useless, they are part of a tide that can be used to sway decision makers into action, but before the changes really happen it is unrealistic to expect people to conform a future system when they are stuck in a current one.

In the case of China, we can either live like Titania which, no offense, doesn't sound that appealing or reasonable to my lifestyle, or we go to a protest now and then wearing clothes made in China because it's what we can afford. It's not that the actions balance each other out, it's because you believe in one thing and are stuck in the reality of another.

[airjaw]

"Might" has made the US "right" over the course of its very short history of 300 years. Stronger countries have been doing this to their neighbors for thousands of years. It's only "wrong" if you choose to be on the Tibetan's side. And I suspect most do because they like the image of the Dalai Lama and maybe they've seen Seven Years in Tibet and liked the movie and now choose to jump on the pro-Tibet bandwagon.

Have you ever been to Tibet? Do you have Tibetan friends? Are you Tibetan yourself? Do you have any stake in what goes on in Tibet? If your answer to all of those questions is "no", then who are you to take sides?

Basically what China is all pissy about is that the US and all the other European countries raped and subjugated the rest of the world for years: Africa, the Americas, and Asia, while polluting the hell out of everything, as well as conquering their weaker neighbors whenever they felt the desire to.
Now that China's strength is rising, they are starting to follow the same path. Building a nation isn't easy and it sure ain't pretty. Every country in the world has demons.

[Titania]

I can say, for my part, they're not so much sacrifices as they make economic sense. I've saved ten thousand dollars in two years, and the bulk of it was living like this. I'm not in debt, I'm not spending huge amounts of money on food etc.

I think there's an element of exploitation to the message "you MUST own a car" or "you MUST eat meat." You really don't have to. My quality of life hasn't gone down much (I'm young dammit), and my quality of life later'll be much better for it.

Basically anyone who is below the middle class would benefit if they stopped playing the keeping up with the Jonses game. It's not the only option. If you're young and you can manage it, consider it.

[mgb]

I can say, for my part, they're not so much sacrifices as they make economic sense. I've saved ten thousand dollars in two years, and the bulk of it was living like this. I'm not in debt, I'm not spending huge amounts of money on food etc.

I think there's an element of exploitation to the message "you MUST own a car" or "you MUST eat meat." You really don't have to. My quality of life hasn't gone down much (I'm young dammit), and my quality of life later'll be much better for it.

Basically anyone who is below the middle class would benefit if they stopped playing the keeping up with the Jonses game. It's not the only option. If you're young and you can manage it, consider it.

My work is 20km away and I start at 6:30am. I've done the walk before but it takes 4 hours, and the buses don't really run that early and take an hour. Sometimes a car is just practical for the city you live in. If someone decided to reorganize how the city works and made living closer to my work and still have the amenities we enjoy easier then I'd probably get rid of the car.

I appreciate what you are saying and doing, but I appreciate it because it works for you.



Have you ever been to Tibet? Do you have Tibetan friends? Are you Tibetan yourself? Do you have any stake in what goes on in Tibet? If your answer to all of those questions is "no", then who are you to take sides?

That's just a really stupid thing to say.

[Titania]

Yeah. You gotta start REALLY young to do it, and it'll probably stop working once I have a real job.

[airjaw]

That's just a really stupid thing to say.

Why?

I have that perspective because everyone nowadays feels like they NEED to have an opinion about something. They NEED to take sides.

In my example I will use Taiwan. I get sick everytime I read about Westerners who are so caught up in the pro-Independence movement, and who only lived in Taiwan for a year or maybe even several but have no roots to the land, no sense of what its history is, and no real personal stake in what goes on. It's damn easy for them to have an opinion, but to me their opinion doesn't mean shit because they face no real risk of losing anything.

[Hustler]

I do believe that Americans who fight for what is right in their own country share a common interest with everyone ifghting oppression in China and in fact everywhere in the world, because it's exactly the same interests which rely on the poverty of one country in order to be able to undercut labour in others.
Business and/or the upper class makes a great scapegoat but, in fact, it's everyone in the first world who relies on the oppression of third worlders so that they may live more comfortably. Business facilitates this, but they by no means create 100% of the desire to live comfortably. Yes, they manufacture wants and needs that might not exist, but the increase of personal resources is a time-honored human tradition, and those of us in the first world unequivocally do it at the expense of third worlders.


At the same time it's western businesses export of capital which keeps the third world dependent, whilst at the same time meaning that profits in a country like yours are ploughed abroad ins earch of higher rates or return rather than invested in your transport, education and health systems, or in keeping people in housing who are now being bankrupted by a credit swindle underwritten by the super-explotiation of workers in China!
The theory, of course, is that once a country has reached a first world standard of living, then dependence is transferred from economic to military, where they can then ally themselves with the United States so that they can maintain the new level of comfort to which they are accustomed.


So yes, I think clearly, without any shadow of a doubt, the principle of solidarity on behalf of westerners with everyone oppressed and exploited in China is worth arguing for, in fact it may be more owrth arguing for than specific actions, because only a widespread understanding, on a global level, that the day to day struggles of an ordinary American and ordinary Chinese or Tibetan are inehrently interconnected, can ever really, long term, solve these kinds of problems, and in fact developing this kind of understanding at a ground level is much much more important than one off demands for specific actions to be carried out by self-interested celebrities and governments. So no, I can't give you an action rpogramme, likewise I couldn't have given you an action programme to overthrow apartheid (and I think boycotts ahd little if nay effect there), however, that doesn't mmean I wouldn't have argued with someone who said it was an ok or "natural" situation.
OK, but this doesn't really answer whether Tibet should be a part of China or not. Tibet is poor and exploitable -- and was more so prior to Chinese governance -- so, having it be autonomous or not seems like a different issue, one of nationalistic right to self-government, which may or may not be a legitimate claim for Tibet specifically, or for ethnic groups in general.


If we can have specific examples, then that would be useful.
Here you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups) You could pick a few at random and learn about them. Many of them want to have their own nations. If you want to limit your cultural exploration to China, then you could just go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_China). While these ethnic groups seem small in comparison to the 1 billion+ Han Chinese, do realize that many of them have numbers in excess of that of many nation-states in the world, such as Norway (speaking of which, check out the mysterious Sami ethnic group) or Ireland or Uruguay.


A lot of things, like MBTI, are "unproveable": the proof comes from living them. Anyway I hardly see the point of your sentence above: technolgoy is developed by human beings and its development in itself represents an advancement of human understanding and ability. If we can take our understanding of a computer, build on it, and improve it, then we have a greater mass of understanding, and the understanding must come before the computer is made. Therefore saying that the advancement of technology is in itself the cause of all human development is simply like saying that trees blowing in the wind are the cause of the wind blowing itself: the development of technology indicates human intellectual advancement, it does not cause it.

In addition, of course societies and human consciousness evolve as distinct from technolgoy. Of course the two are linked, but human life doesn't simply improve as a trickle down, unconscious effect of the rational self-enlightenment of those who develop technolgoy for their own ends. Rather people have to make sure that technology is used for their own benefit,a nd this is in itself the evolution of socieities, the drive to match social organisation with productive potential. The means existed for the establishemnt of parliamentary democracies in Europe and the abolishment of absolute monarchies and the rule of the aristocracy before any of this actually happened, the merchants of the cities had long been subsidising the aristocracy and monarchy, but the development of their productive capacities didn't in iself cause the absolutist monarchies and aristocracies to "fade away", rather it took a conscious and organised leap in human social organisation itself to make social progress catch upw ith technological progress. So yes, the two fields are distinct, and the human one is the msot improtant, because humans are conscious and technology isn't, technology serves humans and not the other way around. The only question is which humans and how many of them.

I think you misunderstand. Trees blowing in the wind do not cause wind, but human technological development does shape the future of human society, and humans generally don't have any idea of how things will shake out centuries later when they hit upon a novel idea or new invention. In this sense, technology and the environment in which we operate are linked, and transcend any will of our own. Much as the direction of the wind governs where those trees' seeds will next sprout. Thus, your analogy is quite poor.

Consider the central thesis of Jared Diamond's work, Guns, Germs, and Steel, which is that geographic features and the natural distribution of resources led to the development of human civilization in ways far stronger than anything people did. This means it wasn't ideological or cultural superiority that allowed early civilizations to rise in Mesopotamia and radiate outward in a hegemonic fashion, but rather the presence of wheat and easily domesticated animals. These factors led to technological developments (agriculture as a feasible alternative to hunting and gathering, writing as a means of keeping an inventory of crops), and those technological developments went on to shape the course of civilization, from Ancient Greek philosophy to the Spanish conquering the greatest empires in the Americas with minimal effort, to the nuclear bomb, and so on. Our environs drive our technology, and our technology drives our civilization.

Why is China the way it is today? Some people think it has a lot to do with the compass, that it's discovery led to the ability for warlords in the Han Dynasty (or possibly earlier or later, the exact time is unknown) to more effectively mobilize its armies and outmaneuver its opposition. Thus, Han cultural values prevailed. Not because they were better and that a rational conscious elected to adhere to them, but because the Han people had a compass and subjugated other people, snowballing into an unstoppable force of "Chinese" cultural dominance for most of the last two millennia. There was nothing special about the Han (or whoever) that led to them developing the compass first. It was a serendipitous discovery that could have occurred in any culture.

This is the story of most of history's technological innovation: serendipity, giving it an evolutionary feel that mimics that of biology itself, and why technology can be regarded as a memetic system. This randomness of discovery far eclipses that of anything the human conscious has been able to muster, and so, in that light, it may seem trivial to argue about the morality or superiority of political systems. This is especially the case when so many of these arguments are lain moot by the next technological leap forward. We don't think about the letter of most of the laws of the Levites these days, because it's inapposite to how we operate in the modern world, thanks in large part to technology. Who cares what the punishment is for the owner of an ox that accidentally gores a neighbor's wife? An entire culture was based around these antiquated laws and you can believe they debated fervently over them, yet today they are obsolete because of technology. They are not obsolete because something borne of a greater depth of understanding of human political conscious emerged to replace them, but merely because we don't rely on oxen the way the Levites did, nor do we view women as possessions the way the Levites did, thanks also to technology (I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure that one out).

When you say you get tired of INTPs who come here and get on your case with arguments such as "that's the way it is so STFU," you have to consider that many of us do subscribe to a theory of randomness overshadowing everything that has ever happened in the universe, including everything that has happened in the history of human existence. The ultimate liberator of people has always been technology, not philosophy, morality or political theory. Even Marx's revolution will require the people to be armed, and even Marx's philosophy required the printing press in order for it to get heard, and his entire philosophy was dependent on the dynamics of industrial civilization. Some like to argue that technology enslaves us, and that the hunter gatherers were more free than any of us today, but that is a decidedly anti-civilization perspective that is anathema to the discussion of civilization's history and, as such, needn't be considered in the context of this thread. I will grant that technology leads to cycles of oppression, generally coming from inequities in advancement between different groups of people, but these inequities can be flattened out over time.

The future of humanity rests entirely on technology, as has our history. We will either continue to understand our environment and develop technology to better serve us, or we will perish at the hands of the universe's statistical whims. Tibet is just a bump in the road. This is why a lot of the arguments surrounding something like Tibet are unappealing to many INTPs. As systems architects, we see socio-political systems as beholden to environmental and technological systems. At best, you could try for an argument that says one type of political structure allows for more serendipitous technological discoveries than another and, as such, it will allow the greatest forward progression toward human survival and liberation.

As for technology not having a conscious... give it time. Biological life didn't have a conscious either for its first few billion years.


Hmmm, well when I ranted at someone who later admitted to trolling, then your opposition to me ranting looks a bit stupid. It's as if a.)you were either convinced by arguments which the person whow rote them himself only wrote down to amuse himself at his own abiltiy to be farcical, b.) you spotted that his arguemnts were trolling but still don't think people have the right to rant at someone who is trolling, c.) you judgement is so skewed by postmodernist texts that you can't even spot a spoof argument from a real one any more, or d.), you didn't even read the posts properly. ;)
He admitted to mostly trolling you. Thus, points a, b, c, and d above don't apply. He still had something to say.

[Hustler]

I think that a march to the Chinese embassy would be an adequate symbolic action. And it doesn't imply the mistaken notion that the battle should be waged on a consumer level, making people think it's a question of "which capitalist to support." As my bible-thumping friend used to say about false idols, "They will let you DOWN." (Did I just pull an omnirook? :D)

Hardcore revolutionaries would bomb the Chinese embassy, not just march to it. People on the left have gotten so soft.

[Hustler]

My work is 20km away and I start at 6:30am.

SUCKER

[Madrigal]

Hardcore revolutionaries would bomb the Chinese embassy, not just march to it. People on the left have gotten so soft.

Uh huh okay, Narodnaya Volya.

[mgb]

SUCKER

Hey I don't mind, I just need a car. Besides, I've noticed you're up at the same time and posting....

[Hustler]

Hey I don't mind, I just need a car. Besides, I've noticed you're up at the same time and posting....

I don't know what time zone you're in, but if I'm up, it's because I'm still up, not because I had to wake up at the crack of dawn in freezing-ass Canada to drive 12 miles through 8 feet of snow and ice to get to work at the hockey puck factory.

[mgb]

heh heh, that was pretty good.

I think quite a few hockey pucks are made in China though. :( We just can't win.

[demagogic_schizoid]

OK, but this doesn't really answer whether Tibet should be a part of China or not. Tibet is poor and exploitable -- and was more so prior to Chinese governance -- so, having it be autonomous or not seems like a different issue, one of nationalistic right to self-government, which may or may not be a legitimate claim for Tibet specifically, or for ethnic groups in general.

Well, ultimately it's up to them, isn't it? why would Tibet be particularly unviable as a nation? What reason to oppose the right of a distinct nation which is demanding self-determination, to have it?



Here you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups) You could pick a few at random and learn about them. Many of them want to have their own nations. If you want to limit your cultural exploration to China, then you could just go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_China). While these ethnic groups seem small in comparison to the 1 billion+ Han Chinese, do realize that many of them have numbers in excess of that of many nation-states in the world, such as Norway (speaking of which, check out the mysterious Sami ethnic group) or Ireland or Uruguay.

this may be true, but: How many are demanding independence? How many are second-class citizens? How many speak their own language? (a key marker of an nation oppressed nation is that they aren't allwoed to speak their own language), and How many are identified enough with a particular regiont hat they would be viable as nations? If a significant group in China met all these criteria and were up in arms against their apartheid-esque treatment and demanding self-determination, then it would be ridiculous of me to oppose them.



Consider the central thesis of Jared Diamond's work, Guns, Germs, and Steel, which is that geographic features and the natural distribution of resources led to the development of human civilization in ways far stronger than anything people did. This means it wasn't ideological or cultural superiority that allowed early civilizations to rise in Mesopotamia and radiate outward in a hegemonic fashion, but rather the presence of wheat and easily domesticated animals. These factors led to technological developments (agriculture as a feasible alternative to hunting and gathering, writing as a means of keeping an inventory of crops), and those technological developments went on to shape the course of civilization, from Ancient Greek philosophy to the Spanish conquering the greatest empires in the Americas with minimal effort, to the nuclear bomb, and so on. Our environs drive our technology, and our technology drives our civilization.

I agree with all of that, but, it is humans who developt echnolgoy, so I don't see why you would seperate the two and claim that the only real development that can be predicted is in the field of technology.


When you say you get tired of INTPs who come here and get on your case with arguments such as "that's the way it is so STFU," you have to consider that many of us do subscribe to a theory of randomness overshadowing everything that has ever happened in the universe, including everything that has happened in the history of human existence.

Well this is interesting because surely if we can predict permanent development of human technology, then we can predict permanent development of human society. The technology you described was driven by need, and so is social organisation. If societies develop technologies to meet specific needs (i.e. produce more surplus value), then they also must surely have an opinion on how to organise themselves to produce and distribute that. Otherwise why put all that effort into producing somehting, but not even care who benefits? You have a semi-materialist worldview but then you pull out at the end.


The ultimate liberator of people has always been technology, not philosophy, morality or political theory.

Technology does liberate people, yes, but they must also fight for the benefits.


Even Marx's revolution will require the people to be armed, and even Marx's philosophy required the printing press in order for it to get heard, and his entire philosophy was dependent on the dynamics of industrial civilization.

I don't know why you say "even Marx". Marx was one of the most pro-technolgoy philosophers ever. Historical materialism is based on the idea of humanity constantly developing the means of production, and being able to create greater surplus.

Marx's praise of capitalism is that historically it developed humanity's productive capacities to a point whereby scarcity could be eliminated, and without this technological development driven by the drive for profit, no kind of communist society could be possible, as scarcity breeds comeptition.

Therefore development of humanity's productive capacities - technology - is a precondition for Marxism. This is why he called capitalist revolutions progressive.

However, the nature of capital - all the collective wealth of a capitalist which exists to be reinvested and which multiplies itself/its value, i.e. machinery, paper money, etc. - is that it is inherently contradictory - the very act of mass producing something undermines its profitability, as high supply=lower prices for commodity + higher demand (therefore extraction/production costs) for the material needed to produce the commodity in question. Therefore as capital is multiplied, the rate of return falls. As capitalism is organised on the principle of increasing the rate of profitability of capital, therefore, this over-accumulated capital must be hoarded or destroyed until supply has fallen sufficiently and investment becomes profitable once more. The period of wholesale desctruction of capital manifests itself as recession and war. Therefore, as Marx said, capitalism is the first human system ever to be beset by crises of over-production - an absurd state of affairs,a nd an example of how societies system of organising itself is now hindering the development of our productive capacities and of this being used ot liebrate the majority of humanity from poverty/drudgery/scarcity/comeptition/violence.

Therefore Marx's conclusion was that the system of profit must be abolished if these productive capabilities are ever going to be used for the long term benefit of the whole of humanity. However, for this to happen, requires a conscious revoltuion to change humanity itself. This sin't what MArx would have called "politics", i.e. an extenral process or a pass-time, simply, social science, the reality of people's day to day existence.Clearly that vision is therefore not disregarding the importance of technological progress, rather, it rests upon that notion.

[Hustler]

Well, ultimately it's up to them, isn't it? why would Tibet be particularly unviable as a nation? What reason to oppose the right of a distinct nation which is demanding self-determination, to have it?
Is there a reason to support it, though?


this may be true, but: How many are demanding independence? How many are second-class citizens? How many speak their own language? (a key marker of an nation oppressed nation is that they aren't allwoed to speak their own language), and How many are identified enough with a particular regiont hat they would be viable as nations? If a significant group in China met all these criteria and were up in arms against their apartheid-esque treatment and demanding self-determination, then it would be ridiculous of me to oppose them.
Around the world, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of nations demanding their independence. Even in North America, we find movements such as that of the Lakota Nation or even Quebec. In Asia, we see movements from the Kurds to the Tibetans to the Tamils. In Africa, there are ethnic conflicts going on everyday, and it's clear the remnants of colonial nationalism are failing the people miserably. But how do you redraw all of these lines? China has legitimate claims to authority in Tibet, and the Tibetans have legitimate claims for self-rule. So too with territories and peoples everywhere, but is the solution to start granting statehood to every nation who wants it really the right answer?


I agree with all of that, but, it is humans who developt echnolgoy, so I don't see why you would seperate the two and claim that the only real development that can be predicted is in the field of technology.
I never said it can be predicted. In fact, I said quite the opposite. That technology will continue to develop seems inevitable, but how it will develop is a function of randomness and, as such, wholly unpredictable.


Technology does liberate people, yes, but they must also fight for the benefits.
I never had to fight for the benefits of technology. Did you? The extent of my struggle is staying ahead of the cost of living. I think the difficulty of the fight for technology's benefits goes down as the average level of technology in the world goes up. In the vast majority of places -- in all but the poorest, most corrupt, most conflict-ridden African countries -- people are living longer and better than their ancestors did 100 or 200 years ago.


I don't know why you say "even Marx".
Because I think Marx overvalues human conscious in producing revolution and fighting oppression. In a world where scarcity is attenuated (via technology), the impetus to oppress is removed. That, I think, is far more important to the liberation of people than is philosophy or political science.

[Spartan26]

I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that making a personal decision to boycott products from China won't make a difference.

I eat at McDonalds, I buy shit made by children, I buy crap made by companies who literally kill their workers. Changing my consumption habits will not bring the culprit (capitalism) to its knees.I disagree. Not so much about the death of capitalism but I think individuals can make a difference. Certain people can bring about policy change much quicker than others (elected officials, corp CEO's, etc). Grassroots movements can have huge results, people tend to forget what patience is needed.

I'm not a vegan and would rather sit through a time share seminar than listen to the woes of abused livestock but their efforts have not been w/out impact. The amount of grocery store items available and menu items even in fast food restaurants has grown exponentially over the past decade alone. They didn't end people eating meat but they got more people to go veggie. Their choices to avoid one product opened up alternatives in the marketplace.

Even if policy changes are made, there's still the need for individuals to follow through w/lifestyle changes. When Mothers Against Drunk Drivers started out they knew they wanted to increase penalties for drunk drivers but they also went to teens and schools. Of course they're mothers wanting to protect their children, but their strategy was seeking to change the mindset of future generations. Some of the initial contract w/parents seemed a little laughable but more programs and alternatives sprang up. They also went to Hllywd to lobby studios to not glamorize or gloss over drinking and driving. While people are still dump enough to drink and drive, even plenty of hllywd types who can afford to take a cab, the stigma of not driving following a night of drinking as being rather emasculate has left the country's psyche.

Large chains that gave up selling gun ammo or porn came not from govt restrictions but individuals who banded together. Safer toys, safer clothes, safer microwave containers came about from individuals who took action, sought to bring about awareness and stayed the course.

Sure it's great when a law firm will take on a gigantic corp in a pro bono class action but even those cases start out from the work of persistent individuals.

[panda]

Hustler pwns yet another thread.

[Lethal Sage]

fuck those guys but they were right

[Titania]

Meh. I disagree with his basic tenets. People do vastly over-estimate their influence, but vastly under-estimating ends up at nihilism and irrelevence pretty quick.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Is there a reason to support it, though?

Of course, it's their democratic right and no-one stands to lose anything from granting it, except illigetimate priveliges such as the ability to exploit tibetans, which I hardly see any reason for someone like me to defend.



Around the world, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of nations demanding their independence. Even in North America, we find movements such as that of the Lakota Nation or even Quebec. In Asia, we see movements from the Kurds to the Tibetans to the Tamils. In Africa, there are ethnic conflicts going on everyday, and it's clear the remnants of colonial nationalism are failing the people miserably. But how do you redraw all of these lines? China has legitimate claims to authority in Tibet, and the Tibetans have legitimate claims for self-rule. So too with territories and peoples everywhere, but is the solution to start granting statehood to every nation who wants it really the right answer?

I don't think that's in itself a correct analysis of the Tibet question: "look fellas, I agree that you're cruelly exploited and oppressed by China, I agree that you're a genuine nation and that you have your own language which is treated as a second-class language by China, I see that you do want self-determination and that a huge maount force and effort on the part of ordinary Chinese soldiers who are also oppressed by the same people who oppress you is necessarry jsut to deny you thing you could operate viably the moment they left, but yet, we can't give you it, because, too many people want it, and it jsut opens up a whole hornets nest, so nah. sorry". It doesn't cut it.

Regarding the Kurds and Tamils I do support their right to self-determiantion compeltely, in fact it's the only way they will ever escape national oppression. There is no legitimate reason to oppose them, and yet, their self-determination is only denied by huge amounts of resources and lives being wasted in brutally denying them their basic rights. So of course, there is no reason not to support them, because as well fighting for their own rights, they will help to put an end to the practices of the governments they fight which are bullshit for the people who live under them.


I never said it can be predicted. In fact, I said quite the opposite. That technology will continue to develop seems inevitable, but how it will develop is a function of randomness and, as such, wholly unpredictable.

but if it is developing then our ability to produce a surplus develops, no?


I never had to fight for the benefits of technology. Did you? The extent of my struggle is staying ahead of the cost of living. I think the difficulty of the fight for technology's benefits goes down as the average level of technology in the world goes up. In the vast majority of places -- in all but the poorest, most corrupt, most conflict-ridden African countries -- people are living longer and better than their ancestors did 100 or 200 years ago.

I don't differentiate struggling to stay above the cost of living from struggling to benefit from technology, because the good thing about technology is that it raises humanities capacities to produce, and yet, we have to fight for a share in that surplus. You're not stupid so I won't explain to you how the extent we share into it depends on past struggles and our ability to sturggle now and even moreso in the future, especially the coming global recession/depression, because I'm pretty sure you already know how the extent of the share we have in the produce of the economy is directly related to our abiltiy to fight.


Because I think Marx overvalues human conscious in producing revolution and fighting oppression. In a world where scarcity is attenuated (via technology), the impetus to oppress is removed.


This is partly true in that the more profitable an economy is, the less force is needed to keep people within the system. Yet this still doesn't solve the problem of over-accumulation. If you can't find a profiitable outlet for that capital, you have to destroy it, or it will just be lying around available for anyone who wants it at lower and lower prices.

Quite apart from recession - there's no point me repeating the points in my last post - this also manifests itself int he need to export capital to foreign markets - the third world. This means penetrating their markets of their own ruling class ever more and taking over the fields which their own capitalists once dominated. This drives third world capitalism into crisis and forces their capitalists to open up ever more markets as their old ones are taken over, and it also drives their capitalists into bankrupcy. Therefore the more the western ruling class accumulates, the more it must export to the third world, and the more workers in those coutnries must be attacked as the pot shrinks rather than grows. So yes your concept of abundance reducing the need for oprpession is correct, but unfortunately this only works in countries which are exporters of capital - a small minority - and it only even works there in times of economic growth.

I'm pretty sure that under Hitler and Mussolini the Germans and Italians (both Germany and Italy were exporters not importers of capital at the time also) had greater productive capacities - in terms of the technology available to them - than they had ever had, yet these regimes were the most brutal and repressive those countries had known since unification. I have no doubt that under Reagan and Thatcher the US and Britain ahd more capacity to produce abundantly than ever before, yet these governments violently attacked people's civil rights and labour rights as well as promoting xenophobia, racism, and violent foreign policy. Why? This was not jsut osme "social shift". It happened because the more serious the crisis of over-accumualtion, the more brutal the destruction and devaluation of capital msut be so that it can then be returned to profitability.

So actually, I think you have a more utopian view of humanity than me if you think that those who control capital will allow it to just "trickle down" even when its abundance undermines its profitability - their source of income - rather than forcibly destroy and devalue it at the expense of producing huge scarcity/unemployment inflation and causing enormous periodic social upheaval, whose only correct channelling must be against those destroying the capital if it is to solve long-term the very problems which created it.

[airjaw]

Of course, it's their democratic right and no-one stands to lose anything from granting it, except illigetimate priveliges such as the ability to exploit tibetans, which I hardly see any reason for someone like me to defend.
China stands to lose quite a bit from granting it. And no, there's no such thing as having democratic rights. That's just a liberal fantasy worldview that isn't and has never been reflected in reality. Why doesn't the US just grant nationhood to California, New Mexico, and Arizona in the upcoming decades then? Why didn't the US allow the South to secede?


I don't think that's in itself a correct analysis of the Tibet question: "look fellas, I agree that you're cruelly exploited and oppressed by China, I agree that you're a genuine nation and that you have your own language which is treated as a second-class language by China, I see that you do want self-determination and that a huge maount force and effort on the part of ordinary Chinese soldiers who are also oppressed by the same people who oppress you is necessarry jsut to deny you thing you could operate viably the moment they left, but yet, we can't give you it, because, too many people want it, and it jsut opens up a whole hornets nest, so nah. sorry". It doesn't cut it.

This is filled with so much bs that I feel the need to call you on it. China has put money, time, and people into Tibet for decades now. Tibetans speak a different language, big fucking deal. There are way more languages spoken in the world than there are nations. I don't know who the hell you are to say "it doesn't cut it". You don't have anything to lose from the situation. China does. That's why its so easy for you to get on your soapbox and preach human rights and independence.

[demagogic_schizoid]

China stands to lose quite a bit from granting it. And no, there's no such thing as having democratic rights. That's just a liberal fantasy worldview that isn't and has never been reflected in reality. Why doesn't the US just grant nationhood to California, New Mexico, and Arizona in the upcoming decades then? Why didn't the US allow the South to secede?

It's not a liberal fantasy at all, the ideal of the nation state is a "liberal fantasy", and one which you uphold as natural and inevitable when in fact it is a tool of oppression by tis very nature. The Tibetans got caught up in it, they resited it, and I back them. I don't know enough about the american civil war to answer your question. Regarding California - they aren't demanding independence, the Tibetans are.


This is filled with so much bs that I feel the need to call you on it. China has put money, time, and people into Tibet for decades now.

No, they are investing capital to reap a profit. The Tibetans aren't seeing the benefits.

"Putting in people". Yeah, like Israel does to Palestine, FFS, they are putting in settlers tot ake Tibetan land. Stupid ungrateful Tiebtans eh.


Tibetans speak a different language, big fucking deal.

It is a big fucking deal if someone tells you you can't get a job above th poverty line because of the language you speak and which all your ancestors spoke, you moron. It's a huge deal. Especially when 92% of Tibet speaks Tibetan.


There are way more languages spoken in the world than there are nations.

Some languiages like "cornish" are dead languages revived bytiny sects. Tibetan is a functioning language that the people of Tibet - except for the Han settlers and occupying troops - use in their day to day lives. So yes oppressing that language is a serious deal. I support equal status for all such languages, such as Quechua in Bolvia etc. So actually, go, give me an example of fucntioning language which a large number of people speak as their first language, which does not pertain to a nation. And no, nation =/= state, a nation is a set of people with a common language and historical. and cultural identity, linked to particular region. Tibet qualifies. Live with it.


I don't know who the hell you are to say "it doesn't cut it". You don't have anything to lose from the situation. China does. That's why its so easy for you to get on your soapbox and preach human rights and independence.

People are allowed to have opinions on places they have never been to. When the british government lays off millions of workers and pulls back oru civil rights, and some potential supproter in America says "Geez, I can't back you guys, cause I don't know anyone in Britain", I wouldn't think "thanks for mindign your own business", I'd think "you're a fucking disgrace, this is happenign to us and you turn your back because 'who am I to judge'? Pathetic." That's what people facing real problems think of some idiot who can't call blatant oppression and explotiation when they see it just because "it's not my country".

And secondly: what do most ordinary Chinese stand to gain from their ruling class' occupation of Tibet, and if they do stand to lose something from it ending, is it a legitimate source of privelige when it is based on the oppression fo someone else rather than on winning concessions from their own rulers?

[Oso Mocoso]

I don't think that's in itself a correct analysis of the Tibet question: "look fellas, I agree that you're cruelly exploited and oppressed by China, I agree that you're a genuine nation and that you have your own language which is treated as a second-class language by China, I see that you do want self-determination and that a huge maount force and effort on the part of ordinary Chinese soldiers who are also oppressed by the same people who oppress you is necessarry jsut to deny you thing you could operate viably the moment they left

I just want to point out that this statement is far more absurd than anything I posted in this thread, and I was actively trying to be as absurd as possible. D.S. just cut it out. If you're going to completely ignore reality as part of your argument, just state that out front.

[airjaw]

It's not a liberal fantasy at all, the ideal of the nation state is a "liberal fantasy", and one which you uphold as natural and inevitable when in fact it is a tool of oppression by tis very nature. The Tibetans got caught up in it, they resited it, and I back them. I don't know enough about the american civil war to answer your question. Regarding California - they aren't demanding independence, the Tibetans are.

No, I'm not upholding the idea of a nation state at all. I'm just saying that there is no "right" or "wrong" in this situation. Just the side you choose.




No, they are investing capital to reap a profit. The Tibetans aren't seeing the benefits.
again, provide evidence.


"Putting in people". Yeah, like Israel does to Palestine, FFS, they are putting in settlers tot ake Tibetan land. Stupid ungrateful Tiebtans eh.

I'm not saying the Tibetans should be grateful. Hell, if I were Tibetan, I'd probably be pissed as hell. But I'm not. I'm not Palestinian or Jewish either. And just like there's no easy solution to the Tibet independence issue, there's no easy solution to the Palestine/Israel issue. The stronger side is going to subdue the weaker side. It happens. All this talk about granting independence and autonomy and peace is fantasy, for these situations. So it just depends on what side you choose to be on.



It is a big fucking deal if someone tells you you can't get a job above th poverty line because of the language you speak and which all your ancestors spoke, you moron. It's a huge deal. Especially when 92% of Tibet speaks Tibetan.

Oh god, please. Tibetans were poor-as-fuck before China invaded, ok?



Some languiages like "cornish" are dead languages revived bytiny sects. Tibetan is a functioning language that the people of Tibet - except for the Han settlers and occupying troops - use in their day to day lives. So yes oppressing that language is a serious deal. I support equal status for all such languages, such as Quechua in Bolvia etc. So actually, go, give me an example of fucntioning language which a large number of people speak as their first language, which does not pertain to a nation. And no, nation =/= state, a nation is a set of people with a common language and historical. and cultural identity, linked to particular region. Tibet qualifies. Live with it.

Qualifies? No group "qualifies" for anything. You win the right to your nationhood by fighting for it. Did the US ask Britain to oh-please, would you please let us be independent, cuz we "qualify"? Asking China to give up a huge chunk of land that they've held for 50+ years is ludicrous and laughable.



People are allowed to have opinions on places they have never been to. When the british government lays off millions of workers and pulls back oru civil rights, and some potential supproter in America says "Geez, I can't back you guys, cause I don't know anyone in Britain", I wouldn't think "thanks for mindign your own business", I'd think "you're a fucking disgrace, this is happenign to us and you turn your back because 'who am I to judge'? Pathetic." That's what people facing real problems think of some idiot who can't call blatant oppression and explotiation when they see it just because "it's not my country".
Yea you're allowed to have opinions of places you've never been to. However, they aren't worth much. And no, I don't think Tibetans would think that about people who don't support their cause. If they want independence, then they'll have to earn it themselves. They understand that, why can't you? I didn't see any women or blacks from other countries protesting in the US during hte civil rights era.


And secondly: what do most ordinary Chinese stand to gain from their ruling class' occupation of Tibet, and if they do stand to lose something from it ending, is it a legitimate source of privelige when it is based on the oppression fo someone else rather than on winning concessions from their own rulers?
Just like China stands to gain from the occupation, the US stood to gain from making up excuses to fight Mexico and the Indians , all in the name of manifest destiny. I'm not saying its right. I'm saying that we stand to gain from it, and the US would never be willing to give it up without a fight. You, living in the UK, have indirectly gained from your country's colonial history. How much money flowed into the UK? How much went into infrastructure and maintaining stabliity? How many years of safety did this power ensure?

There is no real solution to the problem, just a side that you choose to be on. I have no problem with you choosing a side. I'm just pointing out that its a whimsical decision and entirely arbitrary. Not to mention that your posts are filled with a lot of speculation and bias but thats another story.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Just like China stands to gain from the occupation, the US stood to gain from making up excuses to fight Mexico and the Indians , all in the name of manifest destiny. I'm not saying its right. I'm saying that we stand to gain from it,

airjaw, when I see the wholeness of your arguemnt, it is clear that you are trying to make a pseudo-philosophical point that there is no such thing as right and wrong. I'll bite:

You can choose to gain a.) short-term at the expense of people in other countries just like yourself and then live ina world of constant inter-state fighting, xenohpbia, and racism, or b.) from fighting your own ruling class and uniting this struggle with the fight of ordinary people in every coutnry against their own, at the veryleast gainign menaingful long term concessions that elevate your status in your own society, rather than simply short-term rasing the accumulated surplus whcih "trickles down" without ever imoproving your actual standing, leaving you constantly at the mercy of economic cycles.

Now yes, you can make the argument to me that racism, xenophobia, aggression, genocide against other states are "no worse" than internationalism and fighting for a better share against the rich of your own country. Very clever, you're such a learned philospher, but sadly, entirely useless to anyone.

If you really believe that no one thing is "better" than any other and nothing is worth making any effort for, then presumably you can just stop working, eating, breathing, as surely poverty, starvation and death are no "worse" than prosperity and life. But wait, you won't do that, because quite aside from your mental masturbation, you realise that for you, prosperity and life are preferable to poverty, starvation and death. This is true for humanity as a whole. These are the things humans instinctively strive for. They are just tricked into false waysof acheiving them - ie told that to have these htigns they must deny them to other humans - a strategy which long term denies humanity these things on a universal level.

So actually, if you accept that poverty and death are worse than prosperity and good health for any individual human from their own perspective, then yes, it is possible for us as humans to develop an absolute morality, based on the idea that we can acheive greater prosperity, peace and health collectively,a ndtherefore anything whcih advances that goal is absolutely correct.

To oppose me, you have every right to argue how my proposals will undermine those goals int he real world and make people's lives worse rather than better. I do accept those arguments and engage witht hem.

However the pathetic, post-modernist junk that nothing is ever better or worse than anything - i.e. to be poor and ill is not inherently worse than to be propserous nad healthy - is just worthless argument, because I, as, amazingly, a human being, am basing my opinions on human consciousness and how we acheive the things we want, and the idea that those things are legitimate to the extent that they don't infirnge on toher people's rights to have that.

In other words, I'm not interested in some theory that views humans as part of a wide meaningless universe with no inherent "truth", because as a human I want to organise for us all to advance as a species. If you believe in evolution then you should actually understand that my urge is entirely natural, and by opposing it, you're just trying to resist the natural drive of a species to improve itself, and therefore going against the very laws of physics and biolgoy which you seem to think transcend "morality". Wrong. We have a sense of right and wrong precisely because a species we have an instinct to improve our role in the universe and ensure as far as possible our long-term survival and prosperity, and as long as we are fighting and oppressing each other this will be held back.

So actually, no, you are completely and utterly wrong with your relativist "who's to say" vacillations, which attempt to place yourself above the species you are part of, and on whose colelctive well-being you dpend for the things you want. And yeah, you do want them, if not, stop eating, stop using technolgoy, stop using infrastructure, and go "dissolve" into the wholeness of the universe which "transcends" our "stupid and petty" human consciousness. The impolite way to say that would be "fuck off and die", but of course I;m not that rude. ;)

EDIT: I pre-empt that I'll be accused of disregarding people's right to hold "randomness" theory. This is not the argument I'm making at all. You can hold whatever theory you want, in fact people who believe in randomness theory can and have come into arguments about politics and still taken a human perspective that certain things are desirable for huamns, and there are ways to acheive. However, airjaw's argument amounts to "who are you to say", which is obnoxious because yo can use this to reduce every argument to the same basic question. He is not arguign that Tibetans or chinese will be better served by one thing or another - somethign which Hustler, who holds the randomness theory, still deigns to class as a concern - rather he is simply makignthe point that nothing really matters. Good one airjaw, I look forward to you giving the same reply to anyone who ever has an opinion on anything, ever.

[airjaw]

This woudl be a whole lot easier if INTPc wasn't so slow. anyways on to the points


airjaw, when I see the wholeness of your arguemnt, it is clear that you are trying to make a pseudo-philosophical point that there is no such thing as right and wrong. I'll bite:
I'm no philosopher! I don't know much about any of those philosophical concepts anyway.


You can choose to gain a.) short-term at the expense of people in other countries just like yourself and then live ina world of constant inter-state fighting, xenohpbia, and racism, or b.) from fighting your own ruling class and uniting this struggle with the fight of ordinary people in every coutnry against their own, at the veryleast gainign menaingful long term concessions that elevate your status in your own society, rather than simply short-term rasing the accumulated surplus whcih "trickles down" without ever imoproving your actual standing, leaving you constantly at the mercy of economic cycles.

Hey, I didn't say that I never choose sides, because I do. I just don't choose to take a side in the Tibet/China issue. I don't know what worldwide ramifications supporting one side or the other will take, but it seems as if you do. Fine. I just don't see it myself.



Now yes, you can make the argument to me that racism, xenophobia, aggression, genocide against other states are "no worse" than internationalism and fighting for a better share against the rich of your own country. Very clever, you're such a learned philospher, but sadly, entirely useless to anyone.
[QUOTE]
If you really believe that no one thing is "better" than any other and nothing is worth making any effort for, then presumably you can just stop working, eating, breathing, as surely poverty, starvation and death are no "worse" than prosperity and life. But wait, you won't do that, because quite aside from your mental masturbation, you realise that for you, prosperity and life are preferable to poverty, starvation and death. This is true for humanity as a whole. These are the things humans instinctively strive for.
You're actually proving my point here - that prosperity and life are preferable. If it came down to my country vs another country, I would support my country, even if it meant The Chinese want prosperity and security. Therefore they go into Tibet and conquer it. You can't fault them for doing that.


They are just tricked into false waysof acheiving them - ie told that to have these htigns they must deny them to other humans - a strategy which long term denies humanity these things on a universal leve.

Nope, I'm not tricked, and I don't think anybody else was either. The surest way to ensure your own survival is to eliminate any threat to yourself or your group. This has been going on for thousands of years.

Also,
You still haven't proven any link between supporting Tibetans and increasing my or our chances to prosperity and life.


So actually, if you accept that poverty and death are worse than prosperity and good health for any individual human from their own perspective, then yes, it is possible for us as humans to develop an absolute morality, based on the idea that we can acheive greater prosperity, peace and health collectively,a ndtherefore anything whcih advances that goal is absolutely correct.

Again, what does the Tibetans' poverty and death have to do with me? With any of us? With you? This isn't some global struggle. This is the Tibetans' struggle. I have no problem with you supporting them. I do have a problem with you supporting them from your computer and ridiculing anyone who doesn't. If you aren't willing to risk anything for the movement, then you really aren't part of it.


To oppose me, you have every right to argue how my proposals will undermine those goals int he real world and make people's lives worse rather than better. I do accept those arguments and engage witht hem.

However the pathetic, post-modernist junk that nothing is ever better or worse than anything - i.e. to be poor and ill is not inherently worse than to be propserous nad healthy - is just worthless argument, because I, as, amazingly, a human being, am basing my opinions on human consciousness and how we acheive the things we want, and the idea that those things are legitimate to the extent that they don't infirnge on toher people's rights to have that.
Again you're proving my point. Everyone wants to secure their own prosperity, their own lives. Everyone wants to look out for themselves. That's how I view China's actions and thats how i view Tibet's actions. Its just up to you what side you want to affiliate yourself with.


In other words, I'm not interested in some theory that views humans as part of a wide meaningless universe with no inherent "truth", because as a human I want to organise for us all to advance as a species. If you believe in evolution then you should actually understand that my urge is entirely natural, and by opposing it, you're just trying to resist the natural drive of a species to improve itself, and therefore going against the very laws of physics and biolgoy which you seem to think transcend "morality". Wrong. We have a sense of right and wrong precisely because a species we have an instinct to improve our role in the universe and ensure as far as possible our long-term survival and prosperity, and as long as we are fighting and oppressing each other this will be held back.

You're stretching here. If anything you could make the counter-argument that letting China subdue Tibet will increase security and unification in Asia, making the region more stable. What if China gives all the land back to Tibet and Tibet, one hundred years from now, grows stronger and starts to eye China's land? Of co urse we can't predict what will happen, but is this scenario entirely unthinkable?



So actually, no, you are completely and utterly wrong with your relativist "who's to say" vacillations, which attempt to place yourself above the species you are part of, and on whose colelctive well-being you dpend for the things you want. And yeah, you do want them, if not, stop eating, stop using technolgoy, stop using infrastructure, and go "dissolve" into the wholeness of the universe which "transcends" our "stupid and petty" human consciousness. The impolite way to say that would be "fuck off and die", but of course I;m not that rude. ;)

EDIT: I pre-empt that I'll be accused of disregarding people's right to hold "randomness" theory. This is not the argument I'm making at all. You can hold whatever theory you want, in fact people who believe in randomness theory can and have come into arguments about politics and still taken a human perspective that certain things are desirable for huamns, and there are ways to acheive. However, airjaw's argument amounts to "who are you to say", which is obnoxious because yo can use this to reduce every argument to the same basic question. He is not arguign that Tibetans or chinese will be better served by one thing or another - somethign which Hustler, who holds the randomness theory, still deigns to class as a concern - rather he is simply makignthe point that nothing really matters. Good one airjaw, I look forward to you giving the same reply to anyone who ever has an opinion on anything, ever.

You lost me a while back,clearly you are thinking about this on a whole another plane than I. If you could go back and address the points I made, one by one, I think we would have a better discussion here.

[Hustler]

Of course, it's their democratic right and no-one stands to lose anything from granting it, except illigetimate priveliges such as the ability to exploit tibetans, which I hardly see any reason for someone like me to defend.
LOL... democratic right. I don't believe in anyone's democratic right to do anything, just FYI. It's amusing to me because you contradict yourself by invoking this idea. The idea of democracy is that majority rule is just. In the case of Tibet vs. China, you have 1 billion Chinese "voting" one way and a couple of million Tibetans "voting" the other way. What is legitimate about a majority of Tibetans wanting autonomy when a much larger group is illegitimate for wanting autonomy over the region? Appealing to some non-existent premise like "democratic right" isn't very convincing and, in fact, leads to all sorts of contradictory ideas. Such as:


I don't think that's in itself a correct analysis of the Tibet question: "look fellas, I agree that you're cruelly exploited and oppressed by China, I agree that you're a genuine nation and that you have your own language which is treated as a second-class language by China, I see that you do want self-determination and that a huge maount force and effort on the part of ordinary Chinese soldiers who are also oppressed by the same people who oppress you is necessarry jsut to deny you thing you could operate viably the moment they left, but yet, we can't give you it, because, too many people want it, and it jsut opens up a whole hornets nest, so nah. sorry". It doesn't cut it.
I agree; that's not a correct analysis of the Tibet question, so I guess I don't need to respond to whatever points this straw man was supposed to make.


Regarding the Kurds and Tamils I do support their right to self-determiantion compeltely, in fact it's the only way they will ever escape national oppression.
It is? Pretty bold statement to say that's the only way.


There is no legitimate reason to oppose them, and yet, their self-determination is only denied by huge amounts of resources and lives being wasted in brutally denying them their basic rights. So of course, there is no reason not to support them, because as well fighting for their own rights, they will help to put an end to the practices of the governments they fight which are bullshit for the people who live under them.
Eh, I could say the same about any group of people living under any government. Authority is never legitimate and always oppressive.


but if it is developing then our ability to produce a surplus develops, no?
In the long run, yes. In the short term, surpluses and shortages will continue to operate in cycles, much as we see with all of the Peak Oil hype now. But, in fact, we have surpluses of all sorts of thing. Take corn, for instance. It doesn't all get used. It could all get used with better distribution methods (maybe), but it currently doesn't all get used. Better technology could continue to improve distribution. I don't think there has ever been a global surplus of a crop before the modern era. Certainly not several hundred years ago. And this is but one example of a surplus that exists now that never existed in the past; there are countless others. Granted, there are shortages now that we didn't have before, and population increase predicts that this will continue. The question is whether technology can stay ahead of our rampant consumption and growth in number.


I don't differentiate struggling to stay above the cost of living from struggling to benefit from technology, because the good thing about technology is that it raises humanities capacities to produce, and yet, we have to fight for a share in that surplus.
I do, because I'm not on a battlefield somewhere dying from shrapnel wounds, or in a mud hut somewhere dying from an ox wound because I have no antibiotics to stop the infection. How hard is this to understand? My fight is not the same fight that my ancestors fought. I fight to stay ahead of the cost of living, not to stay one step ahead of the Grim Reaper. In some places, like Scandanavian welfare states, I wouldn't even have to fight to stay ahead of the cost of living. I don't know wtf my struggle would be there. Probably just a search for meaning, or figuring out a way to get over those long winters. These are luxuries compared to the prospects the typical Scandanavian had a thousand years ago in the Viking era.


You're not stupid so I won't explain to you how the extent we share into it depends on past struggles and our ability to sturggle now and even moreso in the future, especially the coming global recession/depression, because I'm pretty sure you already know how the extent of the share we have in the produce of the economy is directly related to our abiltiy to fight.
The recession isn't going to come at me with an AK-47 in a blood-soaked trench. I think the worst-case scenario is I might have to log a few extra hours of work here or there to keep ahead of the cost of living, but, really, I don't even think I'll be forced to do that. But, the beauty of modern life is that if I decide I want that kind of struggle -- if I believe that it is necessary -- then I can go pick up a gun (or make a bomb, which is more in keeping with my philosophy) and go find it.


This is partly true in that the more profitable an economy is, the less force is needed to keep people within the system. Yet this still doesn't solve the problem of over-accumulation. If you can't find a profiitable outlet for that capital, you have to destroy it, or it will just be lying around available for anyone who wants it at lower and lower prices.
It does solve the problem of over-accumulation. Again, in the long term. If scarcity of some resource is eliminated, then over-accumulation just means that someone is out there accumulating a worthless resource.


So actually, I think you have a more utopian view of humanity than me if you think that those who control capital will allow it to just "trickle down" even when its abundance undermines its profitability - their source of income - rather than forcibly destroy and devalue it at the expense of producing huge scarcity/unemployment inflation and causing enormous periodic social upheaval, whose only correct channelling must be against those destroying the capital if it is to solve long-term the very problems which created it.
The second and third wealthiest men in the world are currently working on a way to liquidate all of their wealth and spread it around the world. Why? Because over-accumulation just doesn't get what it used to, I guess. I believe Bill Gates has stated he plans to leave around $10 million for his kids. That means he's figuring out a way to spend the rest of his working life giving away 99.9998% of the wealth he has accumulated (and will continue to accumulate). Between him and Warren Buffet, we are talking about a global dissolution of accumulated resources which is greater than the GDPs of 156 of the world's 210 countries. Technology is what makes this level of philanthropy possible. Unlike the trend of first world investment in the third world, this investment isn't seeking a direct recouping of capital, it is merely an investment in the future of humankind.

[demagogic_schizoid]

The idea of democracy is that majority rule is just. In the case of Tibet vs. China, you have 1 billion Chinese "voting" one way and a couple of million Tibetans "voting" the other way. What is legitimate about a majority of Tibetans wanting autonomy when a much larger group is illegitimate for wanting autonomy over the region? Appealing to some non-existent premise like "democratic right" isn't very convincing and, in fact, leads to all sorts of contradictory ideas. Such as:

Wrong, that's a very limited view of democracy. Democracy means "popular rule". I consider China's war in Tibet to be a diversion to prevent popular rule. So no, democracy does not mean a snapshot opinion poll, in time, of the majority opinion in any given situation, rather it means a system where all of humanity genuinely has an equal voice. Therefore, as long as Tibetans are oppressed by China, that is not democratic, regardless of some opinion poll of the Chinese population. In any case the oppression carried out on China is done so in the name of the ruling class, whereas the Chinese masses have simply bought the retrospective justification for something they did not initiate and do not control or benefit from long-term. If the Chinese masses ruled themselves and benefitted from all the wealth produced in China, then that would be demcoracy, and the best way to acheive this is quite obviously unity with Tibetans fighting the same struggle against the same people. Therefore no,t here is no contradiction ebtween supporting self-determination for Tibet and supporting genuine democracy. Only if you relegate the term "demcoracy" to mob rule is this possible.


It is? Pretty bold statement to say that's the only way.

The Turkish, Iraqi and Sri Lankan states were built on the subjugation of Kurds and Tamils respectivley, and their very self-identification as a nation is a threat to those projects. Both nations have had wars waged against them by those states for years. I hate to be determinsitic, but one side or the other is going to have to win for those situations to be resolved IMO. And yes, any "compromise" which keeps those nations with naything less than compeltely equal rights both in the abstract and materially, for either their language, religions or status, is a defeat for one of those nations, quite clearly, as they will remain second-class citizens, the very thing they are fighting to resist. So again, call me determinsitic, but I don't see another way.


Eh, I could say the same about any group of people living under any government. Authority is never legitimate and always oppressive.

Yes. so why take a maximalist stance in theory and a minimalist stance in practice - "I support all resistance to authority, but any real resistance which doesn't end all authority everwhere must be discounted". The Tibetans do not hinder anyone else's resistance in their resistance to Chinese rule, so if you believe the above there is no reason for you not to support them. If they are resisting a rule that is not legitimate, then why not? sure, they might well bring in another illegitimate rule, but opposing it for that reason rules out any progressive reform short of a revolution.



In the long run, yes. In the short term, surpluses and shortages will continue to operate in cycles, much as we see with all of the Peak Oil hype now. But, in fact, we have surpluses of all sorts of thing. Take corn, for instance. It doesn't all get used. It could all get used with better distribution methods (maybe), but it currently doesn't all get used. Better technology could continue to improve distribution. I don't think there has ever been a global surplus of a crop before the modern era. Certainly not several hundred years ago. And this is but one example of a surplus that exists now that never existed in the past; there are countless others.

Yes this is exactly what Marx said. Did you even read my first reply to you?


Granted, there are shortages now that we didn't have before, and population increase predicts that this will continue. The question is whether technology can stay ahead of our rampant consumption and growth in number.

Food shortages are not due to our rampant consumption or population increases. They are due to the fact that as the corn surpluses described above continues expanding and as it becomes ever more freely available to people, it undermines its own profitability until the evnetual and inevitable drop in the profitability of corn production. To the owner of the corn farm, this is a crisis, so for as long as the market is sufficiently flooded so as to ensure that corn recieves a dwindling rate of return for each cent invested, corn production must be scaled down, and it must be either hoarded, destroyed, or exported to foreign markets at the expense of driving their own corn producers out of business, both creating scarcity in the long term, and sowing the seeds for the next crisis.

Therefore yes, as I said, we do develop the ability to produce ever more, and in times of growth, surpluses will grow and availibility of commodities will grow. However when the boom undermines itself as all booms do, all the unproductive capital must be destroyed in order to return it to its previous rate of profitability. Therefore, you have manufactured scarcity. It is not fundamentally a question of better distribution methods, it is a question of profitability and over-accumulation. You say that long-term this resolves problems of scarcity. Hmmm. That sounds more detemrinistic than my position. I outline concrete problems and propose clear solutions: produce the corn for need not for profit, and when the owners of the land no longer find it profitable to produce corn tell em, "we'll take that off your hands for you, kthxbye". You just have the long term promise that technology will somehow provide the answer. Yet what's this based on?


I do, because I'm not on a battlefield somewhere dying from shrapnel wounds, or in a mud hut somewhere dying from an ox wound because I have no antibiotics to stop the infection. How hard is this to understand? My fight is not the same fight that my ancestors fought. I fight to stay ahead of the cost of living, not to stay one step ahead of the Grim Reaper. In some places, like Scandanavian welfare states, I wouldn't even have to fight to stay ahead of the cost of living. I don't know wtf my struggle would be there. Probably just a search for meaning, or figuring out a way to get over those long winters. These are luxuries compared to the prospects the typical Scandanavian had a thousand years ago in the Viking era.

Yes, I don't see how this contradicts me. You mentioned Scandinavian welfare states. Well, how would a similar system be introduced in the US if not byt he conscious political organisation of the mass of the population? The US is no more technologically backward than Scandinavia, so why so many poroer people? That example itself udedmrines your whole argument. Clearly politics and not technological ability is at the root of that difference between your living standards and Scandinavians.

And please, stop telling me abouthow life is better than in the middle Ages. I know that. I have argued it many times against disbelievers. ;)



The recession isn't going to come at me with an AK-47 in a blood-soaked trench. I think the worst-case scenario is I might have to log a few extra hours of work here or there to keep ahead of the cost of living, but, really, I don't even think I'll be forced to do that.

Well, firstly that's a strawman, because the vast majority of poltical struggle is not done with AK's in a blood soaked trench.

Secondly, you are in a small global minority from what you describe, and even in your own country, millions of people are threatened by losing even a roof over their heads, their jobs, their pensions, their healthcare, etc. this is not due to naturally occurring scarcity, it is due to forced destruction of capital to solve the problem of over-accumulation - yes, a cpaitlaists money is capital, so when it is devalued/taken out of circulation, this means that just like nay other cpaital, there is less of it about (of course, this can be acheived by inflation, in which case there is the illusion of more of it, yet inr eal terms, its value has fallen, so yes, capital has been destroyed), and the corresponding need for government austerity.

So for the people threatened with these problems, the solution is clearly not one that can simply be solved by the long term development of technology - leaving aside whether this could ever happen, it will mean little to the newly unemployed and homeless - but by a conscious change in society about how to use existing technology and capaicty to produce a surplus - i.e. do we confiscate it fromt hose who would destroy it, and use it regardless of its effect on profitability, or do we let them destory it and create further scarcity. These are immediate real questions and can only be answered one way or another by conscious human beings.

And no, none of that means I do not value technolgoical advancement in itself. Technological advacement=potential.


It does solve the problem of over-accumulation. Again, in the long term. If scarcity of some resource is eliminated, then over-accumulation just means that someone is out there accumulating a worthless resource.

No, the owner of the corn farm does *not* accumulate corn. He accumulates capital. Capital is the combined wealth of the capitlaist, whose value reproduces itself with investment. The owner of the corn farm does not want corn, he wants increasing rates of return on each cent-worth of capital he invests, he wants profit. Therefore the "worthlessness" of the corn is not some happy coincedence he can ignore, rather it means the corn is worthless to him, and he has no mroe reason to produce it. However, he doesn't jsut wak away from the farm, rather he must scale down corn production until it is profitable once more. Wcarcity must be recreated until the resource is no longer worthless. No owner of capital will allow its profitability to fall. For what you describe to happen, the "resource" must be produced for some other reason than its profitability - i.e., for need. For this to happen its ownership must be socialised, which can only happen via a conscious political and social development.


The second and third wealthiest men in the world are currently working on a way to liquidate all of their wealth and spread it around the world. Why? Because over-accumulation just doesn't get what it used to, I guess. I believe Bill Gates has stated he plans to leave around $10 million for his kids. That means he's figuring out a way to spend the rest of his working life giving away 99.9998% of the wealth he has accumulated (and will continue to accumulate). Between him and Warren Buffet, we are talking about a global dissolution of accumulated resources which is greater than the GDPs of 156 of the world's 210 countries. Technology is what makes this level of philanthropy possible. Unlike the trend of first world investment in the third world, this investment isn't seeking a direct recouping of capital, it is merely an investment in the future of humankind

Well I will take you at your good word, but for this to happen long term dpeends on the long term exitence of the super rich. For the super rich to stay super rich, capital must stay proitable. For that to happen, there must be periodic recessions in which capital is destroyed and scarcity is artificially created. therefore, as a "solution", this is a complete contradiction.

[demagogic_schizoid]

incidentally, on that very topic:


The rapid rise in food prices could push 100m people in poor countries deeper into poverty, the head of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, has said.

His warning follows that from the leader of the International Monetary Fund, who said hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of starvation.

Mr Zoellick proposed an action plan to boost long-run agricultural production.

There have been food riots recently in a number of countries, including Haiti, the Philippines and Egypt.

"Based on a rough analysis, we estimate that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty," Mr Zoellick said.

cont (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7344892.stm)

maybe this deserves its own thread now, but tangents etc.

[Hustler]

Wrong, that's a very limited view of democracy. Democracy means "popular rule". I consider China's war in Tibet to be a diversion to prevent popular rule. So no, democracy does not mean a snapshot opinion poll, in time, of the majority opinion in any given situation, rather it means a system where all of humanity genuinely has an equal voice. Therefore, as long as Tibetans are oppressed by China, that is not democratic, regardless of some opinion poll of the Chinese population. In any case the oppression carried out on China is done so in the name of the ruling class, whereas the Chinese masses have simply bought the retrospective justification for something they did not initiate and do not control or benefit from long-term. If the Chinese masses ruled themselves and benefitted from all the wealth produced in China, then that would be demcoracy, and the best way to acheive this is quite obviously unity with Tibetans fighting the same struggle against the same people. Therefore no,t here is no contradiction ebtween supporting self-determination for Tibet and supporting genuine democracy. Only if you relegate the term "demcoracy" to mob rule is this possible.
1. You're splitting hairs. Popular rule is carried out in practice through majority rule. This is why minorities are still always getting oppressed, even under an "enlightened" system of rule such as democracy. Tibetans are an ethnic minority under the subjugation of the Han majority.
2. You've failed to define equal voice. If everyone in the world were for taking a guy's land, but that one guy was in opposition, is it possible to give person an equal voice under your (completely ridiculous) definition of democracy? In the case of China and Tibet, if 1 billion voices, all worth 1 unit of power are saying they think Tibet should remain part of China but 2.5 million voices, each worth 1 unit of power, are saying they don't, what's the democratic solution? Never mind why these voices are crying out for their opinions, only that they are.

Democracy is mob rule, albeit in a far more complex sense, what with propaganda and capital in the hands of the mighty to sway the voices of the meek. Maybe in some theory very far removed from the reality of world politics, it is not but, in the history of its practice, it has always been the subjugation of the few by the many. In some cases, we find a majority who is sympathetic to a minority and elects not to give the minority a hard time. But, this is not self-empowering for the minority. It is merely an example of a benevolent mob as opposed to an angry mob.


The Turkish, Iraqi and Sri Lankan states were built on the subjugation of Kurds and Tamils respectivley, and their very self-identification as a nation is a threat to those projects. Both nations have had wars waged against them by those states for years. I hate to be determinsitic, but one side or the other is going to have to win for those situations to be resolved IMO. And yes, any "compromise" which keeps those nations with naything less than compeltely equal rights both in the abstract and materially, for either their language, religions or status, is a defeat for one of those nations, quite clearly, as they will remain second-class citizens, the very thing they are fighting to resist. So again, call me determinsitic, but I don't see another way.
There is another way. The Chinese way. The Chinese method, which has worked on all but 56 ethnic groups (apparently), is to simply move into the area and populate it, intermingling with the local cultures. Eventually, the cultural identity of the lesser nation is worn away. Historically, this has resulted in some groups trying to fight back, some trying to move, but the vast majority just giving up and getting assimilated into the larger Chinese culture. But, it takes time. Sri Lanka, as a country, isn't very old.

But, you do make a point that leads to an interesting question. Who should win? And who has a right to govern the territories in question? Do small, obsolete ethnic groups have a right to self governance and to deciding the law of the land when they have no hope of defending themselves against their neighbors? And what about foreign powers who try to take a stance on the issue of something like Tibet and China? In the past, the United States has granted asylum to oppressed ethnic minorities. Should the position, then, of a power like the United States be to allow Tibetans into the United States under asylum and grant them the opportunity to become citizens? This seems to be the most appropriate position a foreign power can take when it comes to ethnic oppression.


Yes. so why take a maximalist stance in theory and a minimalist stance in practice - "I support all resistance to authority, but any real resistance which doesn't end all authority everwhere must be discounted". The Tibetans do not hinder anyone else's resistance in their resistance to Chinese rule, so if you believe the above there is no reason for you not to support them. If they are resisting a rule that is not legitimate, then why not? sure, they might well bring in another illegitimate rule, but opposing it for that reason rules out any progressive reform short of a revolution.
I don't really support the resistance to authority in all cases. I do not believe authority is legitimate or philosophically justifiable, and a new rule is always an illegitimate rule. There is a difference between having an opinion and actively fighting for a belief. If I were a Tibetan, I would not line up to die or be oppressed just to resist authority. I think I'd try to move, or adapt to a new way of life. But, that's just me. If the Chinese, a much larger, more powerful group is dead-set on controlling Tibet, then resistance would seem to be futile. Barring some miracle of China actually buckling to international pressure (LOL) and backing off of Tibet, I don't see any other outcome than China continuing to control Tibet. I don't think Tibet can win this fight, but I also don't believe a culture has a right to exist.


Food shortages are not due to our rampant consumption or population increases.
In some cases they are. There are many regions where local food production simply cannot support all of the people.


They are due to the fact that as the corn surpluses described above continues expanding and as it becomes ever more freely available to people, it undermines its own profitability until the evnetual and inevitable drop in the profitability of corn production. To the owner of the corn farm, this is a crisis, so for as long as the market is sufficiently flooded so as to ensure that corn recieves a dwindling rate of return for each cent invested, corn production must be scaled down, and it must be either hoarded, destroyed, or exported to foreign markets at the expense of driving their own corn producers out of business, both creating scarcity in the long term, and sowing the seeds for the next crisis.p
This argument makes zero sense. If there is a shortage of something somewhere then, in theory, there is a demand for it. The problem is that getting corn from Nebraska to Zimbabwe is prohibitively expensive, and the people in Zimbabwe simply cannot afford the cost of the corn + the transportation. The solution to this is a cheaper means of transporting corn, which is only achievable through technology. People have even gone as far as attempting to make fuel out of corn, which could then be used to more cheaply transport corn (and simultaneously create a new market for said corn, that being fuel). So far, this hasn't worked. Part of the problem may be inherent to corn, but part is surely attributable to the limits of our current technology.


Therefore yes, as I said, we do develop the ability to produce ever more, and in times of growth, surpluses will grow and availibility of commodities will grow. However when the boom undermines itself as all booms do, all the unproductive capital must be destroyed in order to return it to its previous rate of profitability. Therefore, you have manufactured scarcity. It is not fundamentally a question of better distribution methods, it is a question of profitability and over-accumulation. You say that long-term this resolves problems of scarcity. Hmmm. That sounds more detemrinistic than my position. I outline concrete problems and propose clear solutions: produce the corn for need not for profit, and when the owners of the land no longer find it profitable to produce corn tell em, "we'll take that off your hands for you, kthxbye". You just have the long term promise that technology will somehow provide the answer. Yet what's this based on?
This ignores the falling benefit of over-accumulation of resources that comes from technological progress. So, again, your conclusions are wrong. There will always be a fair price for corn and, as long as people enjoy eating corn or frying with corn oil or using corn syrup to sweeten things, or feeding their cattle with corn, and so on, there will always be a demand for corn, and whoever can produce and distribute corn more efficiently than everyone else will be able to set that price. And you also cannot separate profit and need (at least not under the current dynamics of global economics), because the corn farmers themselves have needs that can only be met if their work nets them a profit. They cannot survive on corn alone (yet).

And all booms do not undermine themselves. Gold is still valuable, somehow, after all this time, even after governments stopped backing their currencies with it.


Yes, I don't see how this contradicts me. You mentioned Scandinavian welfare states. Well, how would a similar system be introduced in the US if not byt he conscious political organisation of the mass of the population? The US is no more technologically backward than Scandinavia, so why so many poroer people? That example itself udedmrines your whole argument. Clearly politics and not technological ability is at the root of that difference between your living standards and Scandinavians.
This example is irrelevant. You seem to think that a welfare state is more advanced than a non-welfare state. It's merely a state in which the people have decided to distribute their resources more evenly. Hunter-gatherers didn't generally experience food shortages, and, in many hunter-gatherer societies, their resources were evenly distributed, according to need. Over accumulation would actually have been a burden to anyone living in a migrant tribe, because that's just more stuff you have to carry around with you. Does that make their societies more advanced than societies today in which there is poverty and starvation? The presence of poverty is not exactly a relevant metric for how advanced a civilization is (though maybe you could shoot for a "morally advanced" argument, but that's something different). The consumption of energy is more appropriate, bearing in mind, of course, that wasted energy is not actually consumed, so that efficiency must also be considered.


And please, stop telling me abouthow life is better than in the middle Ages. I know that. I have argued it many times against disbelievers. ;)
You say you know that, but yet the implications of this fact elude you.


Well, firstly that's a strawman, because the vast majority of poltical struggle is not done with AK's in a blood soaked trench.
This is exactly my point, and it goes back to the middle-ages thing. More can be accomplished today without force than could be accomplished in less technologically advanced times. This is largely due to the power of information, in the form of propaganda or simply enlightenment. It's hard enough to persuade someone of something without using force when he understands what you're saying to him; it was nigh impossible in ancient days when the other guy couldn't read, had no idea who you were, couldn't understand you, had a very narrow perspective of the world, and had no concept of history. You may have had to hit him with a club to get your point across.


Secondly, you are in a small global minority from what you describe, and even in your own country, millions of people are threatened by losing even a roof over their heads, their jobs, their pensions, their healthcare, etc. this is not due to naturally occurring scarcity, it is due to forced destruction of capital to solve the problem of over-accumulation - yes, a cpaitlaists money is capital, so when it is devalued/taken out of circulation, this means that just like nay other cpaital, there is less of it about (of course, this can be acheived by inflation, in which case there is the illusion of more of it, yet inr eal terms, its value has fallen, so yes, capital has been destroyed), and the corresponding need for government austerity.
Again, a pointless argument. Yes, people are homeless and having trouble making ends meet. But not like they were 70 years ago in this very same country. There is a downward trend in these problems, and people continue to get better off. Have I mentioned the middle-ages to you before? It was this time, like 1000 years ago or so in Europe, when people used to be peasants and get raided and killed by random other Europeans who had swords and axes. It was a pretty bleak time.


So for the people threatened with these problems, the solution is clearly not one that can simply be solved by the long term development of technology - leaving aside whether this could ever happen, it will mean little to the newly unemployed and homeless - but by a conscious change in society about how to use existing technology and capaicty to produce a surplus - i.e. do we confiscate it fromt hose who would destroy it, and use it regardless of its effect on profitability, or do we let them destory it and create further scarcity. These are immediate real questions and can only be answered one way or another by conscious human beings.
Too bad for them. This is something their ancestors set in motion the very day they decided to cultivate wheat. Political change is so slow, that it's kind of pointless to try to save the homeless of today via politics. By the time you get around to enacting new policies, those homeless people will be dead. So the political efforts of human conscious also did them no good, just like the technological efforts of scientists likely will not help this generation of poor as much as it will the next generation. This, of course, is speaking on a national or global level. Locally, changes can be made and acted upon fast enough to help people in the here and now. Given that this is true (and, as a resident of a homeless-friendly municipality, I can say that it is), inductive logic dictates that technology has the capacity to expand the potential of political effort by hastening communication and action. Whether we as a species have the ability to realize this capacity of technology is another question, and one I can't hope to answer. But, you seem to believe that human conscious can capitalize on this. If that's true, it still fundamentally rides on the back of technology as a liberator.


And no, none of that means I do not value technolgoical advancement in itself. Technological advacement=potential.
It's the only thing that can ultimately save us from the whims of nature, if anything can, that is.


No, the owner of the corn farm does *not* accumulate corn. He accumulates capital. Capital is the combined wealth of the capitlaist, whose value reproduces itself with investment. The owner of the corn farm does not want corn, he wants increasing rates of return on each cent-worth of capital he invests, he wants profit. Therefore the "worthlessness" of the corn is not some happy coincedence he can ignore, rather it means the corn is worthless to him, and he has no mroe reason to produce it. However, he doesn't jsut wak away from the farm, rather he must scale down corn production until it is profitable once more. Wcarcity must be recreated until the resource is no longer worthless. No owner of capital will allow its profitability to fall. For what you describe to happen, the "resource" must be produced for some other reason than its profitability - i.e., for need. For this to happen its ownership must be socialised, which can only happen via a conscious political and social development.
Scaling down is one way. Being a more efficient producer is another.


Well I will take you at your good word, but for this to happen long term dpeends on the long term exitence of the super rich. For the super rich to stay super rich, capital must stay proitable. For that to happen, there must be periodic recessions in which capital is destroyed and scarcity is artificially created. therefore, as a "solution", this is a complete contradiction.
That's true in a static world. But, new ideas and new inventions are cropping up every day. At first, these things are scarce, because they're novel. As long as innovation continues, then what you say needn't be true (the novelty of the computer/tech industry and the internet is what led to people like Bill Gates accumulating so much wealth, not some recession in computer/software manufacturing). If the rate of growing corn remained at a fixed price for all time then, yes, the increased production of corn would mean that corn's value would go down, and the only way to alter this would be to create a corn scarcity. But, in fact, two things are in operation against this. First, the cost of producing corn goes down as technology leads to more efficient means of production. Secondly, innovation can lead to new uses for corn. Perhaps someone down the road will invent a robot that is built of corn, which not only creates a new use for corn (building robots), but also a cheaper means of production of corn (robot laborers). This two-fold expansion of the potential of existing resources, in addition to the universe of entirely new ideas and new innovations, render your argument wrong, and mean that recession needn't occur for the process of the accumulation of capital to continue. The net worth of the world continues to go up. The world's GNP is always on the rise. Simply put, the entire world is getting richer, because we are ably to consume more of its energy and put it to use more efficiently with each passing year.

But, frankly, I don't see what all of this has to do with Tibet right now, where they mostly eat rice anyway.

[Zephyrus055]

Well, in practice, the government of a county tends to be either a brand of autocracy or oligarchy. In the case of America, we are a plutocracy - rule by the wealthiest members of society or better called the capitalist elite. They are the major share holders in our country, and consequently exercise great influence in decision making. Legally we are a constitutional republic, in practice a plutocracy.

Now, in the case of Tibet, I think it's all sad. However, real politick is the only valid way of making political decisions. Real politik is the tradition that prioritizes the practical realities and national interest above ideological and moral ones. Actually, it's the only thing that works optimally. Just look at the success of Metternich, Bismarck, Kissinger, and Dennis Ross. Yes some of their policies failed, but in most the cases we can either blame ignorance or other people. Other people is to blame for the eventual failure of Bismarck's work. Dennis Ross even blames Bush for making counter strategic decisions.

We should not continue the failures of Bush and the ideologues in government today. Rather we should stick to our best interest and the practical realities. So in the case of Tibet, we should side with China and maintain the status quo. There is nothing strategic about compelling China to compromise to Tibet's favor, in fact it is costly, and that is a sufficient reason for why we should do nothing.

Egoism is a virtue
The ends justify the means



[[Some text of questionable relevance moved here. (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=29130) --Rhu]

[demagogic_schizoid]

In some cases they are. There are many regions where local food production simply cannot support all of the people.


This argument makes zero sense. If there is a shortage of something somewhere then, in theory, there is a demand for it. The problem is that getting corn from Nebraska to Zimbabwe is prohibitively expensive, and the people in Zimbabwe simply cannot afford the cost of the corn + the transportation. The solution to this is a cheaper means of transporting corn, which is only achievable through technology. People have even gone as far as attempting to make fuel out of corn, which could then be used to more cheaply transport corn (and simultaneously create a new market for said corn, that being fuel). So far, this hasn't worked. Part of the problem may be inherent to corn, but part is surely attributable to the limits of our current technology.


This ignores the falling benefit of over-accumulation of resources that comes from technological progress. So, again, your conclusions are wrong. There will always be a fair price for corn and, as long as people enjoy eating corn or frying with corn oil or using corn syrup to sweeten things, or feeding their cattle with corn, and so on, there will always be a demand for corn, and whoever can produce and distribute corn more efficiently than everyone else will be able to set that price. And you also cannot separate profit and need (at least not under the current dynamics of global economics), because the corn farmers themselves have needs that can only be met if their work nets them a profit. They cannot survive on corn alone (yet).

And all booms do not undermine themselves. Gold is still valuable, somehow, after all this time, even after governments stopped backing their currencies with it.


This example is irrelevant. You seem to think that a welfare state is more advanced than a non-welfare state. It's merely a state in which the people have decided to distribute their resources more evenly. Hunter-gatherers didn't generally experience food shortages, and, in many hunter-gatherer societies, their resources were evenly distributed, according to need. Over accumulation would actually have been a burden to anyone living in a migrant tribe, because that's just more stuff you have to carry around with you. Does that make their societies more advanced than societies today in which there is poverty and starvation? The presence of poverty is not exactly a relevant metric for how advanced a civilization is (though maybe you could shoot for a "morally advanced" argument, but that's something different). The consumption of energy is more appropriate, bearing in mind, of course, that wasted energy is not actually consumed, so that efficiency must also be considered.


You say you know that, but yet the implications of this fact elude you.


This is exactly my point, and it goes back to the middle-ages thing. More can be accomplished today without force than could be accomplished in less technologically advanced times. This is largely due to the power of information, in the form of propaganda or simply enlightenment. It's hard enough to persuade someone of something without using force when he understands what you're saying to him; it was nigh impossible in ancient days when the other guy couldn't read, had no idea who you were, couldn't understand you, had a very narrow perspective of the world, and had no concept of history. You may have had to hit him with a club to get your point across.


Again, a pointless argument. Yes, people are homeless and having trouble making ends meet. But not like they were 70 years ago in this very same country. There is a downward trend in these problems, and people continue to get better off. Have I mentioned the middle-ages to you before? It was this time, like 1000 years ago or so in Europe, when people used to be peasants and get raided and killed by random other Europeans who had swords and axes. It was a pretty bleak time.


Too bad for them. This is something their ancestors set in motion the very day they decided to cultivate wheat. Political change is so slow, that it's kind of pointless to try to save the homeless of today via politics. By the time you get around to enacting new policies, those homeless people will be dead. So the political efforts of human conscious also did them no good, just like the technological efforts of scientists likely will not help this generation of poor as much as it will the next generation. This, of course, is speaking on a national or global level. Locally, changes can be made and acted upon fast enough to help people in the here and now. Given that this is true (and, as a resident of a homeless-friendly municipality, I can say that it is), inductive logic dictates that technology has the capacity to expand the potential of political effort by hastening communication and action. Whether we as a species have the ability to realize this capacity of technology is another question, and one I can't hope to answer. But, you seem to believe that human conscious can capitalize on this. If that's true, it still fundamentally rides on the back of technology as a liberator.


It's the only thing that can ultimately save us from the whims of nature, if anything can, that is.


Scaling down is one way. Being a more efficient producer is another.


That's true in a static world. But, new ideas and new inventions are cropping up every day. At first, these things are scarce, because they're novel. As long as innovation continues, then what you say needn't be true (the novelty of the computer/tech industry and the internet is what led to people like Bill Gates accumulating so much wealth, not some recession in computer/software manufacturing). If the rate of growing corn remained at a fixed price for all time then, yes, the increased production of corn would mean that corn's value would go down, and the only way to alter this would be to create a corn scarcity. But, in fact, two things are in operation against this. First, the cost of producing corn goes down as technology leads to more efficient means of production. Secondly, innovation can lead to new uses for corn. Perhaps someone down the road will invent a robot that is built of corn, which not only creates a new use for corn (building robots), but also a cheaper means of production of corn (robot laborers). This two-fold expansion of the potential of existing resources, in addition to the universe of entirely new ideas and new innovations, render your argument wrong, and mean that recession needn't occur for the process of the accumulation of capital to continue. The net worth of the world continues to go up. The world's GNP is always on the rise. Simply put, the entire world is getting richer, because we are ably to consume more of its energy and put it to use more efficiently with each passing year.

No, you still aren't understanding the nature of capital.

"Demand" under capitalism means ability to pay at the price which the producer needs to charge in order to ensure an increasing rate of profit. Someone who cannot pay at this rate has no "demand". The very fact that real "demand" is much greater than the "demand" which the market mechanism registers is in fact the central contradiction I am repeatedly pointing out. Therefore unfortunately your view of demand is simply not the one which is used in capitalist economics.

Proft is the result of the difference between wages paid to workers and the price charged for the good. This profit is reinvested as capital. For an investment to be justified, the mass of capital must more than reproduce itself after investment, therefore themass of capital must increase at more than this rate with each investment, i.e., each time you invest the profit made from producing say the last car into producing the next one: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 etc.

Now, as profit is defined by by disparity between wages paid and price charged - and this profit is then reinvested as capital to multiply itself - then there must not only be a constant disparity between the mass of cpaital accumulated in an economy and the amount of wealth owned by the workers, but this disparity must be constantly increasing with each round of investment, as quite clearly the gap between the two multiplies itself: this is the very basis for the multiplication of capital.

Therefore, the mass of capital accumulated is by necessity be more valuable than the combined wealth workers have available to spend, so, no, it is never possible in a capitlaist economy for demand - the ability and desire to pay for a commodity at the rate necessarry for the capitalist to make a profit - to meet supply, because by definition wages paid can never be equal to profit made. Furthermore, and the key point: this disparity between wage paid and profit accumulated by definition increases with each round of profitable investment.

This can be momentarily got around by: 1.)lending out some of the mass of capital as credit - a process which clearly cannot solve the very cotnradiction which spawned it 2.) by the state taxing workers using their wealth to buy capital - in other words forced consumption, 3.) by the fact that as profit rises so do wages to a greater or lesser extent, 4.) by exporting capital to foreign markets at the expense of the profitability of their capitalists.

But long term none of that increases the combined accumulated wealth owned by those who do not own the means of production in proportion to the mass of capital accumulated by those who do nor halts the increase in this disparity with each round of investment, the critical reason why in any boom demand cannot keep up with supply and why therefore the boom udnemrines itself, and therefore these "solutions" only put off the problem rather than solving it. At some point, the rate of profitability will fall, and the mass of capital accumulated must be devalued lest it simply keep reproducing itself at a falling rate of profit until the rate is zero.

[Architectonic]

Because I believe that subsidiarity is more important than historical sovereignty.

[Hustler]

No, you still aren't understanding the nature of capital.
I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand the nature of technology, or of the universe we live in. There is no fundamental law in place that says we must always be subjected to conditions of scarcity. If everyone could consume as much energy as he wished, anytime he wanted, then the accumulation of capital would be pointless. This is what I mean when I say technology is more relevant than human conscious in determining the course of our civilization. Advancements mean we move in that direction, in the direction of reduced scarcity and, ultimately, zero scarcity. And, without scarcity, there's no need for accumulated capital. We can see the progression toward this as we look back through history and see how scarcity of resources and inefficient use of those resources made it all the more compelling to be at the top instead of at the bottom. These days, it simply doesn't mean as much to a person's quality of life whether he is a member of the upper class or a member of the working class as it did in centuries gone by. In the modern era, whatever his class, he has more consumer options than he'll be able to get through in a lifetime. In the future, it will mean even less. In the distant future, it will be a completely meaningless distinction, an outmoded paradigm. This continually diminishing impetus to accumulate capital will (and already does) result in a change in the way people think about investing and what it means to invest in the global community itself. Sure, there will be blips with capitalists creating scarcity and credit crunches and Peak Oil and so on, but these are minor compared to the capacity for technology to expand and grow.

This assumes that we elevate our technology quickly enough to defend ourselves against the next major asteroid impact Earth has (or whatever else comes along to rain on our parade). If not, life starts back over at the bacteria level, and it was all for naught.

[camille]

About 15-20 years ago the house and senate would actually debate giving China most favored nation status. They always would give the thumbs up but now it seems like it's rubber stamped. What draws the world's ire against China also seems to change. A decade ago it was concern for Taiwan but I never hear that brought up any more. There's jailing and stripping people of employment and property based on assembly and religion, but that's not on the table any more either. Funding N. Korea's nuclear program, technology transference to nations we demanded they wouldn't supply, rampant copyright infringement from software to medicine, so many issues yet dousing out a torch going 8 miles per hour seems to be the best we can come up with. It's like the old, "'the official position is no position'...but if someone wants to retaliate on their own, we ain't mad atcha."

The trade deficit continues to grow and as China raises its standard of living, so goes their demand for oil. Now would seem like the time to push for policy change before we lose every form of leverage.

Do you think part of the reason that it isn't brought up anymore is because we've become dependent upon cheap goods and at a low price? It seems as though we've traded down and aren't willing to do without to trade up.

I also think the focus over the last few years has shifted from causes to support on the homefront to global issues. As someone else mentioned in this thread, why aren't we working to fix our own problems? - we, grossly generalizing, are quick to talk about the problems with illegal aliens, yet don't alter our lifestyle to a great extent. Most meat purchased in the grocery store is butchered by people in our country illegally. How many people who are vocal about illegal immigration are buying from local butchers? Not many, because you probably can't find very many skilled butchers.

There won't be push for policy change because too many people complain, yet take no action to support the change they want.

I see the same thing circling with Monsanto. Their products are invasive, destructive, and will lower our quality of life and that of our children's.....we will get more for our buck at a very very high cost. Yet, they are getting support on all sides, because American people are willing to look the other way if it comes to getting a two for one special, even if they only 'need' one.

If attitude reflects leadership, then it's no doubt our leadership is of a very poor quality.

It's sad that a country will leap to clean up its atmosphere before the Olympics, yet won't do it for its own people.

[C.J.Woolf]

Titania-Zephyrus conflict split to this thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=29130). Please continue it there.

/mod

[Spartan26]

Do you think part of the reason that it isn't brought up anymore is because we've become dependent upon cheap goods and at a low price? It seems as though we've traded down and aren't willing to do without to trade up. That's a good question. I actually think it has more to do with our ability to sell over there than our ability to buy. 20-25 years ago, the great enemy of the east was Japan, Inc. Electronics and automobiles were the main industries. Then cheaper products came out of Korea. The human rights issue wasn't an issue but there was still this anti Japanese backlash, especially over the increase in property purchases. They never reached half the investment level of Great Britain, I don't even think half, but when the Japanese investment group showed an interest in buying the Seattle Mariners (pre-Ichiro) people lost it. Drifting a bit here.

I'm pretty sure it's the telecom industry that has made the biggest investment in China. Even before MCI Worldcom started doing all their crazy sh#t w/their books, they leveraged their future on the belief they'd be in on designing and implementing their communications infrastructure. My guess is that there have been plenty other US ventures who've gone into The Great Promise with hopes of establishing a marketshare, even w/out those products reaching US soil but selling w/in that region. I don't know how much Big Pharma's there but those would be too strong of influences to allow a moral argument deter the what's already at stake financial issue to be questioned.

There does seem to be an amazing diversity of products coming out of China. I think if there was a serious threat to competition like hypo speaking Africa or Central America in the next 10 years, they'd be more apt to make reforms. Right now I think their govt knows that even w/a trading deficit we'd never pull the plug on the billions we get from them now.


I also think the focus over the last few years has shifted from causes to support on the homefront to global issues. As someone else mentioned in this thread, why aren't we working to fix our own problems?

It's sad that a country will leap to clean up its atmosphere before the Olympics, yet won't do it for its own people.To some extent we've learned to coexist w/our enemies here or there's enough checks and balances to keep things at a lesser level than in China. For better or worse, there's a masquerade that political opponents have to work around. There, if you're a threat, the police come and throw you in prison. Here, I think of former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio. Now I'm definitely not supporting the guy or condemning him, I'd say he should be punished for wrong doing and Qwest has a history of corrupt practices but the main reason the DOJ went after him was out of retaliation because he refused to allow the Bush adm access to wires or acct info w/out subpoena.

I think it's unfortunate that problems here can get solved because too much opposition will go up based on what political came up w/the idea. Sure there can be legitimate debate over how to fund/run social security but when leaders in the Christian Right rally against any environmental conservation effort, I really have to do people even bother to listen before locking up their minds.

In China's defense, it's hard to manage 1.4 billion people. Some schools are crap here but working in a field at age 7 isn't an option here. There isn't a Dept of Child Services that's going to take children out of homes if the parents are on drugs. A "normal" flu virus could come through and wipe out 10,000 people there in one month w/out anyone conceiving to hit the panic button over "Bird Flu."

I think for outsiders to have influence would be to offer alternatives for the way things are done. People in power will naturally lock down when reforms are mentioned because reforms generally means new regime. If the US, for example, says it's going to focus on improving the court system there (again, more stone throwing gone awry) but if it's our goal that more people there are given some semblance of a speedy trial w/representation, that alone could be the fabric of a new society there.

While I agree the US needs to clean up probs w/our border, there can be worldwide levels of minimums the US can help people reach. Like a standard in the access of clean water. Not easy but just as plottable as 20 year market growth rates.