DanS: Hu is now the man - Page 3

Boris Godunov · November 17, 2002, 03:55

1.2 million is the number of Tibetans, not all Chinese.

chequita guevara · November 17, 2002, 03:59

How many of those Tibetan exiles aren't monks or nuns? Frankly, I give them as much credence as I give the claims of the Papacy to the Papal States.

And while you may have been responding to a specific point about the Americas, I was pointing out that you both were ignoring European (and American) genocides up to the present.

While I do believe that Tibet should be free, if they chose to be free, I simply don't trust the opinion of the Free Tibet movement, which is nothing more than the voice of the former slave masters of Tibet.

Lord Merciless · November 17, 2002, 04:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston
No LM, what I'm saying is you can't compare genocides and other atrocities committed 400 years ago, when they were more or less the order of the day, with what is happening to oppressed ethnic minorities in this day and age - where the consensus is (or should be) that governments have to observe human rights as the first condition of administration.

That's true. But often separatists are often power hungry people who would "rather be the first in my village than be the second in Paris". Nowadays, they are very good at using terms such as "human rights" and "self determination". Also, they are very good at catering to the taste of the Western public.

The Mad Monk · November 17, 2002, 04:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia

The result is that China is currently running a weird hybrid of Free Market *** Planned economics, while still remaining much of a Police State.

(This translates roughly to +2 Support +2 Econ +2 Growth +2 Industry -4 Efficiency -2 Police -2 Planet and an outlay of 195 energy credits over around four years or so.)

Would you say they are running Wealth, Knowledge, or Power? I'd say Wealth, myself, though I can see good arguments for the other two...

Urban Ranger · November 17, 2002, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston
And wrt. "China not commiting genocide in Tibet", well that's your heavily tainted interpretation. Tibetan exiles have a slightly different perception, I assure you.

But then, again they aren't fundamentalist in their outlook on the world like you, they're just desperately trying to report on the continuing atrocitites in their home country.

Atrocities you say? Have you any comprehension of what treatments the average Tibetans had when the Dalai Lama was the absolute ruler?

This group of people are mostly former ruling elites - why do they care about atrocities when they used to kill people for fun?

It's not they don't have an axe to grind, either.

Winston · November 17, 2002, 13:59

That post seemed a bit desperate to me, UR.

I've yet to hear of Buddhist monks killing people for fun...

And the majority of exiled Tibetans aren't part of any former ruling class to my knowledge. Even if they were, I wouldn't disregard their persistant reports of human rights violations by the Chinese. But it seems you already have.

chequita guevara · November 17, 2002, 14:09

As opposed to be willing to believe any evil said of a Communist government? If someone told you Stalin ate babies you'd believe it.

ranskaldan · November 17, 2002, 14:12

Tibet under the Dalai Lama wasn't ruled by - monks. It was ruled by landowners and nobles.

Also, most of the people who fled for India did so during the 60's, which was also the time when Chinese were swimming to Hong Kong. Of course they would have plenty of horror stories. My Chinese family members have horror stories to tell.

Today's Tibet isn't particularly more "hellish" than the rest of China. And China is improving at a phenomenal rate.

Winston · November 17, 2002, 14:15

Stalin didn't have to eat babies to earn the reputation he has outside your one-eyed cult, che.

chequita guevara · November 17, 2002, 14:28

I know in more detail what Stalin did than you, Winston. The difference is I'm not so gullable to believe every horrible thing laid at his feet. If the rumors were true, the USSR simply could not have defeated the Nazis. A country which killed off 1/3rd of its own population simply wouldn't have the ability to defeat the most powerful, best trained, best equipped army in the world. Logic dictates that the murder of 60 million people must therefore, be false.

Just because I am on the same side of the baricades as the Maoists doesn't mean I agree with them on everything. Nor does it mean I approve of everything they did. While the Chinese Revolution isn't my specialty, I am aware of quite a number of horrifying things that they did. For example, during the Cultural Revolution, some of the students actually engged in canibalism, eating parts of those they denounced.

Maoists are not nice people. The Tibetan rulers were even worse. Free Tibet isn't about a nice happy democracy, it's about the return of kings and feudal priveledge and slavery. When the choice is between brutal Maoists and evil nobles, I'll take the Maoists, even though they wouldn't hesitate to kill me for my crime of being a Trotskyist.

Maybe one of these days you'll learn how to understand things.

Winston · November 17, 2002, 14:33

I know a good deal about the Soviet Union, thank you. I've read tons of studies, articles and first hand personal accounts on it over the years.

You're the gullible one for holding the views you do, and for conveniently ignoring the parts of information that don't fit into your degenerated world view.

chequita guevara · November 17, 2002, 14:40

Ooh, democracy is degenerate. Human rights are degenerate. Making sure everyone has their basic needs met is degenerate. Well if that's degenerate, I don't want to be moral.

Winston · November 17, 2002, 14:47

Yes, socialism has a GREAT record of democracy, human rights and covering people's basic needs.

*Winston packs infra-red binoculars and goes spotting for airborne pigs*

ranskaldan · November 17, 2002, 15:06

China is no longer Stalinist. So the argument the two of you are having is somewhat irrelevant.

chequita guevara · November 17, 2002, 16:26

Leave us to our personal fight!

chequita guevara · November 17, 2002, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan

China is no longer Stalinist. So the argument the two of you are having is somewhat irrelevant.

The leadership still is Stalinist. Not philosophically, but in its bureaucratic rule. Stalinism is (among other things) the rule of the bureaucracy in a workers' (or peasants') state.

Winston · November 17, 2002, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Leave us to our personal fight!

Yeah!

Great smiley, never saw it before...

ranskaldan · November 17, 2002, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The leadership still is Stalinist. Not philosophically, but in its bureaucratic rule. Stalinism is (among other things) the rule of the bureaucracy in a workers' (or peasants') state.

Well yes, if any dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is Stalinist, Iran, Singapore, Rome and Mongol Khanate included, then yes, China is very Stalinist.

Quote:

Leave us to our personal fight!

okay, have fun guys... I'll watch.

(mmm I like that smiley too!)

chequita guevara · November 17, 2002, 17:26

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Well yes, if any dictatorship or semi-dictatorship is Stalinist, Iran, Singapore, Rome and Mongol Khanate included, then yes, China is very Stalinist.

Not [i]any dictatorship, but dicatorships of the bureaucracy based on very specific forms of property, i.e., socialist property. China, for all it's capitalist inroads, is still a socialist country, by and large. Captialism is growing in China by leaps and bounds, but the vast majority of the economy is still socialist.

At some point or another there's gonna be violence over this, too. There is tremendous risk in being a mainland Chinese capitalist. One of these days, they could all end up dead. Bureaucracies like easy solutions to problems. Mass execution is a very easy solution.

DanS · November 17, 2002, 17:45

I hoped this thread wouldn't degenerate into this.

Hu's personal contribution to the collective evil that is the Chinese government has been noted. Thanks.

If there's nothing else that can be learned from this instance as it relates to Hu's background and grooming, then please take it to another thread, damn it.

Alinestra: Thanks for the rundown. That explains a whole lot to me about him and why Tianneman was ultimately supressed.

However, just from an operational standpoint, was Hu #1 the leader of the party, as is Hu #2? What I'm trying to judge is how hard it would be to reverse Hu #2's leadership, should Jiang's cronies believe it necessary, and what steps they would take to do the putsch.

ranskaldan · November 18, 2002, 00:30

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Not [i]any dictatorship, but dicatorships of the bureaucracy based on very specific forms of property, i.e., socialist property. China, for all it's capitalist inroads, is still a socialist country, by and large. Captialism is growing in China by leaps and bounds, but the vast majority of the economy is still socialist.

At some point or another there's gonna be violence over this, too. There is tremendous risk in being a mainland Chinese capitalist. One of these days, they could all end up dead. Bureaucracies like easy solutions to problems. Mass execution is a very easy solution.

I remember seeing somewhere that the private sector has already surpassed the public sector in China. No idea whether it is true or what the true stats are.

However, that is beside the point; budding capitalism and capitalists depend on the government to maintain a stable environment. Violence from laid-off government workers or jobless peasants is possible, but not likely yet.

Also, I don't exactly see mass execution as a "solution".

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Hu's personal contribution to the collective evil that is the Chinese government has been noted. Thanks.

I wouldn't be so quick to make that judgement. Deng, for one, was one of the most enlightened rulers China has ever known, period. He did far more good than evil. Without him, China would have been like North Korea - or worse. Tian'anmen is a blotch on his record, but if you lived in China, you would understand how the lives of millions upon millions of people are undescribably better because of him. That includes my life and the lives of all my family.

His successors are less creative and more boneheaded, Jiang and Hu #2 included, but at least they're following Deng's path.

chequita guevara · November 18, 2002, 01:02

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan
However, that is beside the point; budding capitalism and capitalists depend on the government to maintain a stable environment. Violence from laid-off government workers or jobless peasants is possible, but not likely yet.

Also, I don't exactly see mass execution as a "solution".

You are assuming China remains on the path it is currently treding, and doesn't decide to crush the capitalists after having industrialized the country. China has changed direction several times since the revolution.

Urban Ranger · November 18, 2002, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
However, just from an operational standpoint, was Hu #1 the leader of the party, as is Hu #2? What I'm trying to judge is how hard it would be to reverse Hu #2's leadership, should Jiang's cronies believe it necessary, and what steps they would take to do the putsch.

Yes, Hu #1 was the General Secretary, thus nominally the leader of the CCP.

You may consider Hu as one of Jiang's cronies

Anyway, they probably can't do anything without backings of some heavyweights in the party. That's why Jiang's retaining the position of the Chairman of the Central Military Committee.

Urban Ranger · November 18, 2002, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston
That post seemed a bit desperate to me, UR.

I've yet to hear of Buddhist monks killing people for fun...

Then maybe you need should study some Tibetan history. Real history, that is.

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston
And the majority of exiled Tibetans aren't part of any former ruling class to my knowledge. Even if they were, I wouldn't disregard their persistant reports of human rights violations by the Chinese. But it seems you already have.

Not entirely, but discounted heavily. It is implausible that they have an impartial position.

ranskaldan · November 18, 2002, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

You are assuming China remains on the path it is currently treding, and doesn't decide to crush the capitalists after having industrialized the country. China has changed direction several times since the revolution.

That is a very horrific possibility. However, if the country reaches a certain level of wealth, the people won't support a communistic revolution in the first place. Assuming that no new madman like Mao is born and raised up the ladder, the government wouldn't want that either. It is exactly the same thing with America or Europe.

also, Winston:

If anything, pre-49 Tibet was not ruled by monks. It was ruled by a religious, landowning elite.

There is one example of such rule in the world today: Iran. Great example, isn't it.

Lord Merciless · November 18, 2002, 02:12

Or the rule of the Taliban, for example.

Boris Godunov · November 18, 2002, 02:16

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A country which killed off 1/3rd of its own population simply wouldn't have the ability to defeat the most powerful, best trained, best equipped army in the world.

Not to quibble...okay, I will

The Wehrmacht was certainly not the most powerful or best equipped army in the world, and best trained is at least debatable.

DanS · November 18, 2002, 02:28

"I remember seeing somewhere that the private sector has already surpassed the public sector in China. No idea whether it is true or what the true stats are."

The range is somewhere between 30% and 60%. Economic statistics are notoriously imprecise in China.

"Anyway, they probably can't do anything without backings of some heavyweights in the party. That's why Jiang's retaining the position of the Chairman of the Central Military Committee."

Would the scenario be that the military would step in (such as happens in Turkey), or is this just a place in which to put someone of Jiang's stature, and he would step in using other methods?

Urban Ranger · November 18, 2002, 07:05

Dan,

You are correct, this is a position for somebody with a high ranking in the CCP, sort of like a semi-retirement. The position doesn't involve much work but carries a lot of clout. As far as I can tell, the military is very unlikely to get involved directly. Most likely some intra-party politics will be involved.