|
I departed for the weekend, but I'm gonna reach way back and respond to some folks. Apologies.Peel posted:I tend to assume the modern is better on the strength of the economic performance of peripheral countries (e: and, importantly, ordinary people in those countries rather than just a domestic elite), of which this is the most recent discussion I've seen. The parallel you draw between the move from colonialism to neocolonialism and the move from feudalism to capitalism has a certain resonance to it that I do find appealing. And the comparison holds good water for, say, India; lest we forget, under British Raj, there was virtually no increase in per capita income from 1757-1947. Though I still say the world is better off without either shade. That said, the blog post you selected doesn't spell out the "ordinary people" case very well, IMO, as it mostly focuses on nation-level growth. The word "inequality" doesn't even appear, which to me seems important; India has also had a rising gini for decades, with the ultra-rich commanding a growing income share. He takes great pains to draw attention to the fact that China only accounts for ~3/4 of the global decrease in poverty since the early 80's (as opposed to something closer to 100% as of a decade ago), which is a fair point. But it leaves me wondering, for instance: To what extent is that reduction the result of knock-on effects from building up the bourgeoisie, as opposed to the direct objective of state-led structural initiatives? The former can never totally eliminate it, given the class relations it engenders, though the latter actually has a shot — if perhaps contingent on the class with which the state primarily identifies. ronya posted:Hey Aeolius! Hey yourself, 'nya. Wouldn't you agree that the very need to qualify with "nominally" adumbrates the central issue? Self-determination is supposed to be the foundation of international politics and is universally recognized as a Good Thing, so you won't find many decrying it. But there's that action/words volume disparity to consider. Anyhoo, you're clued-in enough to realize that your final remark is kind of a question-begging cheap shot. So why even include it? rudatron posted:The point is not to denounce all 'equally', the point is to denounce exactly what you see, when you see it. To refrain from that honesty, is to obsfucate the struggle and the process of struggle from both yourself and others. I can already see we're at cross-purposes; it's clear from the simple fact that the perspectives we have each expressed are fully compatible — even strong complements. "Denounce what you see" is the very thing that makes the anti-imperial support under discussion "critical," "provisional," "qualified," etc., and it has been quite clearly billed as such from the get-go. For example, there's nothing contradictory in denouncing some aspects of China's governance while nevertheless lauding others according, as you say, to one's agenda. And to the extent that a nation resists the influence of a global hegemon, that is precisely one of those things to laud. Your bit about "what socialists gain," I feel, prompts the question of whom you mean by "socialists," since the benefit for workers of the imperial client state ought to be self-evident. It rather comes across as "what's in it for me?" — and even then, one should think, the answer of reciprocal solidarity is plain enough. I don't know what you mean by "the anti-imperialist action succeeds," as though this is some kind of discrete bout of warfare rather than a continuous struggle. But allowing this excursion into the what-ifs of multipolarity, one could make a game-theoretical case about the greater dangers of intervention in such a world, if that's your sort of thing. Or, a historical case, seeing as one of the most important aspects of the postwar world was the climate of decolonization and national independence. How about the simple fact that it's easier to combat a rapacious threat from without if it's not backed by a force so large it outstrips the next 8-10 nations combined? Distilling it down: The point is not this or that number of empires. The point is to affirm self-determination against however many powers would seek to subvert it. FBH991 posted:I think a larger question is, what do we, as Western people who oppose stupid imperialistic wars, gain from supporting North Korea or Syria (current Venezuela seems busily betraying the ideals of its revolution, though they're in a bad state due to low oil prices, so who knows where that will go)? It doesn't seem like it'd help our cause very much, and it actually plays into the imperialist's propaganda about the anti-imperialist movement, so I think it's a tactical error. On the first bit: The extent to which it plays into propaganda is roughly the extent to which the terms of the support are unclear — the provisionality, the class aspect, etc. Propaganda isn't going anywhere any time soon, and we shouldn't live in fear of accidentally running afoul of it; the ruling classes can spin inaction just as surely as action, if it suits their aims. The answer is not to avoid it, but to fight it. On the second thing: Fair enough. ComradeCosmobot posted:You're burying the lede though, because the very next sentence after the one you bolded reads: What is it with peeps and ledes? I don't think this is a very fair charge; the quote included that sentence, and I took it into account in my subsequent expansion. The use of bolding was to snag a wayward eye that might otherwise drift past — especially if a reader is tired or distracted. I know I've certainly fallen prey to that in my day. In this light, where the /B tag goes amounts to an aesthetic issue. But just as you're claiming I undersold the sentence after the bolding, I would urge you to peek again at the one immediately before: "To the workers the important thing is to distinguish the principles of the two trends." Some actions will be inseparably both at once, and it is vital to be able to make the distinctions necessary to prioritize. In the example Lenin gives, without so much as national self-determination there's little hope for a worker's revolution. Modern examples, per ronya, can be a touch more complicated, but even then I doubt anyone here is seriously arguing that the extractive depredations of a ravening bourgeois hyperpower have proved particularly helpful to the workers of the world. Aeolius fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Jun 14, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:Hard to say. So much of how the DPRK turned out comes from the handling of the Korean partition after the war. Interference from both the Soviets and the United Nations meant what the Korean people wanted for themselves got lost in the shuffle. If the Korean People's Republic had been recognized by the West and eventually unified under the red banner, we might have had a Korean War anyway. If not, safe to say the peninsula would have done a lot better without so much of it being turned into rubble by American bombs. Keep in mind that before the "East Asian Miracle" the DPRK was far ahead of its neighbor to the south in terms of pure economic development. That's a really long way to say "maybe," but there you go. Okay. What is your take on Juche? Is it a better national policy than what the U.S. uses, in your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:I think I answered the question about the South China Sea earlier in the thread, but I'll get to that and Han chauvinism after the Tonys. Uhhh, I'm very cool. i'm still waiting OP. do you believe china is a communist country and have you been to any of your so-called anti-imperialist countries in the OP?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Chinese nationalists scares the poo poo out of me because whereas US fights enough wars so its people remember how bad they are China hasn't fought a real actual war lasting more than a few weeks since Korea. So they have no idea how bad war actually gets and they are perfectly willing to throw away 1 million people to get revenge on japan or to conquer taiwan or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Typo posted:Chinese nationalists scares the poo poo out of me because whereas US fights enough wars so its people remember how bad they are China hasn't fought a real actual war lasting more than a few weeks since Korea. So they have no idea how bad war actually gets and they are perfectly willing to throw away 1 million people to get revenge on japan or to conquer taiwan or something. Agreed but either of those will result in a lot more Chinese casualties than a million, unless they are really good swimmers
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Typo posted:Chinese nationalists scares the poo poo out of me because whereas US fights enough wars so its people remember how bad they are China hasn't fought a real actual war lasting more than a few weeks since Korea. So they have no idea how bad war actually gets and they are perfectly willing to throw away 1 million people to get revenge on japan or to conquer taiwan or something. From what I've learned of the those in the know on Asian affairs, China are aware they'd have their arse handed to them if they went any farther than a sea battle in close proximity to their mainland, so a fight with Japan is off the cards, and frankly they already basically run Taiwan anyway so despite the victories of the independence movement in the latest elections... ehhh, the status quo is going to remain. Not to say preparing to prevent Chinese overreach isn't a sensible strategy, just that their armoury is apparently visibly rusty as it stands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Not to say preparing to prevent Chinese overreach isn't a sensible strategy, just that their armoury is apparently visibly rusty as it stands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Having an army full of near-useless conscripts and old Soviet garbage didn't stop Saddam. And he was unsuccessful in those conflicts, partially due to intervention of the wider world (and partially due to his lovely army). Not to say that China is 100% harmless but they have a much less machismo-led government. I'd be relatively happy to consider them low-threat in the current circumstances. Feel free to quote me here in 12 months time during the Sino-Asia-American War but I'm reasonably confident as it stands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:From what I've learned of the those in the know on Asian affairs, China are aware they'd have their arse handed to them if they went any farther than a sea battle in close proximity to their mainland, so a fight with Japan is off the cards, and frankly they already basically run Taiwan anyway so despite the victories of the independence movement in the latest elections... ehhh, the status quo is going to remain. China actually, at the present, don't run Taiwan but the future status of Taiwan is probably gonna be a Chinese client state in a few decades with us stayiing in the region, maybe outright annexation if the US leaves quote:Not to say preparing to prevent Chinese overreach isn't a sensible strategy, just that their armoury is apparently visibly rusty as it stands. Also yeah, status quo will remain in reality Typo fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
It does raise the question of why China is allowed to bully Taiwan like this if it's supposedly 'anti-Imperialist.' I can understand not wanting Taiwan to succumb to the 'Western pigdog' or whatever, but given that the independence movement is from Taiwanese nationals sick of having mainlanders tell them what to do? I mean I'm a little biased because I'm a supporter of Taiwan's NPP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Typo posted:Chinese nationalists scares the poo poo out of me because whereas US fights enough wars so its people remember how bad they are China hasn't fought a real actual war lasting more than a few weeks since Korea. So they have no idea how bad war actually gets and they are perfectly willing to throw away 1 million people to get revenge on japan or to conquer taiwan or something. Are you kidding? America has enough insane nationalists that they don't care how bad war is, they always have SUPPORT ARE TROOPS to fall back on even if you fill every city centre with anti-war protests (see: iraq. Both times). That's the advantage of normalising nationalism to such a degree nobody thinks its weird they do a creepy fascoid pledge every morning before school lessons start. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Typo posted:Chinese nationalists scares the poo poo out of me because whereas US fights enough wars so its people remember how bad they are China hasn't fought a real actual war lasting more than a few weeks since Korea. So they have no idea how bad war actually gets and they are perfectly willing to throw away 1 million people to get revenge on japan or to conquer taiwan or something. So far we can thank capitalist trade and the disincentive it provides for screwing things up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Are you kidding? America has enough insane nationalists that they don't care how bad war is, they always have SUPPORT ARE TROOPS to fall back on even if you fill every city centre with anti-war protests (see: iraq. Both times). That's the advantage of normalising nationalism to such a degree nobody thinks its weird they do a creepy fascoid pledge every morning before school lessons start. Go talk to a russian or chinese nationalist, seriously, they make American nationalists look like an old couple walking in the park, especially in a year where American nationalism is turning inwards One of the big difference between American nationalists and Russian/Chinese ones is that America doesn't really have any blood feuds with anyone else, China has one with Japan going back to the 1930s if not the 1890s, Russia has one with Ukraine nowadays. Wars fought over national or religious blood feuds are always gonna be worse than wars of equivalent size fought because for the sake of oil or $$$.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So far we can thank capitalist trade and the disincentive it provides for screwing things up. that's what people thought in 1913 too though
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Typo posted:Go talk to a russian or chinese nationalist, seriously, they make American nationalists look like an old couple walking in the park, especially in a year where American nationalism is turning inwards I've met plenty of both, and from my admittedly limited sample size (ones that speak english) they're roughly equal to American ultra-nationalists, the ARE-TROOPS-barrack-HUSSEIN-obama-is-a-commie-muslim ultranationalists. I've definitely never come across an equivalent to america's regular-nationalists, I think those are pretty much unique to America at the moment. The sort of people who consider themselves liberal, social democratic or perhaps even socialist, but have internalised and reenact all the "ordinary" nationalistic poo poo everywhere because they grew up with it. I think it's safe to say the American ultranationalists have a blood-feud thing going on now with arabs, and still russians to a lesser degree. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Typo posted:that's what people thought in 1913 too though Yeah...this is a comparison people make but pre containerization/telecom/jet travel levels of economic interdependence don't compare to 2016 where America wouldn't have shoes or t shirts if we cut off trade with China (and China would lose things more important than that). Nukes help too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Nukes help too. India and Pakistan have gone to war while being nuclear states. It's almost like countries can be sensible about M.A.D. I mean I even raised this point just today! About border disputes! I'm glad no-one replies. > : (
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:I've met plenty of both, and from my admittedly limited sample size (ones that speak english) they're roughly equal to American ultra-nationalists, the ARE-TROOPS-barrack-HUSSEIN-obama-is-a-commie-muslim ultranationalists. I've definitely never come across an equivalent to america's regular-nationalists, I think those are pretty much unique to America at the moment. The sort of people who consider themselves liberal, social democratic or perhaps even socialist, but have internalised and reenact all the "ordinary" nationalistic poo poo everywhere because they grew up with it. The difference is that American ultra-nationalists are a tiny segment of the electorate, America is in a distinctively isolationist moods at the moment. Even America's ultranationaists basically just wants to bomb ISIS harder even if it kills civilians. China's ultranationalists wants a blood war against Japan and then annex Taiwan and purge it of "Japanese influences" and you can bet civilian casualties aren't even #10 on their list of concerns. Also if free and open democratic elections are held in China tmr, the resulting government will probably be more expansionist and nationalist than the current Communist party quote:I've met plenty of both, and from my admittedly limited sample size (ones that speak english) quote:I think it's safe to say the American ultranationalists have a blood-feud thing going on now with arabs, and still russians to a lesser degree. Typo fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:India and Pakistan have gone to war while being nuclear states. It's almost like countries can be sensible about M.A.D. Thank you for your service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yeah...this is a comparison people make but pre containerization/telecom/jet travel levels of economic interdependence don't compare to 2016 where America wouldn't have shoes or t shirts if we cut off trade with China (and China would lose things more important than that). Yes, the links between countries are a lot tighter today, but in 1900 trade links btwn the major european powers were about as close as in the 70s-80s, the difference is not as great as you might think it is One of the troubling things about history, as Spengler put it, is that the only thing that trumps money is blood. A war between the US, China and Japan is very unlikely, but if some noble getting shot in some balkan backwater 95% of everyone don't give a poo poo about started 2 world wars you never know. quote:Nukes help too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Thank you for your service. Likewise! I like your posts. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It does raise the question of why China is allowed to bully Taiwan like this if it's supposedly 'anti-Imperialist.' I can understand not wanting Taiwan to succumb to the 'Western pigdog' or whatever, but given that the independence movement is from Taiwanese nationals sick of having mainlanders tell them what to do? the last time there was a poll more Taiwanese wanted to be 51st state than to be a Chinese province
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Typo posted:the last time there was a poll more Taiwanese wanted to be 51st state than to be a Chinese province That's how I figured. A bit worrying that they think America would take them nicely (hello Saipan  ) but I could definitely understand rejecting mainland ownership.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:India and Pakistan have gone to war while being nuclear states. It's almost like countries can be sensible about M.A.D. Post nukes primarily the 1999 war with about 2000 casualties. Interestingly: Wikipedia posted:Fearing large-scale escalation in military conflict, the international community, led by the United States, increased diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to withdraw forces from remaining Indian territory.[31][35] Faced with the possibility of international isolation, the already fragile Pakistani economy was weakened further. Typo posted:Yes, the links between countries are a lot tighter today, but in 1900 trade links btwn the major european powers were about as close as in the 70s-80s, the difference is not as great as you might think it is Except economic interdependence today is both strong and crosses class lines. Critics of the current globalized system frequently point to the essentially stateless global elite. They already control global empires without needing their home state to lead a disruptive conquest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Lots of posts. I'll answer the relevant ones I've seen.Nude Bog Lurker posted:You do realise that this is a poll of former constituent states of the Soviet Union, not former communist republics in Eastern Europe, yes? Ooh, you're right. Here are some others: 1 2 3 4 fade5 posted:A good answer for the YPG. How about the Iraqi Kurds? I don't have an answer for this, really. Never said imperialism always created enemies in the places it ravages, though obviously negative responses are in the majority. stone cold posted:i'm also interested in your answer to this homework explainer. also if you could clarify your stance towards xinjiang, tibet, and taiwan vis-a-vis han chauvinism and imperialism that myself and other posters have brought up that would be great Re: South China Sea, I'll quote myself. If you don't find this sufficient, say so and I'll do my best to address your specific problems. Homework Explainer posted:That's a tricky situation, and speaks more to the need of stronger anti-imperial alliances between countries outside the metropole. China is being expansionist, certainly, and "testing the waters" (pun intended) by contesting the territorial jurisdictions laid down by the UN. If they had a better relationship with, say, Vietnam, a resolution to this dispute could be brokered in a way that benefits both parties. By leaving this role to international bodies dominated by the imperial powers, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. are allowing the West to handle their affairs. Now, as for Han chauvinism, it's important to look at what the government is actually doing instead of relying on people's anecdotes. The China threads on these forums have, in between pages of barely concealed contempt for Asians in general and the kind of Mickey Rooney racism you thought died out in the 1960s, contributed to this general belief that China is Han supremacist. What's important to remember is these are longstanding prejudices, millennia old. They don't just go away because socialist revolution happened. So of course you'll run into instances of prejudice out in the world, just like you would have encountered anti-Semitism in the USSR despite its criminalization. So, what have they done? Besides Mao's own comments against Han chauvinism and the specific condemnation of it in the PRC's constitution, there are programs designed to give ethnic minorities a leg up. These policies have such a wide reach, there's pissy editorials running in some papers (but remember, you can't criticize the government in China!) with the same arguments about "reverse racism" that you'd see here in the United States. Despite these groups making up only 8 percent of the population, at last count they held a 13.7 percent membership in the National People's Congress. Compare that to the makeup of our own legislatures: last session, the legislature was at 17 percent minority group membership compared to 38 percent in the total population. Undoubtedly there's more work to be done in this area. But the point is, work is being done. Will there still be prejudice? Of course! We're not utopians here. But the trend is better treatment, not worse. Kavros posted:Okay. What is your take on Juche? Is it a better national policy than what the U.S. uses, in your eyes? I think national policy arises from material conditions, and I'd be committing some serious chauvinism if I claimed to know better than Koreans how to handle Korea's situation. Juche is "Marxism-Leninism with Korean characteristics," to borrow from Deng Xiaoping. It was the result of the war and subsequent military encirclement, and has been maintained due to the near-constant antagonism surrounding the peninsula. The national question is essential for this topic, and without keeping context in mind at all times we risk falling into error. In short, I think Juche is the policy Koreans have determined as the best course for the continuation of their nation. By the same token, imperialism is the best course for the continuation of the United States as a nation in its current form. The reason it came into being was the inevitable drop in surplus value from domestic production. Without our imperial monopolies, our economy would have stopped growing long ago. I don't blame the ruling class for making this determination — they're right! It's how to keep the power structure in place! But I want it to end nonetheless. asdf32 posted:Yes it would be correct to note that the U.S. did literally occupy Japan up until the point that they didn't. We agree Japan is now a sucessful independent state right? Or are you about to educate me on how economic soft power is basically the same as literal occupation ? Right, they did leave. And the aforementioned colonies eventually gained their independence. I wasn't arguing that didn't happen, or at least I hope it didn't come off that way. I was taking issue with the idea the West didn't stay in certain places, that they left immediately after the war ended, which is how I read your post. Could be my mistake. quote:No and this is why your scorekeeping on these issues has no credibility. The soviets had just beaten the Nazi's. Their self preservation could hardly be more assured. What wasn't assured was how much of a super power they'd become and grabbing control of their neighbors furthered that end. Do you honestly believe that with a countryside blighted by a war of extermination, its wartime alliances rapidly deteriorating after a display of overwhelming atomic force from one of them and 20 million dead citizens meant the Soviet Union was "assured" of survival? I didn't think that would be the controversial part of the post. R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:
Ok so again, you failed to address any of the issues I raised regarding Xinjiang. Secondly, the fact that you consider the National People's Congress to have any power in the PRC truly illustrates to me that you really have no idea how China works at all. The seven people who actually run the country are Han, the Politburo is all Han, and the CMC is all Han. "Earning" a position in the NPC is a sinecure at best. Discrimination against the minorities regardless of pretty words by the government is the norm. Not having to adhere to the near-defunct one child policy is hardly a balm to people forced out of ancestral homes and into crappy lean-tos and having their nomadic culture, herds, and livelihoods destroyed. Persecuting a religious minority by calling one's actions anti-terrorist and anti-radical Islam as a means to maintain a colony is purestrain imperialism, is it not? Is the trend better for people who are not Han whose land contains a fifth of Chinese oil-with major deposits still being discovered- over 40% of the country's coal, and the largest amount of the country's natural gas? I think before you get misty-eyed over Mao and take the NPC as being a politically important organization, you should do some research about the reality on the ground. It's not pretty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:Ooh, you're right. Here are some others: 1 2 3 4 Well, that's better, but here are some other good polls about what Hungarians wanted in 1945 and 1947: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_parliamentary_election,_1945, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_parliamentary_election,_1947. Oh dear, these numbers don't make it look like Hungarians wanted a communist republic at all! Funny how things play out. Well, maybe Czechoslovakia will do better. Oh gosh, this doesn't look too good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_parliamentary_election,_1946. Well, perhaps the KSČ did better next election - oh, they didn't have one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Czechoslovak_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat. That's awkward! It's almost starting to look as though these Soviet puppet states didn't seem to bear much relation to popular will at all. This is the real problem with "critical support" for "imperfect" states which fit into your anti-imperialist rubric (and, I remind you, that rubric only excludes fascists because you say it does) - it's actually uncritical support in which you will either explain away or deny everything bad that they do. This makes you even more ridiculous than a classic tankie: at least they acknowledged objective reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Ok so again, you failed to address any of the issues I raised regarding Xinjiang. Secondly, the fact that you consider the National People's Congress to have any power in the PRC truly illustrates to me that you really have no idea how China works at all. The seven people who actually run the country are Han, the Politburo is all Han, and the CMC is all Han. "Earning" a position in the NPC is a sinecure at best. This is a good resource on Xinjiang. I agree that the executive committees should have minority representation. That's some of the "work needing to be done" I referred to. Did you actually read the sources I linked that discussed more than just an exemption from the one-child policy? To dismiss the NPC as meaningless is odd, also. So what are we supposed to believe? The government's running a Potemkin show? Just for us? Because a legislative body serves a different function than it does in the West, the immediate reaction is to handwave it away as illegitimate. And even if we're to take your argument as 100 percent true — the congress has no power, etc., that's still a high percentage of party membership. Assuming all the terrifying Orientalist fantasies are true, that the tyrannical party dominates daily life for every single person, that confers a degree of power to those minority members, at a disproportionate level to the majority compared to the general population. It's not nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:The government's running a Potemkin show? Just for us? Yes. Rubber-stamp assemblies have been a hallmark of dictatorships for most of the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Homework Explainer, why is it so important to you to justify e.g. Chinese policy in Xinjiang or basically anything North Korea does? Isn't it entirely consistent with your thesis to say "yes, that's not very good, but..." and move on? Defending or denying every criticism of your anti-imperialist coalition only serves to undermine your own bona fides here. If I was to say "American hegemony's not great but it's the best there is", I wouldn't then proceed to die in a ditch explaining how My Lai or Abu Ghraib were actually really cool and good. And yet that's exactly what you seem to be doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Most of these conversations occur without the necessary context, so providing that is worthwhile in my view. Also, I'm an idiot sucker who steps on the rake every time it's placed before me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Have you been to any of these places? I know you want to go to north korea and believe you'll actually see its not all that bad because of what the party let you see but what about all the others?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:This is a good resource on Xinjiang. I would consider "necessary context" for understanding your posting is your belief that what the US has done through the farce of the War on Terror is imperialism and your subsequent repugnance as contrasted to your embracing of a totalitarian regime who, under the auspices of the War on Terror, are exploiting a minority region and effectively silencing any serious discussion of independence, human rights abuses, and suppression of labor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Do you have any information on that? I linked a heavily researched paper, and all you've done is dismiss the author. One more note on my replies: Owing to the political bent of the forum, I expected criticisms of these countries to dominate discussion — which it has. When you've got people repeatedly asking you the same question, you feel compelled to answer them. Jose posted:Have you been to any of these places? I know you want to go to north korea and believe you'll actually see its not all that bad because of what the party let you see but what about all the others? I don't believe that, and you've weirdly clung to the idea I do for a while now. My being interested in visiting isn't due to some abiding faith I'll see The True DPRK on what would be a standard tour. I've been to Cuba.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:Despite these groups making up only 8 percent of the population, at last count they held a 13.7 percent membership in the National People's Congress. Compare that to the makeup of our own legislatures: last session, the legislature was at 17 percent minority group membership compared to 38 percent in the total population. This is a particularly low hanging fruit in a post that's basically describing lefty-alt universe, the difference btwn us congress and chinese congress is that chinese congress has zero actual power and is a rubber stamping body for w/e decision the politburo standing committee and guys who are in the patronage networks of said commitee makes. It could be 90% composed of minorities and it wouldn't matter quote:Do you honestly believe that with a countryside blighted by a war of extermination, its wartime alliances rapidly deteriorating after a display of overwhelming atomic force from one of them and 20 million dead citizens meant the Soviet Union was "assured" of survival? I didn't think that would be the controversial part of the post. But then all you are really doing is trying to offering up the realist school of IR's view of the world: in which case it's completely pointless to condemn imperialism because the need for security means literally very state, socialist, fascist or democratic, will engage in it as long as they have the power to. Typo fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
quote:I think national policy arises from material conditions, and I'd be committing some serious chauvinism if I claimed to know better than Koreans how to handle Korea's situation. Juche is "Marxism-Leninism with Chinese characteristics," to borrow from Deng Xiaoping. It was the result of the war and subsequent military encirclement, and has been maintained due to the near-constant antagonism surrounding the peninsula. The national question is essential for this topic, and without keeping context in mind at all times we risk falling into error. let me try asking you this question in a different way: if you had to start a new country from scratch, and you had the choice to base it on a juche tailored to the area's dominant ethnic makeup, or on the american constitution, which would you choose? also, it is worth noting that it is an incredibly spurious claim that it is the policy koreans have determined as the best course for the continuation of their nation; aside from the top-level members of the DPRK, the korean people themselves have no decisionmaking power on juche. it is enforced autocratically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Kavros posted:also, it is worth noting that it is an incredibly spurious claim that it is the policy koreans have determined as the best course for the continuation of their nation; aside from the top-level members of the DPRK, the korean people themselves have no decisionmaking power on juche. it is enforced autocratically. How do you know this? Most western media is hilariously unreliable at best when reporting anything about North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Just as a little FYI, of all the members of the KPD's politburo, more of them were killed by Joseph Stalin than the Nazis. Uncle Joe's hatred of foreign communists not entirely under his control or just foreign communists in general is pretty famous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:How do you know this? Most western media is hilariously unreliable at best when reporting anything about North Korea. Yeah, especially when it's been well established that North Korea is Best Korea 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Yeah, especially when it's been well established that North Korea is Best Korea Western media reports such reliable "facts" on North Korea as "North Korea claims to have found existence of unicorns", "North Koreans Think Kim Jong Il once played a perfect game of golf, then immediately retired rather than humiliate anyone else", and then there's the matter of all those stores of prominent members of North Korean society being executed... who then turn up alive and well in public events. These stories are always "sourced" from other news sites, who then cite other news sites, and 10 steps back along the chain, it ends up having originated from a South Korean equivalent of Viz or the Daily Sport. The kind of publications which have headlines like "I put 9 creme eggs up my bum". HorseLord fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:22
|
|