|
notwithoutmyanus posted:Of course, I agree with you on it being entirely untenable to hold such a view. It was just so lovely how it was written - it wasn't even as clear *when* the quote at the end of the article was, because they jump around as is. Yeah that's why I was saying I wasn't saying you held that view. I was just trying to clarify "Yeah the article is insanely bad in more ways than just that" but couldn't figure out how to word it better.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
Ah yes we must close the...checks notes..."shipbuilding capacity gap" ?!?quote:Alarming Navy Intel Slide Warns Of China’s 200 Times Greater Shipbuilding Capacity
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2023 10:06
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Ah yes we must close the...checks notes..."shipbuilding capacity gap" ?!? I thought this was pretty well known. Chinese shipyards have been cranking out ships like crazy. It's been one of the major lynchpins of Xi's military build-up. The exact numbers are kind of muddled because of how much the state controls their commercial shipbuilding infrastructure, but China definitely has a higher building capacity than the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2023 13:58
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Ah yes we must close the...checks notes..."shipbuilding capacity gap" ?!? It's absolutely a thing. China has built itself massive shipbuilding infrastructure, and the U.S. has more or less let the industry run down because there's no profit in having lots of private capacity sitting around vacant while most of the government naval yards were axed after the end of the Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:It's absolutely a thing. China has built itself massive shipbuilding infrastructure, and the U.S. has more or less let the industry run down because there's no profit in having lots of private capacity sitting around vacant while most of the government naval yards were axed after the end of the Cold War. It's odd that a concurrent conversation for the past x years had been that China will convert it's fleet of commercial fishing, and ro-ro ferries for military use in a taiwan landing force. Also, I thought China's international commercial container ships were mostly bought in and refurbished. I am happy to be corrected
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
url posted:It's odd that a concurrent conversation for the past x years had been that China will convert it's fleet of commercial fishing, and ro-ro ferries for military use in a taiwan landing force. The basic idea is while China has major capacity, it can't just lay down 100 hulls for troop transports, that would be highly escalatory and obviously tilt their intentions. It mandates that civilian craft be built to certain tolerances so they can be pressed into service though should something happen. So they have a gradual build up that doesn't prompt an immediate response, and of course their oh poo poo button which they've quietly prepared.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 01:40
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So they have a gradual build up that doesn't prompt an immediate response, and of course their oh poo poo button which they've quietly prepared. That seems entirely plausible and reasonable. Thanks for taking the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
Coincidentally (probably not coincidentally, given the parallels and active ideological copying involved) this was also an industrial practice of the Third Reich. e.g., in Schoenbaum's Hitler's Social Revolution, it is discussed how the Kraft durch Freude spun up the production of industry and products that in practice were designed to shift into war use with minimal effort, including the development of cruise liners that were immediately convertible into troopships.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 03:42
|
|
|
"Peacetime vessels that can be produced as military equipment when we need to make them" seems like a general no-brainer good idea for any state that can't funnel the global currency into artisanal boondoggles. You maintain an available fleet, keep your production lines capable, and you don't burn massive chunks of your economy on otherwise unproductive weapons. It also leads to significantly more pragmatic calls on how durable a military vehicle needs to be in a war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 05:28
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:"Peacetime vessels that can be produced as military equipment when we need to make them" seems like a general no-brainer good idea for any state that can't funnel the global currency into artisanal boondoggles. You maintain an available fleet, keep your production lines capable, and you don't burn massive chunks of your economy on otherwise unproductive weapons. It's not 'used as military equipment' and more 'used to transport military equipment without the survivability or capability of a purpose-built military transport' but yes this is one of the traditional reasons why nations that need sealane control maintain strong merchant marines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 09:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Coincidentally (probably not coincidentally, given the parallels and active ideological copying involved) this was also an industrial practice of the Third Reich. e.g., in Schoenbaum's Hitler's Social Revolution, it is discussed how the Kraft durch Freude spun up the production of industry and products that in practice were designed to shift into war use with minimal effort, including the development of cruise liners that were immediately convertible into troopships. Excuse me, could I ask for clarity, are you comparing the governing ideology of China with that of the Third Reich?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 09:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Excuse me, could I ask for clarity, are you comparing the governing ideology of China with that of the Third Reich? No, I am comparing their industrial practices. The fact that the governing ideology of China is influenced by the Third Reich, particularly the work of Carl Schmitt, is not controversial.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 10:27
|
|
|
An observation: https://twitter.com/TUmarov/status/1704976453652103371 On the whole, getting Kyrgyzstan to peacefully settle border disputes with Uzbekistan so that China can negotiate a non-Russia route to Europe is hardly the worst outcome; it seems more positive than China's increasing interventions in Oceania. But open clientelism combined with regressions in democratization is an express ticket to making neighbours nervous
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 11:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, I am comparing their industrial practices. The fact that the governing ideology of China is influenced by the Third Reich, particularly the work of Carl Schmitt, is not controversial. I hadn't heard of this before, so I dug into it a bit. Here's a guy from Harvard Law School who seems to think it is controversial? https://twitter.com/sanjayjahlee/status/1334202100167958528 I couldn't find any sources that called this settled fact, in fact everything I saw just referenced one kind of fringe academic in Beijing. I assume you have some more substantive sources to make such an empirical claim. Mind sharing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 11:43
|
|
|
Albert Khan went to the Soviet Union in 1929 to help design and build the Stalingrad Tractor Plant which was purposely designed to be easily convertable to wartime production (i.e the foundation was build to standards multiples greater than needed so it could be used for tanks and future proofed against future heavier tanks), so I dunno anything about Carl Schmidt but the USSR had plenty of experience building dual use infrastructure, and there were a few different projects to build artillery and self propelled guns using tractors; so in general maybe China today finds this Carl Schmidt's work an interesting take on policies they've already been doing I dunno but I think its maybe majority because of the USSR that China builds civilian vessels with a conflict with Taiwan in mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, I am comparing their industrial practices. The fact that the governing ideology of China is influenced by the Third Reich, particularly the work of Carl Schmitt, is not controversial. So you are just comparing industrial policy when the far more obvious ancedent would be the USSR, because? Like the "Tractor factory becomes tank factory" is a famous part of the battle of Stalingrad and would appear to be more likely a source for industrial policy, as mentioned above.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
Meanwhile, outside the realm of speculative conflict, China is doing some non-speculative attempts at securing the South China Sea and kicking the Philippines out of its own waters, this time with a buoy barrier. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/24/philippines-condemns-floating-barrier-in-south-china-sea https://twitter.com/jaytaryela/status/1705789111989420221
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:So you are just comparing industrial policy when the far more obvious ancedent would be the USSR, because? eisenhower was so impressed by the autobahn that he basically converted to nazism when building our interstate system
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
Just Googling "Carl Schmitt china" gets plenty of hits. https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/18/1/130/5841486 seems to be a review article on the issue from an OUP journal. Here's one from a Hong Kong university law school on Schmitt's influence in China: https://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/app/carl-schmitt-and-the-development-of-conservative-state-theory-in-china-by-prof-ryan-mitchell/ I'm confused how you could fail to find the same list of articles? There's a number of them. Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Sep 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 16:47
|
|
|
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/18/1/130/5841486 Post-Tiananmen party ideology is a compact between a neoliberal wing of the party and a neoauthoritarian wing; the neo-auth wing is what draws on Schmitt. Key thinkers include Chen Duanhong and Jiang Shigong (links arbitrarily chosen for samples of their thinking, but the first link also briefly discusses Schmitt's influence). (Some analyses put an importance on Schmitt being invoked in the ideologically heady days of 1930s civil war China but personally I think only the post-Deng period matters) An elaborate intellectual history here: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol8/iss1/8/, this one examines the 1930s period in particular, but also goes through Schmitt's contemporary influence in detail e: beaten
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
ronya posted:https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/18/1/130/5841486 And, to state it explicitly, Chen Duanhong (whom I assume Stringent was referring to) is not a fringe academic. He is an advisor to the Chinese government, as is Shigong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:So you are just comparing industrial policy when the far more obvious ancedent would be the USSR, because? To close the loop, all of the above are why the Nazis are the more obvious source of influence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:To close the loop, all of the above are why the Nazis are the more obvious source of influence. So all the pontificating earlier was an out and out bad faith attempt to avoid stating what you are putting in clear writ here. Good to know. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:To close the loop, all of the above are why the Nazis are the more obvious source of influence. I'm not sure that's supported by what we've seen so far. Schmitt's influential ideas have only regarded illiberalism and state unity (hence why Hong Kong came up), not industrial policy. Schmitt is also only one individual, and I haven't seen evidence of a larger influence of Third Reich ideology in general. What we know is that a policy practiced by both Nazi Germany and the Soviets (as Raenir Salazar pointed out) has a parallel in modern China. Given that China and Nazi Germany were enemies in World War II, whereas the USSR was for a time China's closest ally and directly assisted China in industrialization, it seems more likely that they would be the source of the practice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
On Josef Bugman's specific point (are there ideological comparabilities), it does seem to safe to answer in the affirmative. It is not ridiculous to interpret contemporary party ideology in the same frame which key party "new left" writers themselves contextualize it. Schmitt did not write on industrial policy however. Here there is a different ideological thrust. It's worth observing that given the Soviet-style history of PLA military acquisition (i.e., sprawling SOEs with opaque finances and nil accountability), arguably the civilian side of a dual-use orientation here represents a coerced neoliberality and market discipline. It's not as if China is operating under some kind of Washington Naval Treaty-esque commitment to not build more PLAN landing ships, but that it would like to do so on the cheap. So: a dual-use merchant marine with primarily civilian uses (like the United States, ahem) as opposed to the merchant marine with primarily military uses (like the late Soviet merchant marine, not being able to carry significant civilian traffic or containers). ronya fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Sep 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
i don't know if i'd agree that citing carl schmitt a bunch in policy papers necessarily means the state doing "active ideological copying" of nazi germany tbh, at least not to the point where it's enough to rather rudely assert it as an obvious fact
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bidetmarxman/status/1707152990367604910 A friend just linked me this thread, I sort of doubt most of its claims but one thing I was thinking about, was there something about the US, far from sponsoring Islamic terror in Xinjiang, actually assisting the Chinese in the region on the basis of the global war on terror?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
The tweet thread appears to just be mediating and repeating a bunch of Chinese propaganda sources, random medium posts, and even less credible material. For example, the book photograph in the second tweet comes from: https://archive.org/details/OperationGladioTheUnholyAllianceBetweenTheVaticanTheCIAAndTheMafia. All of these are uncited and stripped of context to make them harder to evaluate; also, all of the images are taken from other years-old anonymous individual posts elsewhere on the internet. It's practically schizophrenic, enough to make me concerned about your friend; anyway, I can try to track down the specific source for the image alleging US funding of terrorist attacks in China if you want, but it's cobbled from three sources and not directly cited in any of the mediating ones. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Sep 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:https://twitter.com/bidetmarxman/status/1707152990367604910 That Twitter account is pretty much tankie: they're claiming China is Marxist/communist just from their pinned post and recent threads and it's full of misinformation. Also, "early 2000s": It doesn't particularly make sense for the US to be sponsoring "Islamic terror" in Xinjiang when they were in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden. 9/11 literally just happened at this time and the US was in full anti-terror campaign mode. You'd have to be a zoomer to not recall this period of history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
i fly airplanes posted:That Twitter account is pretty much tankie: they're claiming China is Marxist/communist just from their pinned post and recent threads and it's full of misinformation. Yeah, but I'm trying to find out if there was actual cooperation between China and America regarding terrorism (including in Xinjiang) because I really feel like I read something about that a few years ago but I can't find it now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Yeah, but I'm trying to find out if there was actual cooperation between China and America regarding terrorism (including in Xinjiang) because I really feel like I read something about that a few years ago but I can't find it now. This CRS report appears to provide coverage of that period. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33001.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 00:48
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Yeah, but I'm trying to find out if there was actual cooperation between China and America regarding terrorism (including in Xinjiang) because I really feel like I read something about that a few years ago but I can't find it now. This question is a bit misguided in the sense that "terrorism" is colored as anything Islamic here. Xinjiang is about East Turkistan Independence; it's got nothing to do with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's like connecting it to say, Aceh in Indonesia or Minanao in the Philippines. There's nothing to "cooperate" on because there's no common threads here. China oppressing Uyghurs by calling it "anti-terrorism" is the travesty; and as far as I know, the US has never sanctioned or supported this. But they never explicitly condemned it, either, until recently. It was treated similarly as Tibet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
I think the closest the US came to supporting it was when they recognized the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization based on intel from China. However, the US has since removed them from the list of terrorist organizations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
i fly airplanes posted:This question is a bit misguided in the sense that "terrorism" is colored as anything Islamic here. From what I recall, the US government had detained a couple of Uyghur ETIM members in Guantanamo Bay in the 2000s at the behest of the Chinese government. The US govt claimed they eventually realized they were political dissidents and not terrorists, and released them into civilian life in the US
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
The CRS report I just linked discusses each of these in detail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 05:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The CRS report I just linked discusses each of these in detail. Keep in mind the political-historical context here as well: the early 2000s was a period of very friendly US relations with China, the ramping up of globalization and the mass industrialization of China. They joined WTO in 2001. To suggest that the CIA orchestrated an Uyghur rebellion and domestic terrorism in Xinjiang during this time is kind of laughable. i fly airplanes fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Sep 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 06:15
|
|
|
It's not wrong to draw parallels between the anti-muslim sentiment of the War on Terror and the PRC's campaign against the Uighurs, but the problem with that is that they're both bad. One was worse than the other, since the US never got so far as to build reeducation camps to try to stamp out religion. At this point, the comparison feels very late because the War on Terror has nearly vanished from American discourse at this point. Going deeper into the tweetthread, there's some actual claims. https://twitter.com/bidetmarxman/status/1707153013897326691 I guess I can believe that the Mujahideen guerillas had connections with the Uighurs, but it's ridiculous to think that the US intended them to create ongoing violence to destabilize China because the US itself never considered that there would be ongoing violence after the Russians left, and the US ended up having to fight that. And then oh no how dare the rightful government of Bashir al-Assad be threatened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It's not wrong to draw parallels between the anti-muslim sentiment of the War on Terror and the PRC's campaign against the Uighurs, but the problem with that is that they're both bad. One was worse than the other, since the US never got so far as to build reeducation camps to try to stamp out religion. At this point, the comparison feels very late because the War on Terror has nearly vanished from American discourse at this point. No camps, sure, but they did start two wars that led to the deaths of several hundred thousand people?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
Why are we having to entertain this garbage?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
A relevant comparison to internal warfare against Muslim separatists would be Chechnya.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 00:31
|
|
