posted
I downloaded the ep and watched that part. It was cute. It was actually kind of nice to see Stewart actually making fun of Obama. I hope he doesn't get in too much trouble for that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a summary of Obama's position on gay marriages and related issues:
quote:Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
. . . .
Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I downloaded the ep and watched that part. It was cute. It was actually kind of nice to see Stewart actually making fun of Obama. I hope he doesn't get in too much trouble for that.
I suppose you'd have to watch the Daily Show (and the Colbert Report) on more of a nightly basis, but Stewart lampoons Obama on a fairly regular basis. He's FAR more critical of Congress, and seems to take special pleasure in ridiculing them, both Democrat and Republican, but he doesn't lay off Obama. He used him for material all during the campaigns, and now that he's president, he's getting his fair share of digs on.
He mixes them with compliments a lot more than he ever did with Bush but hey, that's not really surprising, or in many people's opinions, unearned.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I remember during the campaign, Stewart making a joke that nobody laughed at and he scoffed at the crowd that they could laugh at Obama. It's weird, Stewart says he has none and wants no influence, but that joke and response was almost the door-opener for comedy when it came to Obama.
posted
Stewart doesn't joke about Obama as much as others, but he doesn't hold back. I don't think Obama makes is quite as easy as Bush did, congress does, or Fox news does. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judd Gregg has withdrawn his name as Commerce Secretary nominee.
Third time's a charm I guess!
Gregg gave a nice speech about how it was his choice and he felt bad about it etc etc 'it's not Obama's fault.'
But the behind the scenes chatter paints a couple different stories. Democrats behind the scenes are saying that Gregg lobbied hard for the job, and Republicans are saying that Gregg felt betrayed and ceremonial when he heard that Obama wanted to take away the 2010 census and run it out of the White House rather than the Commerce Department. Those sources say that Gregg was unhappy with becoming a GOP puppet. Word is also that he will not seek reelection in 2010, making his seat up for grabs with no incumbent.
There was another candidate, whose name I don't know, who was said to be in close contention with Gregg for the post, so I suppose they'll go to their backup now (well, their OTHER backup after Richardson and Gregg).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I downloaded the ep and watched that part. It was cute. It was actually kind of nice to see Stewart actually making fun of Obama. I hope he doesn't get in too much trouble for that.
Are you still on your "MSM gives the Democrats a pass" run? Or did you really just not know that TDS makes regular comedy out of Obama?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rail seems to be the biggest and most inexplicable winner.
quote:High-speed and inner-city rail: Went from $300 million in House bill to $2.25 billion in Senate to $8 billion in final version. There also is a $6.9 billion provision for public transit.
$300 million to $2.25 billion to $8 billion? Crazy, but I'm okay with it. I don't get what happens in conference.
"I want this amount!" "I want THIS amount!" "Let's compromise, we'll do four times your amount!" "Deal!"
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Light rail pays dividends end over end. It's short term stimulus in the form of jobs created, it's long term stimulus from the economic activity it generates, it decreases traffic which means less wear and tear on roads, and decreases congestion which means better traffic flow and less waste due to snarls. It also saves on energy.
High speed rail works the same but different, depending on the corridor being discussed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. Our (both Canadian and American) rail systems are simply embarrassing compared to the systems in Europe and in China, especially in the latter case since we're supposed to be first-world countries and they are still a developing country. Its about damn time we started to catch up.
The problem is that building these systems is labour-intensive and labour is normally quite expensive in North America. Therefore, both our governments should take this recession as an opportunity (and not as a burden) to take advantage of the situation and hire some labour on the cheap to get it done.
Light rail, high speed, and subways.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd assume China et. al have a significant advantage in terms of subway and rail development because they just get to bulldoze whoever's in the way without any qualms.
It's just one of those circumstances also where starting later = better.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
Ron how many coolies have you actually met? Now how many Chinese coolies have you actually met? While standards of living for some Chinese people pale in comparison to some Americans, to say that even a large minority of them live as coolies is ignorant and inaccurate.
America used "coolie" labor for much of its' history. The Chinese standard of living constantly increases just as ours has overall. If they are smart enough to get some public works in that are good for the whole country before they equalize with us, so much the better. America needs more high speed rail and lots of it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
I don't recall the US being communist in the 19th century when our railroads were built. Or don't people count as citizens unless they were born here?
And really, why is it worse to treat citizens like slave labour than it is to treat non-citizen like "coolies"?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone even consider China communist anymore? Totalitarian, sure, but it seems like most of the communist ideals have been mostly abandoned (of course, my family there are all successful business men so perhaps my perspective is off).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tastes great, less filling.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
The ignorance in this statement astounds me.
And its usually republicans who are pro china too.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Does anyone even consider China communist anymore? Totalitarian, sure, but it seems like most of the communist ideals have been mostly abandoned (of course, my family there are all successful business men so perhaps my perspective is off).
The correct word is "Authoritative" they are distinctly not totalitarian. They are not Stalin's Soviet Union. There is a great deal of personal freedoms in terms of being a consumer.
IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. It still amazes me how much Americans knee-jerk into Communism bashing when China is mentioned. Its understandable given the propaganda you guys get in the American media but still fascinating.
First, I mentioned "Europe and China" as both having many examples of transit systems that are clearly better than North American systems. Whatever the failings of the European systems, I don't think Chinese "coolies" or Communism are among them.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
Thats pretty much garbage. The best counter-example is that the best transit system in China is still the Hong Kong MTR, most of which was built by the British not the Chinese government.
Despite propaganda, the MTR is privately owned and trades on the Hang Seng stock exchange. A large portion of its profit comes from development of land that it *purchases* for expansion just like any other company.
In fact, the MTR has purchased expansions in China and the UK and will start running the entire Stockholm Metro this year.
It sucks, but the failures of our public transit systems are due to our own mismanagement and short-sightedness. Blaming our failures to keep up on some "Communism" strawman isn't just factually wrong, its self-destructive. It stops us from looking with a critical eye at whats wrong in our own backyard and fixing it.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't recall the US being communist in the 19th century when our railroads were built. Or don't people count as citizens unless they were born here?
And really, why is it worse to treat citizens like slave labour than it is to treat non-citizen like "coolies"?
Bingo.
Its not just us North Americans taking advantage of Chinese labour to build railways. We import illegal immigrants from Mexico and South America to do construction, agriculture, house-work, and all the jobs we don't want to do ourselves.
We can sit on a high horse and pat ourselves on the back for not treating our own citizens poorly, but meanwhile our system still relies upon foreign labour.
And yet, here's a controversial point: this isn't inherently a bad thing.
Both the illegal immigrants from South America and the migrant workers are driven by the same things, by economic opportunities. The main force isn't the government, its what Americans used to call the American Dream.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, you said: "The correct word is 'Authoritative' they are distinctly not totalitarian."
You are asking for it when you say you are correcting someone, and then don't get it right. I think you probably meant to say "Authoritarian." Webster's Dictionary is authoritative.
Incidentally, authoritarian and totalitarian are generally taken as synonyms.
As for China not being totalitarian, just be thankful you don't live there.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
I think communism is pretty damn stupid, but I laugh at the notion that we can use modern China as an example of communism.
quote:The correct word is "Authoritative" they are distinctly not totalitarian.
Totalitarian is a better word to describe China with than 'authoritative.' Maybe you meant authoritarian.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure a European system of mass transit would work here in the US, Mucus. We've got a completely different style of infrastructure, built almost entirely around the automobile for so long, that's practically the history of American roads.
I'm glad for the money going to light rail. I hope it's not wasted. Fast, efficient people transport would make a huge economic difference here in Northern VA.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need an American system of mass transit. It's doable certainly, with a combination of high speed rail, light rail, commuter lines and better buses. There needs to be a combination of great mass transit and a sizable disincentive to use personal vehicles. Some people aren't going to be able to get around it, depending on their job and their location, but a lot of people can and currently choose not to for lack of a better option.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia has a pretty good description of the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
quote: According to Karl Lowenstein, "the term ' Authoritarian' denotes a political organization in which the single power holder - an individual person or "dictator", an assembly, a committee, a junta, or a party monopolizes political power. The term " Authoritarian" refers rather to the structure of government than to the structure of society. An Authoritarian regime confines itself to political control of the state.
The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily Authoritarian. But a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to mold the private life, soul, and morals of citizens to a dominant ideology. The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society; its ambition is total.
China is most definitiely authoritarian. It is not totalitarian, that designation is reserved for North Korea or China during Cultural revolution.
Its is fairly obvious to anyone that has actually spent time in China that the lack of a dominant ideology is actually *characteristic* of modern China and one of the main problems going forward. Pragmatism or realpolik is the order of the day and it has been ever since Deng and his parable about white and black cats. And only an authoritarian rather than a totalitarian government can explain the anomaly of Hong Kong and the various Special Economic Zones.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... As for China not being totalitarian, just be thankful you don't live there.
In addition to having spent time there, I've had a fair number of relatives, both native and foreign-born which have moved back to China to live for various reasons (or have moved from China recently).
Don't presume that your ignorance of what its like to live in China extends to others or informs their opinions the same way it informs your own.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry- authoritarian is a better word choice- though I still stand by my not communist part.
My relatives in China seem pretty happy. Though they are in the wealthier class and the ones I directly talk to are in HK (the mainland ones are more distant so I hear about them and have met them when I went to China, but I don't directly interact).
For light rail, in my city, if they extended the rail they had along another 8 miles and had a parking lot, I would ride it everyday happily. I wouldn't be able to walk there and back, but only driving a mile in rush hour would be nice and once downtown, the walk would only be like 10 minutes (which I would save by not sitting in traffic for an hour). We have no buses or public transportation at all in my area, but I am confident that a lot of people would be willing to take light rail if it was a feasible option. But once you make people drive 10 miles, public transportation for the last 2 just isn't worth it.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I for one have not forgotten the massacre at Tiananmen Square.
Good on you, but that doesn't back up what you've been saying.
There's a much more interesting thing happening between the Chinese populace and the ruling party that is far different than saying that they're a totalitarian regime that uses its citizenry as 'coolies.'
Maybe the CP wishes it was totalitarian (totally) but in actuality it's ceded much in the way of its domination of individuals simply to stay afloat. Now it uses a clever combination of capitalism and information control to keep the populace controllable, as much as they can.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Are westerners allowed to travel everywhere in China? Or is it just to a few westernized enclaves?
It depends.
AFAIK, a white Canadian can travel to Hong Kong (and Macau?) without a visa but a visa is required for work or permanent living. A visa is required for entry into mainland China after which one can pretty much travel anywhere except for probably Tibet during the upcoming anniversary celebrations.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with comparing the US's public transit system and Europe's is that we're (speaking as an American) laid out differently. Cities are a lot farther apart and the suburbs are much bigger (more people live farther away from their jobs). Smil does a great job showing how the higher per capita energy use of American for transportation has more to do with our geography than our cars or attitudes (not that the latter two couldn't be improved!). Public transit runs into the same problem as our original roads did: it just wasn't feasible to connect our commerce centers the way Europeans can. Too spread out, too much distance. I'm glad to see we're trying to address the problem, and am definitely a supporter of increased public transit; I just find the direct comparisons of the US to Europe ... misleading.
posted
Samprimary, does China still call its type of government communism? If it is not totalitarian, but rather just governs by--as you said--a sort of capitalism and control of information flow (an inherent characteristic of totalitarianism, by the way), then that means that mainland China is the first communist regime that is not totalitarian. Can this really be?
The way you describe mainland China is more the way that I picture Taiwan.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ha! See, clearly I do know what I talk about.
Ron, my poor wording aside it is encredibly dense and bad form on your part to descend to nitpicking my grammer rather then the spirit of the argument, you claimed they were totalitarian, I said you were clearly wrong and gave the better description, and for one my usual debate friends here backed me up.
As for living in China, give me a free plane ticket and a comfy upper management job and a house I'll be there first thing.
Westerners can travel somewhat freely, they have afterall a large and booming tourist industry, unless you include freedom of movement to include things your own government doesn't allow you to do, like waltzing into a military base.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, does China still call its type of government communism? If it is not totalitarian, but rather just governs by--as you said--a sort of capitalism and control of information flow (an inherent characteristic of totalitarianism, by the way), then that means that mainland China is the first communist regime that is not totalitarian. Can this really be?
The way you describe mainland China is more the way that I picture Taiwan.
The continued use of the term 'communism' is of historical significance only - the Communist Party is still the ruling party (as it was when China was communist e.g. under Mao). However it (and China) have metamorphosed to the point where they can no longer accurately be described as communist.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: ... and the suburbs are much bigger (more people live farther away from their jobs). Smil does a great job showing how the higher per capita energy use of American for transportation has more to do with our geography than our cars or attitudes ...
Arguably, thats somewhat of a snowball effect. i.e. our cars and our attitudes encourage the development of bigger suburbs and longer commutes, which encourages people to have cars, etc.
In any case, I suspect that while technological developments may cushion the fall, eventually we're going to have to live closer together whether for environmental reasons or simply gasoline scarcity. Whether we have that forced upon us when we can no longer afford long car-based commutes or whether we act pre-emptively is our choice.
What I'm basically saying is that from my POV we're going to have to do it some time or later so we may as well get started now and take advantage of labour and resources while its cheaper during a recession. Thats a good avenue for a stimulus package to go, pre-emptively solving problems such as a future gasoline crisis rather than futile attempts to solve the problems of the past such as tax credits for new home-owners.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, does China still call its type of government communism? If it is not totalitarian, but rather just governs by--as you said--a sort of capitalism and control of information flow (an inherent characteristic of totalitarianism, by the way), then that means that mainland China is the first communist regime that is not totalitarian. Can this really be?
The way you describe mainland China is more the way that I picture Taiwan.
China claims to be communist, still reveres and honors Mao Zedong, and gives considerable preference to those who join the Communist Party, and indeed its largest source of new members today is College students.
However Chinese Communism has always been different from European/Russian Communism, and as such the Party line in Beijing had always been more pragmatic, after Mao's death Deng Xiaopeng said "Mao was 7 parts right, 3 parts wrong" to preserve continually, broke from away the previous administrations direction and started upon a policy of Open market reform and opened China to foreign investment and free trade.
In Short in Stephen Colbert's words "They are communists who like to make money" they are "Communist" in name only, but in reality are Neonationalist Pragmatists, even Mao was "Chinese first, Communist second" only what benefits China first matters.
They have an open market economy, have privatized large sections of the economy, are open for foreign investment, encourage innovation and experimentation, encourage initiative and critical thinking, in short they took every single thing from capitalism, including consummer freedom to encourage a sense of "envy" in the populace, so the people will work harder, think smarter, be more productive and inventive to catch up to the West in living standards.
The government in Big Brother in 1984 was Totalitarianism, China is not totalitarian, they are Authoritan because they try to monopolize political power but are not totalitarian because they however do not control the private economic and social lives of its people, they have what, more people with individual computers and internet access then there are men, women, and children in the USA?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: The problem with comparing the US's public transit system and Europe's is that we're (speaking as an American) laid out differently. Cities are a lot farther apart and the suburbs are much bigger (more people live farther away from their jobs). Smil does a great job showing how the higher per capita energy use of American for transportation has more to do with our geography than our cars or attitudes (not that the latter two couldn't be improved!). Public transit runs into the same problem as our original roads did: it just wasn't feasible to connect our commerce centers the way Europeans can. Too spread out, too much distance. I'm glad to see we're trying to address the problem, and am definitely a supporter of increased public transit; I just find the direct comparisons of the US to Europe ... misleading.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... The way you describe mainland China is more the way that I picture Taiwan.
Well, the Taiwan of like four decades back or more. But basically yes. China has become a one party authoritarian capitalist state, with a splash of imperial China.
To Western eyes, its essentially become something akin to the type of dictatorship that we *used* to support when we were fighting actual Communists.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
which probably frustrates them to no end. America needs to be more consistent with its foreign policy.
IP: Logged |
quote:even Mao was "Chinese first, Communist second"
If he actually said that, it is only true in that he spoke the words.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Please explain how and in what way he was never patriotic or nationalistic or sino-centric in his world view? Maoism is even called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics"! He went through the route of revolution via the peasants, clashed militarily with the Soviet Union and ingaged the Korean War because not doing so harmed China's interests, he Unified China and moved the capitol to Peking all for China. In what way was his pre-1949 thoughts and actions the opposite?
IP: Logged |
quote: Please explain how and in what way he was never patriotic or nationalistic or sino-centric in his world view? Maoism is even called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics"! He went through the route of revolution via the peasants, clashed militarily with the Soviet Union and ingaged the Korean War because not doing so harmed China's interests, he Unified China and moved the capitol to Peking all for China. In what way was his pre-1949 thoughts and actions the opposite?
... Um... Well, uh...
... You being sarcastic?
I can't tell, so I'll just... assume you're not.
I'm certainly not the foremost authority on communist China, so if I screw something up, correct me. (I'm thinking BlackBlade in particular)
First, I'd say that limiting our judgment on Mao and his intentions to 'Pre-1949' is a bit much, being as that overlooks "The Great Leap Forward" which I think goes without saying that it didn't help the people of China what with the millions of pre-mature deaths to famine. I'd say that takes a few points away from him.
Second, you can't judge a person based solely on their motivation. There's an old quote that says, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions." I sometimes question consequentialist frameworks, but when you look at events in history, it's often best to judge a person by what the results their actions brought forward and not the intentions behind them. Mao destroyed the Chinese economy and his leadership devastated the people. I don't know how you determine 'acting in the best interest of the people' but he certainly wasn't.
Third, I wonder about your love of communism. In particular, what flavor do you prefer? (ETA: This question is not meant to be snarky, but a legitimate inquiry, because it would help me understand your defense of China more. Sorry if it comes off that way. ) You seem to have a strong fetish for the Soviet Union, and you are also defending the 'communist' state in China. Do you wish to defend communism in general or the distorted and discontiguous forms that strangled the Soviet Union and China? Because 'the revolution was lead by the peasants' is closer to Marx in one respect, but they missed a few key points before they were supposed to embrace the revolution. Specifically, Marx said that the revolution would come once the entire world was dominated by capitalists, and the labor will revolt to receive their just reward. China could hardly be called an industrialized state when the revolution took hold, let alone capitalist. The Marxist communist revolution requires that the infrastructure for industry already exists to that the people can run the country in prosperity. If you don't have it, then you will struggle and be in pain. Now there are modern authors who debate the motivation behind the revolution that Marx proposed and whether it should be inspired by the necessity of taking down the evils of the ruling class, or if it should be inspired by the will of the people to be viewed equally regardless of the external threat. Despite that debate among Marxists, it is generally agreed that the revolution was*(is) supposed to happen in an industrialized nation. China was not.
In summary of my third point, Mao's 'peasant revolution' wasn't the communist revolution that Marx wrote about and shouldn't be defended as such. In reality, it was a synthesis of Leninist communistic thought with the Mandate of Heaven so that it would be an easier pill to swallow. It isn't communist, it's 'communist.'
Fourth, I'm going to address your point on 'unifying China' with one simple statement. Free Tibet.
Fifth, you say that he moved the capitol to Peking/Beijing for the interest of China. I find this laughable when you try to defend a communist state because that advocates a central government. I mean, even a confederacy would have operated more closely to the principles of true communism. By moving the capitol to Peking/Beijing, Mao simply created an easier place for the Communist party to operate. That wasn't for China, that was for his friends.
*Most modern Marxists have forgone the idea of a communist state, but rather embrace the principles of the Marxist Dialectic and other doctrines that emphasize the importance of labor. Very few still hope for the 'revolution' because they recognize that it won't work.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Arguably, thats somewhat of a snowball effect. i.e. our cars and our attitudes encourage the development of bigger suburbs and longer commutes, which encourages people to have cars, etc.
Absolutely I agree. I took a history of science in the 19th and 20th century class last semester and one of the things I got out of it was the way our (American and European) approach to temporal problems is based on our environment. Europe had plenty of people in the Industrial age but limited natural resources. When America was getting started up there were almost no people here (Westerners that is, important point to some I'd imagine ) but a plethora of natural resources. I see it even in my field (civil engineering), materials are always used in excess here in America if it can reduce labor; whereas Europe's just the opposite. It's not good or bad, it's how it happened. When manpower is expensive and resources are cheap you substitute one for the other and vice-verso. Very straight forward economics, but it can lead to some problems if you want to take the train to work!
Furthermore I got a great book for Christmas called Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt which is a fascinating read I recommend to anyone. In it the author explains that studies have shown that not only is there a maximum time people are willing to (or would like) spend in their commute to work, there's a minimum times as well. People, not just one or two, but the majority, want to drive at least 15 minutes to work (I don't have the book with me so I can't remember the exact figure he quotes, it's about 15 minutes). There's certainly an example of our attitudes pushing us farther into consumptive behaviors.
quote: Please explain how and in what way he was never patriotic or nationalistic or sino-centric in his world view? Maoism is even called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics"! He went through the route of revolution via the peasants, clashed militarily with the Soviet Union and ingaged the Korean War because not doing so harmed China's interests, he Unified China and moved the capitol to Peking all for China. In what way was his pre-1949 thoughts and actions the opposite?
... Um... Well, uh...
... You being sarcastic?
I can't tell, so I'll just... assume you're not.
I'm certainly not the foremost authority on communist China, so if I screw something up, correct me. (I'm thinking BlackBlade in particular)
First, I'd say that limiting our judgment on Mao and his intentions to 'Pre-1949' is a bit much, being as that overlooks "The Great Leap Forward" which I think goes without saying that it didn't help the people of China what with the millions of pre-mature deaths to famine. I'd say that takes a few points away from him.
Second, you can't judge a person based solely on their motivation. There's an old quote that says, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions." I sometimes question consequentialist frameworks, but when you look at events in history, it's often best to judge a person by what the results their actions brought forward and not the intentions behind them. Mao destroyed the Chinese economy and his leadership devastated the people. I don't know how you determine 'acting in the best interest of the people' but he certainly wasn't.
Third, I wonder about your love of communism. In particular, what flavor do you prefer? (ETA: This question is not meant to be snarky, but a legitimate inquiry, because it would help me understand your defense of China more. Sorry if it comes off that way. ) You seem to have a strong fetish for the Soviet Union, and you are also defending the 'communist' state in China. Do you wish to defend communism in general or the distorted and discontiguous forms that strangled the Soviet Union and China? Because 'the revolution was lead by the peasants' is closer to Marx in one respect, but they missed a few key points before they were supposed to embrace the revolution. Specifically, Marx said that the revolution would come once the entire world was dominated by capitalists, and the labor will revolt to receive their just reward. China could hardly be called an industrialized state when the revolution took hold, let alone capitalist. The Marxist communist revolution requires that the infrastructure for industry already exists to that the people can run the country in prosperity. If you don't have it, then you will struggle and be in pain. Now there are modern authors who debate the motivation behind the revolution that Marx proposed and whether it should be inspired by the necessity of taking down the evils of the ruling class, or if it should be inspired by the will of the people to be viewed equally regardless of the external threat. Despite that debate among Marxists, it is generally agreed that the revolution was*(is) supposed to happen in an industrialized nation. China was not.
In summary of my third point, Mao's 'peasant revolution' wasn't the communist revolution that Marx wrote about and shouldn't be defended as such. In reality, it was a synthesis of Leninist communistic thought with the Mandate of Heaven so that it would be an easier pill to swallow. It isn't communist, it's 'communist.'
Fourth, I'm going to address your point on 'unifying China' with one simple statement. Free Tibet.
Fifth, you say that he moved the capitol to Peking/Beijing for the interest of China. I find this laughable when you try to defend a communist state because that advocates a central government. I mean, even a confederacy would have operated more closely to the principles of true communism. By moving the capitol to Peking/Beijing, Mao simply created an easier place for the Communist party to operate. That wasn't for China, that was for his friends.
*Most modern Marxists have forgone the idea of a communist state, but rather embrace the principles of the Marxist Dialectic and other doctrines that emphasize the importance of labor. Very few still hope for the 'revolution' because they recognize that it won't work.
To clarify; I am arguing that Mao was in opinion "China first, Communist second" as in while communism was a tool to achieve his aims it was all for the betterment of China, the unarguable result is the reunification of mainland China under a single centralized government that was at its core pragmatic, moderate, and aimed clearly on a Sinocentric world view. While there was a lot of talk about leading the World Movement after Stalin died, it was however focused on Third World nations using the China Model (People's War, Agrarian Based Revolutions as opposed to Cities), world revolution always took a back burner to the modus operandi that everything must benefit China as a nation-state first, the world communist movement second, and PreCultural Revolution this was entirely the case. You entirely missed the point of my argument if you thought anything else. Whatever I may believe on the subject is irrelevent to the subject that first and foremost a corrector of untruths, misinformation and ignorance of the kind Ron spouts out.
My statement Mao was "Chinese first, Communist second" is true, yes historically Mao was a commited Communist, and commited to not only world revolution but revolution at home, but in all cases where it mattered he always put rhetoric and dogma aside and took up pragmatic aims to achieve the geopolitical goals of unifying china.
"Fourth, I'm going to address your point on 'unifying China' with one simple statement. Free Tibet."
How is this relevent?
"First, I'd say that limiting our judgment on Mao and his intentions to 'Pre-1949' is a bit much, "
I have clear reasons for this. The Prime (or Former) Minister of Singapore once said "If Mao had died in 1950 he would have been hailed as a Great Man and nearly a God-like, if he had died in 1960 he would have been seen as a Great Man, flawed but Great, in 1976 who knows?"
" That wasn't for China, that was for his friends."
This is clearly ignorant, how is establishing a functional civil government in a agrarian war torn state just recovering from a world war and civil war "for his friends"? I would have you know that the PLA and the CCP back in the 40's and 50's was according to Philip Short, writer of one of Mao's biographies a paragon example of dedication and integrity, soldiers stations in a harbor refused cigarrets from British sailors!
Frankly they could have put the capitol anywhere, Peking was chosen because its the historical capitol of when China was in some its golden ages, such as the Ming. Are you seriously suggesting that the Politburo of 1949 was some corrupt group of depraved and decadent wannabe dictators? Have you ever read anything about Zhou Enlai?
I am not in this thread arguing FOR communism, I am arguing FOR China regardless of the form of ideology it takes and correcting the misinterpretations of the misinformed.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I'm not sure why Mao was brought up at all in response to Ron. I think everyone but Ron has so far agreed that modern-day China is authoritarian, not totalitarian. However, Cultural Revolution-era China is surely a text book example of totalitarian rule.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
As an example that even in their more ahrdline days even Mao was at times more pragmatic then communist.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) but a plethora of natural resources. I see it even in my field (civil engineering), materials are always used in excess here in America if it can reduce labor; whereas Europe's just the opposite. It's not good or bad, it's how it happened. When manpower is expensive and resources are cheap you substitute one for the other and vice-verso. Very straight forward economics, but it can lead to some problems if you want to take the train to work!
