Why China Will Not Become the Dominant Power in Asia

[LoneRifle]

Clearly the principles of freedom of speech are lost on you. Strawmen are not however. Still wondering how you connect my support for the Stars and Bars to mean I'm all into slavery.

Far more tame than your inference that just because I'm a communist I'm against democracy. Don't lecture me about not grasping principles.

Communism is incompatible with democracy.

[rex88]

Clearly the principles of freedom of speech are lost on you. Strawmen are not however. Still wondering how you connect my support for the Stars and Bars to mean I'm all into slavery.

Far more tame than your inference that just because I'm a communist I'm against democracy. Don't lecture me about not grasping principles.

Communism is incompatible with democracy. Your not worth the dirt you stand on until you can figure that one out.

And now we get into the realm of wild assertions. Your statement is false, and the worth you assign to my being is much better assigned to your credibility.

Edit: fine, you deleted the quip? I'll leave it at this then: Your statement is false.

[LoneRifle]

Historically speaking, Communism has a rather sordid history of destroying democratic institutions, not making them. I'll stand by that. I take back the dirt comment. I actually pity you for believing that drivel that Communism is somehow compatible with Democracy. It isn't. Never has. Never will be.

[rex88]

Historically speaking, Communism has a rather sordid history of destroying democratic institutions, not making them. I'll stand by that. I take back the dirt comment. I actually pity you for believing that drivel that Communism is somehow compatible with Democracy. It isn't. Never has. Never will be.

I pity you for believing strawman conceptions of communism. The insult of drivel is a still a cheap shot. If you really want to discuss actual academic things, that stuff should be left at the door. As is with these assertive inductions of "never has, never will be" which has a wishful component no matter how much of the past you cite. You can't leech credibility from intellectual language by dipping into it halfheartedly and then say "I know history and you don't."

Some rudimentary ideas on what is Marxism. If scholarly debate is ensues these views can be refined or revised. (That is the proper attitude for doing academic work anyway, and I will go out on a limb and assume you know and agree.)

Spoiler : :

Communism, as I see it, involves a number of basic ideas:
-understanding the effects of the economic base upon people's ideologies
-understanding the difference between exchange value and use value
-recognize the alienating effects of a capitalist economy
-etc.

Moreover, Marxism is an ongoing discourse, being refined by the social problems in its own mileu. It has not had a proper chance to flourish because when it screws up, the populace wants to replace it totally instead of revising it. Advanced capitalist systems managed to convince its populace to revise instead of overthrow, but as more and more disadvantaged groups seek inclusion in the system, the temptation to withhold democracy grows by the day. But that is a different tangent, and if you really want an academic debate this may come into play later on.

But first, if you want to get academic and discuss "history" you better define your terms well from the onset. The first question is, what is democracy? Democracy is itself a historical term, first growing out of a system of governance present in the Greek city-states. The meaning of it then cannot be seriously applied to industrial eras and beyond. When I say democracy, I mean putting up some things for popular vote, especially social policies. If there is a process that credibly determines the best fit officials to carry out a policy, then they should enter office for a term.

Second question. What is the metric for a democratic institution. How do you judge when it is good enough or when it is destroyed? If you say for example that Tsarist Russia in 1917 had a democratic institution, you have to back it up with social facts. And I'm well aware of the practice among historians to scrutinize people for cherry-picking evidence. You want to play the history expert and obtain the credibility that follows from it, I will hold you to that standard.

Third question. What exactly IS compatible with democracy? What does compatible mean to you? Does it mean that there must be no mutual contradiction between fixed sets of dogma? Does it mean that you need to empirically satisfy the criteria for a "good enough" democracy, whatever the criteria is?

If you can refrain from burying quips in between the lines I can certainly handle an academic discussion. But can you.

[LoneRifle]

All I need to know and care about is countries that claim to be Communist or "Peoples Socialist Republic of X" or such system are ALL in reality Totalitarian Dictatorships. Including your own China.

The USA is far from perfect, but here the individual matters more than the group, which Communism is opposed to. Until they can prove otherwise, I'm not down to debate Communism's so called merits.

[rex88]

All I need to know and care about is countries that claim to be Communist or "Peoples Socialist Republic of X" or such system are ALL in reality Totalitarian Dictatorships. Including your own China.

The USA is far from perfect, but here the individual matters more than the group, which Communism is opposed to. Until they can prove otherwise, I'm not down to debate Communism's so called merits.

That is a disappointing reply. Here I thought you can handle a real discussion. "All I need to know and care about are things that confirm my existing views." If someone is trying to even inquire about the basis of your ideas then you are not down for discussion. Is that how national history is done these days? What eligibility does that give you to say anything about "totalitarian dictatorships?"

The merits of individualism, as well as its connection to democracy, is far from clear, especially considering the form of "imperfections" that actually exist in the US. You can assert it all you want, but you are just proving yourself incapable of discussion - and even if you're proud of that it's irrelevant at best. By now it should be manifestly obvious to any bystander what happens when someone leaves the door open to a polite debate when dealing with you, as well as what your real intentions are when approaching any discussion. If you can't handle real debates and are not actually open to being disproven, this seriously undercuts your credibility when you ask people for sources and facts as if you're carrying on a honest debate. You're doing a great job of providing the justification for my skepticism that you can show up to a discussion with honest intentions.

I gave you a chance to operate above the level of covering up your own dogmas behind insults, but even the mods should be able to see that such a level of dialogue is nigh inaccessible to you.

[Graphic]

Your suggestion that he's not having a "real discussion" is comical. The idea that China, planned economies, lack of democracy, and Leninism are all shitty things is not a "real discussion" that free thinking adults need to have. If you want to live in a fantasy world that's on you, sonny jim.

[rex88]

Your suggestion that he's not having a "real discussion" is comical. The idea that China, planned economies, lack of democracy, and Leninism are all shitty things is not a "real discussion" that free thinking adults need to have. If you want to live in a fantasy world that's on you, sonny jim.

I disagree, if you can't question your basic assumptions, how you can call yourself free-thinking? I've seen some of the worst of China, including the police and the pollution, and I've lived in your country too so I can make my own judgement. But since you don't have a track record of being an impossible discussant, I will disagree politely.

[LoneRifle]

All I need to know and care about is countries that claim to be Communist or "Peoples Socialist Republic of X" or such system are ALL in reality Totalitarian Dictatorships. Including your own China.

The USA is far from perfect, but here the individual matters more than the group, which Communism is opposed to. Until they can prove otherwise, I'm not down to debate Communism's so called merits.

That is a disappointing reply. Here I thought you can handle a real discussion. "All I need to know and care about are things that confirm my existing views." If someone is trying to even inquire about the basis of your ideas then you are not down for discussion. Is that how national history is done these days? What eligibility does that give you to say anything about "totalitarian dictatorships?"

The merits of individualism, as well as its connection to democracy, is far from clear, especially considering the form of "imperfections" that actually exist in the US. You can assert it all you want, but you are just proving yourself incapable of discussion - and even if you're proud of that it's irrelevant at best. By now it should be manifestly obvious to any bystander what happens when someone leaves the door open to a polite debate when dealing with you, as well as what your real intentions are when approaching any discussion. If you can't handle real debates and are not actually open to being disproven, this seriously undercuts your credibility when you ask people for sources and facts as if you're carrying on a honest debate. You're doing a great job of providing the justification for my skepticism that you can show up to a discussion with honest intentions.

I gave you a chance to operate above the level of covering up your own dogmas behind insults, but even the mods should be able to see that such a level of dialogue is nigh inaccessible to you.

You are indeed right. To obtain the level necessary to debate a true believer Chicom like yourself I'd have to buy Che Guevara T-shirts and start promoting the violent overthrow of my society. Truly I am not worthy of the honor of being a simpering mouthpiece for a totalitarian regime.

I'll pass.

[rex88]

You are indeed right. To obtain the level necessary to debate a true believer Chicom like yourself I'd have to buy Che Guevara T-shirts and start promoting the violent overthrow of my society. Truly I am not worthy of the honor of being a simpering mouthpiece for a totalitarian regime.
I'll pass.

Suit yourself, you've proved my point.