Mike Douglas Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 China's government is steadfastly communist. China's government is steadfastly authoritarian socialist. The current Chinese government has a ruling class, which basically discredits any communism comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 China's government is steadfastly authoritarian socialist. The current Chinese government has a ruling class, which basically discredits any communism comparison. No it is quite Communist. Communism that used is everyday conversation has come to mean war-communism and not ideal communism. China is definately still in that mindset (although war-communism essentially is authoritarianism or an oligarchy). The only difference is that they have generally adopted an open market for an economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bourricot Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Well China is a bit like the Japanese ideas of tatemae and honne (spelling?), the "official" and the "actual", what's meant to happen, the facade, and what actually happens, whilst noone mentions it. I've heard that China is possibly the most capitalist country in the world :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted September 15, 2004 Veteran Share Posted September 15, 2004 China's government is steadfastly authoritarian socialist. The current Chinese government has a ruling class, which basically discredits any communism comparison. True but remember that Soviets didn't practice "true" communism either. It was always best to be a party member or a relative of a party member. It didn't hurt to be an athlete either. The Soviets (back in the day) and the Chinese govern with a socialistic, single party authoritarian rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted September 16, 2004 Veteran Share Posted September 16, 2004 I'd offer Europe up as a superpower, but I dont really think the EU has designs on being some sort of hegemonic monster... ...nor the ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zh3n Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I hate to ask if anyone thinks the US does any good?I wonder what responses would be... :unsure: No gov't is perfect and no gov't is without their problems.But the rash decisions made and our foreign policy has made us look bad. I can really care less about which country is the next super-power. If China becomes the next super-power,I hope their decisions, I'm sure, will be scrutinized as well.Either way...the bad outweighs the good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzachattack2 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 What's wrong with US Foreign Policy? I can answer that. The US needs to quit acting like a world wide police force, for the most part. There are several instances where the US got involved in situations overseas when we should've let the two sides in question battle it out on their own. One good example I would like to use is the Israeli/Palenstinian situation. That battle has been going on for as long as I can remember. That situation will not end until one side is destroyed. The issues that each side is fighting about is too deeply rooted in religion and other personal beliefs and when you have that, the people will fight more passionately and harder to win. The US and other nations have tried to help settle it to no success. That is why I said let them battle it out on their own.For others wondering, I am not including Afghanistan or Iraq in this assessment. Those two are very different kinds of situations. Well i don't know about you, but I believe the US is supposed to help and support their allies like Israel. It may not be an issue which demand the US to be involved, but Israel is still our allie who we are supposed to be of aid to, regardless of right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordOfLA Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I think there should be a point where the US should just stand back and watch. Or concentrate on its only problems rather then meddling in the rest of the world to deflect the attentions of the voters away from its government. You have a government right now that is stripping away personal freedoms, making laws to benefit the highest bidder (RIAA, MPAA for example). You have an FBI that wants to know every word you type on your computer, every email you said, every IM conversation you have, etc. I'd hazard a guess that they would like to capture such details from foreign citizens as well - my point there being the case of the russian dude being arrested in america for breaking american law while living and working in russia as a born russian citizen. You have a CIA that on one hand funds drug cartells and terrorists while on the other condemns their actions - IRA anyone? The US govt was paying for them to blow up England and then telling us English we're sorry what happened we dont support it. You have a government that wont sign a global treaty reducing industrial emissions and in fact legalises higher emissions - what gives? trying to burn us all up?? Florida Everglades? You have an army with more of its personell stationed abroad than at home, so what now if china decides it'd be a good time to invade? All they have to do is conscript everyone over the age of 18 and they'd havea huge army and you'd probably sell them the weapons to use against you... You went and picked a fight with north korea and imposed sanctions. What seriously is north korea going to do to anyone? Thats about all I can think of for now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfay Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I know I have posed this question before but have not recieved an answer. It seems that many folks on here outside the US are experts in US foreign policy, to them I ask: Has the US at any time in it's short history done anything positive with it's foreign policy in terms of intervention or other types of policy "jaunts"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zh3n Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I know I have posed this question before but have not recieved an answer. It seems that many folks on here outside the US are experts in US foreign policy It certainly seems that way..the experts are on the outside looking in. my point there being the case of the russian dude being arrested in america for breaking american law while living and working in russia as a born russian citizen. Wasn't he in America while he broke the law? :unsure: So him being from another country,breaking a law while in a different country,he shouldn't be held for whatever he did? When we sit back and watch and others need/want help, we should mind our own business right?I agree...but,I stated this before...We are damned if we do,damned if we don't.We do something,it's too much,we are bullies or it isn't enough,we don't do anything we look like we don't care....what more is there???? QUESTION Didn't North Korea(Kim Jong Ill) admit to having nukes or starting a nuclear program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzachattack2 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 It certainly seems that way..the experts are on the outside looking in.Wasn't he in America while he broke the law? :unsure: So him being from another country,breaking a law while in a different country,he shouldn't be held for whatever he did? When we sit back and watch and others need/want help, we should mind our own business right?I agree...but,I stated this before...We are damned if we do,damned if we don't.We do something,it's too much,we are bullies or it isn't enough,we don't do anything we look like we don't care....what more is there???? QUESTION Didn't North Korea(Kim Jong Ill) admit to having nukes or starting a nuclear program? if it was a "capital crime"(by the russian) and he commited a US crime in the US, then he is guilty under american jurisdiction due to international extradition laws. I use capital crime in quotes because i beleive it has to be a serious crime for him to be arrested and held under trial in the US, but depends on the crime. I don't think the US nor will extradition laws come into effect to take this guy back from russia and hold him in a US trial for running a stop sign while he was in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted September 17, 2004 Veteran Share Posted September 17, 2004 Ummm...I don't care about the response of the people I "flamed." :D just remember that next time you dare to call a Conservative closed-minded :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdcase Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 too big a military, too many nations that hate us (either through jealousy or because we ****ed them off through our actions/policies/beliefs). be honest though, 9/11 triggered this whole mess. At the time the choice was - do something to disable the perpetrators, or do nothing and hope it goes away. Afganistan was a logical choice - didn't see to many people getting upset about that. Iraq was a mistake all around the block, now we have to fix it without making it worse that it was before (therein lies the mess). What's wrong is we have our fingers in too many folks' business and we have a big enough military that it allows us to poke our nose into places we maybe shoulda stayed out of. Our policy is too proactive now. P.S. I voted for bush, but I think he made a major mistake going against the grain with Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBeeeenster Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 China's government is steadfastly authoritarian socialist. The current Chinese government has a ruling class, which basically discredits any communism comparison. Interesting. How do you define the difference between "authoritarian socialist" and "communist"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBeeeenster Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 ...nor the ability. As I said, I dont think Europe has designs on being a hegemonic monster. They certainly have the ability if they so wished; simply strengthen the bounds of the EU. Then it's just a matter of spending a larger amount of our (larger than the US) GDP on guns and bombs. At present we prefer to spend our money on other things, like healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBeeeenster Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I know I have posed this question before but have not recieved an answer. It seems that many folks on here outside the US are experts in US foreign policy, to them I ask:Has the US at any time in it's short history done anything positive with it's foreign policy in terms of intervention or other types of policy "jaunts"? Of course. WW1 and WW2. The Marshal Plan. Kosovo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastSamurai Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Interesting. How do you define the difference between "authoritarian socialist" and "communist"? well you'll have to read Karl Max's books to find the answer do that question, theoretically socialist finally evolves into communist. which I think would never happen, cuz communist is supposed to be a perfect world, perfect world needs perfect people, perfect people dont exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBeeeenster Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 well you'll have to read Karl Max's books to find the answer do that question, theoretically socialist finally evolves into communist. which I think would never happen, cuz communist is supposed to be a perfect world, perfect world needs perfect people, perfect people dont exist. I was under the impression that communism was more an economic concept than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK1150 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I was under the impression that communism was more an economic concept than anything else. socialism is, communism is much more. It is the surpression of religion (as religion starts war), and includes an extensive government structure policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Douglas Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Interesting. How do you define the difference between "authoritarian socialist" and "communist"? classes still exist in socialism but not communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfay Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 But during WW2 we (the allies) bombed innocent people in Germany ... carpet bombed to be exact, so according to your logic it was a failure. In Kosovo innocent people died, so again a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts