Seriously. What's the big deal with China? Yes, they censor the internet. Yes, they wreck their own environment. But when they want oil, they buy oil. They don't invade some poor country in the middle east and blame it on quote-on-quote "terrorists". They pay for it. When they want to make a buck, they sell a ton of plastic toy cars at rock-bottom prices. They don't sell non-reproducing grain that people have to buy again and again. Besides, it's the backbone of the world's economy. It has the US dollar (and therefore every dollar pegged to it) in its pocket. It produces everything and sells it to everyone. And the US is, well, no better. It doesn't censor the web because it doesn't care that everyone knows it (and the UK) bombed Iraq flat. And the US/UK have virtually no environmental protection. The EPA is a joke and the UK, well, the UK got rid of its environment centuries ago. Read up on the Vietnam war. American conduct was pretty much a violation of the Geneva Convention. Are we to forget all this just so we can demonise China? Also, I'll have you know I've been to Vietnam and China.
Another thing is that some countries, I would say mostly the US, have not gotten over their fear of communism, which may or may not be justified. To fear a more ideal form of structure may seem silly at first, but with all the faulty communist societies of the past, Soviet Union and Cambodia being the prime examples that come to my mind, it's not too much of a stretch. A fair point is that these societies never maintained, if ever achieved, pure communism, because the idea is just what I said before: an ideal. Countries are too large to maintain communism effectively, since eventually some person is gonna be tired of the equality and disrupt the order to fit his ideals. Therefore, fearing legitimate communism is not great, but fearing what examples of "communism" have been shown in the world is common sense.
Aside from communism, it's just like nicho said: it's easy to fear a disruption in the order that has been established. China has done just that, and is not done growing, either. Albeit, China is growing a little too fast to allow its people to keep up, but it's kind of hard to stop it now.
Read up on the Vietnam war. American conduct was pretty much a violation of the Geneva Convention. Are we to forget all this just so we can demonise China? Also, I'll have you know I've been to Vietnam and China.
I understand the facts you're using to back up these sentences, but I'm confused as to what point you're making here. I might simply be reading it incorrectly, but I'd appreciate clarification.
I would say mostly the US, have not gotten over their fear of communism, which may or may not be justified.
It's just you guys.
With regards to his Vietnam point, he was pointing out that America committed atrocities in multiple wars, so calling it a bastion of human rights seems hypocritical to him.
there is only 1 thing i dislike about china and that is that they keep their coin manually at a low value. but it made them to what they are now and the last 2 year usa and many other countries (excluding europe) started to do the same in a slightly different way. but they will fail where china succeeded. why? because china did it alone and the others want to do the same thing together.
now for the reason why so many americans hate china: because of the usa's anti-china/russia/communism propaganda of the last 70 year.
Furthermore, America is a strange place simply because much of American society seems to be still engrained in the cold war. Look at the rappant paranoia in regards to the government, the fear of social inovation and simply the fear of change.
American society has change drastically little over the bast 20 years in terms of all other developed nations, and America seems content to continue down this path. When issues such as universal health care are met with obstinant, unyeilding biases, claiming that it is a "communist" idea, then something is truly wrong.
Everyone claims the Democrats are left wing, but by what standard are we making that assessment? The American one? Well, you there are only two parties, and the Republicans are firmly to the right politically, so yes in that sense the Democrats would be to the left. But what about in a broader sense?
Well, comparing the American left to the Canadian left (my country) you get a rather odd picture. Canada has three major parties, Conservatives, Liberals, and the New Democratic Party (NDP). Now, if we match the Liberals up the Democrats, traditionally the Canadian Liberal Party, a centrist party for the most part, still leans slightly more to the left. And the NDP is further left still.
So what's my point? Well, American politics reflect American society, and vice versa. Even the American "left" is still slightly more conservative than the Canadian center. This would mean that America is a rather conservative society, a product perhaps, one my assume, the cold war. However, I do not study American history that much, so I am willing to admit that I am wrong.
but with all the faulty communist societies of the past, Soviet Union and Cambodia being the prime examples that come to my mind
they should look closer to home. cuba and venezuela, are 2 good examples of communism. because those leaders actually care for there people. and are not only power hungry.
they should look closer to home. cuba and venezuela, are 2 good examples of communism. because those leaders actually care for there people. and are not only power hungry
Are you joking me? You have to be kidding. Have you even read of bloody the revolutions were? Probably not. In fact, your comment is so ignorant its appalling.
If Cuba was such a great place why are people continuously risking life and limb trying to cross the Atlantic to come to America on makeshift rafts?
Well, let's be honest here. Australia is the land where everything wants to murder you.
Haha very fair point, wolf :P
As for the points made about Cuba and Venezuela, the fact that you said the word leaders in that statement turns me off from the argument. Sure, it's not that communist societies aren't supposed to have a leader. I believe they're supposed to be called "Chairmen" or something like that. However, the power these leaders have isn't supposed to be noticeable. True communism relies more on the people being equal. Sure, some sort of overlying structure needs to be present for the distribution of the shared goods, but it shouldn't be left up to one person in my opinion. One person's opinions are probably not going to appeal to everyone's equality, and therefore upset the balance that communism so desperately tries to maintain.
As for the points made about Cuba and Venezuela, the fact that you said the word leaders in that statement turns me off from the argument. Sure, it's not that communist societies aren't supposed to have a leader. I believe they're supposed to be called "Chairmen" or something like that. However, the power these leaders have isn't supposed to be noticeable. True communism relies more on the people being equal. Sure, some sort of overlying structure needs to be present for the distribution of the shared goods, but it shouldn't be left up to one person in my opinion. One person's opinions are probably not going to appeal to everyone's equality, and therefore upset the balance that communism so desperately tries to maintain.
One person's decisive, two people can agree, three people can argue.
Being in China right now, I'd like to point out that it's capitalist in everything but name. Apple stores on every corner and legitimate Apple stores in every decent-sized city. Besides, how bad can a merchant superpower be?
Being in China right now, I'd like to point out that it's capitalist in everything but name. Apple stores on every corner and legitimate Apple stores in every decent-sized city. Besides, how bad can a merchant superpower be?
Don't doubt you, just saying the "communist threat" is a factor in the China hate. Personally, have nothing against China. Though where are you in China? I know plenty of people that came over from China that say the conditions there were pretty harsh and fairly communist, as well saying they liked it better here (Midwest to be specific).
One person's decisive, two people can agree, three people can argue.
Didn't notice that there. Very fair statement. Big reason why pure communism only works with small groups.
One person: decisive, determines everything, possible dictator threat, smaller chance of compromise, little discussion
Two people: agree on something, not necessarily for the best, boosts confidence in choice, grow to take more brash measures, stronger lurking power above, worse effects when they do disagree with no majority option, coin flip for decisions not optimal
Three people: pretty obvious the problem, more chance of disagreeing, less decisions made, internal conflict, etc
Leadership is hard to keep pure, and even when it is, equality is rarely kept. Pure communism is too ideal.
