bi0boy
Power User
Sure it has a dark side, but wouldn't any system of managing the rate of urban growth in the fastest-urbanising and most populous country in the world?
Let's talk about China
- Thread starter not-bono-ever
- Start date
Sure it has a dark side, but wouldn't any system of managing the rate of urban growth in the fastest-urbanising and most populous country in the world?
not-bono-ever
meh
.
Last edited:
First China-U.K. Freight Train Departs as Xi Seeks to Lift Trade
3 January 2017
Holes in China's Currency Wall
Jan 3, 2017
3 January 2017
Holes in China's Currency Wall
Jan 3, 2017
There's something really bugging me about China lately, which I want to vent about a little... namely, a disturbing trend of praise of Hitler and apologism for the holocaust in their media. On Baidu news (which I guess is roughly approximate to Yahoo news but more widely read - imagine if google had their own news or something) there seems to constantly be articles about Hitler recently.
二战时希特勒为什么要疯狂屠杀犹太人？-搜狐 - This article, entitled "Why did Hitler Massacre the Jews?"
Translation:
"Upon mentioning WW2, we immediately think of Hitler's frenzied massacre of 6 million Jews, and think he holds chief responsibility. But who asks why? History must be considered carefully, and there is one sentence that puts it well - "pitiable people must also have a detestable point". Jews are just this type of person!
...
Jews are known as the world's most intelligent people, very skilled at commerce, but intelligent people's moral character is generally not much to speak of, and they are often hurt by their own intelligence. Jews are too selfish, their businessmen only seek to benefit themselves, and because of this they encounter furious reactions with very severe consequences!
...
When Hitler came to power, the first thing he did was kill the Jews, he hated them deep in his bones. They made German development stagnate, for the holocaust the Jews themselves hold a very great responsibility."
二战时希特勒为什么要疯狂屠杀犹太人？-搜狐 - This article, entitled "Why did Hitler Massacre the Jews?"
Translation:
"Upon mentioning WW2, we immediately think of Hitler's frenzied massacre of 6 million Jews, and think he holds chief responsibility. But who asks why? History must be considered carefully, and there is one sentence that puts it well - "pitiable people must also have a detestable point". Jews are just this type of person!
...
Jews are known as the world's most intelligent people, very skilled at commerce, but intelligent people's moral character is generally not much to speak of, and they are often hurt by their own intelligence. Jews are too selfish, their businessmen only seek to benefit themselves, and because of this they encounter furious reactions with very severe consequences!
...
When Hitler came to power, the first thing he did was kill the Jews, he hated them deep in his bones. They made German development stagnate, for the holocaust the Jews themselves hold a very great responsibility."
Last edited:
OMFG, even worse...
600万犹太人被屠杀，真相让人出乎意料-搜狐 - "6 Million Jews Massacred - The Surprising Truth"
The truth is Hitler never massacred 6 million Jews. Hitler, in order to establish Labour values, smashed the dragon of finance, and indeed killed a few chiefs of finance, but he never carried out a large scale massacre of Jews.
A large amount of data reveals, during the second world war the number of Jews massacred was far less than 6 million. Some scholars who raise doubts about the holocaust believe, the true number should be less than half a million. Some people even hold the position that only tens of thousands of Jews were killed.
600万犹太人被屠杀，真相让人出乎意料-搜狐 - "6 Million Jews Massacred - The Surprising Truth"
The truth is Hitler never massacred 6 million Jews. Hitler, in order to establish Labour values, smashed the dragon of finance, and indeed killed a few chiefs of finance, but he never carried out a large scale massacre of Jews.
A large amount of data reveals, during the second world war the number of Jews massacred was far less than 6 million. Some scholars who raise doubts about the holocaust believe, the true number should be less than half a million. Some people even hold the position that only tens of thousands of Jews were killed.
JimW
支那暗杀团
That is some awful shite but if you check out the author profile he's just some twatty blogger rather than any sort of official journo: 脑洞外星人的个人展示页
Ridiculous that he (I presume) gets such a prominent platform mind.
Many Chinese believe it. If you look at the feed from the last couple of weeks, it seems about 10% of the articles are about Hitler in some way, usually in a revisionist or positive light.
That fucking "Currency Wars" book is in part to blame I think. Nevertheless, I don't think Baidu should be able to publish this without consequence, I might e-mail some Jewish organisation or something.
I also read some ridiculous article about "Why didn't Hitler attack China?" According to the journalist, because he felt a deep admiration and respect for Chinese culture after a kindly Chinese couple adopted him in Germany when he was a child. Completely false information of course. Given that the rules of Chinese censorship are allegedly to "prevent false information," they shouldn't be allowed to engage in this revisionism without being held to account, especially given their sensitivity to Japanese revisionism of the Nanjing Massacre.
JimW
支那暗杀团
Can't disagree. Remember noting supposedly "positive" books about how Jews were so great at business which were basically anti-Semitic myths rehashed in a self-help format for wannabe entrepreneurs. I think the distance from European history accounts for part of it, Hitler as just a launching pad for ideas about power etc because the crimes don't seem as real or visceral, but there are of course a fair few ballbags well aware of what they're doing.
I've occasionally seen on forums Hitler being cast as some kind of anti-imperialist hero.
Until it became clear that a USA free from rhetoric about human rights and international law would also entail a much more overtly aggressive USA, there was quite a lot of enthusiasm about Trump coming to power initially. I suspect part of the appeal of Hitler is that the CCP would very much like to see an undemocratic West, which cannot claim any moral high ground or demonstrate an alternative to Chinese people.
october_lost
It's not hip any more...
They quote Robert Faurisson in one of those articles, not exactly mainstream reading. Same could be said of Mohammed Taheri.
So, possible setback for Chinese "string of pearls" strategy to become a naval world power, creating a chain of ports (and probably eventually military bases) connecting it to Sudan.
Sri Lankan Supreme Court will decide fate of China-funded Hambantota port
Sri Lankan Supreme Court will decide fate of China-funded Hambantota port
It is worth paying attention to China's activity in the Indian Ocean. There is something interesting happening between India and China, which, in my opinon, is probably going to lead to the downfall of the CCP in the longer term.
First, some historical context - China has historically viewed itself as the only true civilization, and Chinese culture as synonymous with civilization in a world populated by barbarians. This is reflected in the various words for China - not only 中国 (central kingdom) but also 天下 (all under heaven) and 华 (basically untranslatable but means Chinese culture, as well as glorious or "flowery", reflecting the view that the state of being "flowery" was equal to belonging to Chinese culture.) This view came about as a result of China's particular geographical location and characteristics - a large, mostly flat area of agricultural civilization, connected together by the Yellow River and Yangtze River, and with a natural tendency towards unification. You can contrast this with Europe's seas, islands, peninsulas, and mountain ranges which create a natural tendency towards division and diversity. This area of agricultural civilization was surrounded in the North by the barbarian nomads on the Mongol Steppe, to the West by desert and the Himalayas (again populated by nomadic savages), to the South by more mountains populated by barbarian nomads, and to the East by nothing but sea. Still today, when Chinese talk about "China" they do not literally mean "China" as a political nation-state but rather as a cultural area. This is why Taiwan is viewed as part of China - that it has been de facto independent for around 70 years is seen as irrelevant, because it is part of "China," even if it is not part of "The People's Republic of China." Just like how the states of Wei, Hu, and Shu during the Three Kingdoms period are/were all still seen as "China," even if they are/were also understood to be separate states. (this rather flexible use of the word "China" is also how the claim to have "5000 years of history" comes about. Think of the word "China" as comparable to referring to Europe as "Christendom," and now imagine that Christianity dated back to the Minoans.)
Now, obviously this view of the world took quite a beating after the Opium Wars and China's "Century of Humiliation," ultimately leading to revolution and industrialisation. However, after the failure of Maoist Communism, the CCP has redefined its role as a primarily nationalistic one, and as a result the old view of China's place in the world has seen a resurgence as a kind of Chinese exceptionalism or manifest destiny, which to me seems to be centered on the myth of "5000 years of history." The implication of "5000 years of history," a claim which is utterly central to how China defines itself in the 21st Century, is that China's uniquely long history grants it moral superiority and it is only a matter of time before it returns to its natural role as leading world power. The CCP over the last few decades have increasingly based their legitimacy on this. Since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, schools have placed a lot of importance on "patriotic education" as a means of creating unity.
The "String of Pearls" seems to be an attempt at giving China naval superiority in the Indian Ocean, allowing it to effectively control global trade and therefore supplant the USA as the leading superpower. Asserting sovereignty over the South China Sea, reclaiming Taiwan, and creating a string of naval bases from Hong Kong, to Hainan, the Paracels, the Spratlys, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Pakistan, Iraq, Kenya, and finally to the Port of Sudan will ultimately give China the sort of global reach and military striking ability that the US has today. However, I think that this is probably not going to happen, and their failure to achieve this ambition is probably going to spell the end for Communist Party rule.
The USA's global reach militarily is in many ways inherited from the global network set up by British Imperialism. The reach of the British Empire, and of European colonialism more generally, was only possible due to the huge gap in technology and the condition of uneven development between Europe and the rest of the world. China is emerging at a time of global development evening out, and the conditions that allowed Europeans to dominate the planet are not going to be repeated. Likewise, the conditions that made it possible for a peaceful shift of power from the UK to the USA simply don't exist either.
China not only needs to make the USA leave the South China Sea, but they also need to worry about India, who may actually prove to be a far bigger problem for China than the USA. While economically still a long way behind, India's growth rate is now outpacing China's, and lots of industries in China are now moving to India (and Bangladesh, and Vietnam) in search of even cheaper labour. India is also not going to take China's apparent encirclement lying down - see their recent missile sales to Vietnam, for example. Why China Should Fear India's Arms Sales to Vietnam (Think South China Sea)
Now, remember the historical context and Chinese worldview. A rising India frustrating China's foreign policy would be a huge blow to Chinese exceptionalism, one of the ideological foundations of CCP rule, and would also make them look weak. Combine this with China's looming economic crisis which will likely be exacerbated by a trade war with the USA (which India will probably be the ultimate beneficiary of) and the CCPs legitimacy is weakened further. A successful India would also weaken China's justifications for autocratic rule - chiefly that China has too many people and is too ethnically diverse, something that applies to India too, which will soon have a bigger population than China. A perception of autocratic Chinese stagnation and democratic Indian vibrancy would undermine CCP rule still further.
As for control over the South China Sea and Taiwan, this is probably not possible without direct confrontation with the USA. If we assume that neither side is keen on nuclear apocalypse, then the most likely scenario is a new cold war. The other alternative is China calls the USA's bluff, attacks Taiwan, and the USA withdraws but attempts to punish and isolate China economically. Both these scenarios are likely to deepen the recent trend towards paranoia, myopic nationalism and authoritarianism, and as a result the shift of FDI flow to India/Bangladesh/South East Asia will continue to accelerate.
So, a stagnant or deteriorating economy, denied expectations of restoring China's mythical past glory, a return to xenophobic isolation and authoritarianism, and competition with India - these are the conditions which will lead to the end of CCP rule. In my opinion anyway.
First, some historical context - China has historically viewed itself as the only true civilization, and Chinese culture as synonymous with civilization in a world populated by barbarians. This is reflected in the various words for China - not only 中国 (central kingdom) but also 天下 (all under heaven) and 华 (basically untranslatable but means Chinese culture, as well as glorious or "flowery", reflecting the view that the state of being "flowery" was equal to belonging to Chinese culture.) This view came about as a result of China's particular geographical location and characteristics - a large, mostly flat area of agricultural civilization, connected together by the Yellow River and Yangtze River, and with a natural tendency towards unification. You can contrast this with Europe's seas, islands, peninsulas, and mountain ranges which create a natural tendency towards division and diversity. This area of agricultural civilization was surrounded in the North by the barbarian nomads on the Mongol Steppe, to the West by desert and the Himalayas (again populated by nomadic savages), to the South by more mountains populated by barbarian nomads, and to the East by nothing but sea. Still today, when Chinese talk about "China" they do not literally mean "China" as a political nation-state but rather as a cultural area. This is why Taiwan is viewed as part of China - that it has been de facto independent for around 70 years is seen as irrelevant, because it is part of "China," even if it is not part of "The People's Republic of China." Just like how the states of Wei, Hu, and Shu during the Three Kingdoms period are/were all still seen as "China," even if they are/were also understood to be separate states. (this rather flexible use of the word "China" is also how the claim to have "5000 years of history" comes about. Think of the word "China" as comparable to referring to Europe as "Christendom," and now imagine that Christianity dated back to the Minoans.)
Now, obviously this view of the world took quite a beating after the Opium Wars and China's "Century of Humiliation," ultimately leading to revolution and industrialisation. However, after the failure of Maoist Communism, the CCP has redefined its role as a primarily nationalistic one, and as a result the old view of China's place in the world has seen a resurgence as a kind of Chinese exceptionalism or manifest destiny, which to me seems to be centered on the myth of "5000 years of history." The implication of "5000 years of history," a claim which is utterly central to how China defines itself in the 21st Century, is that China's uniquely long history grants it moral superiority and it is only a matter of time before it returns to its natural role as leading world power. The CCP over the last few decades have increasingly based their legitimacy on this. Since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, schools have placed a lot of importance on "patriotic education" as a means of creating unity.
The "String of Pearls" seems to be an attempt at giving China naval superiority in the Indian Ocean, allowing it to effectively control global trade and therefore supplant the USA as the leading superpower. Asserting sovereignty over the South China Sea, reclaiming Taiwan, and creating a string of naval bases from Hong Kong, to Hainan, the Paracels, the Spratlys, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Pakistan, Iraq, Kenya, and finally to the Port of Sudan will ultimately give China the sort of global reach and military striking ability that the US has today. However, I think that this is probably not going to happen, and their failure to achieve this ambition is probably going to spell the end for Communist Party rule.
The USA's global reach militarily is in many ways inherited from the global network set up by British Imperialism. The reach of the British Empire, and of European colonialism more generally, was only possible due to the huge gap in technology and the condition of uneven development between Europe and the rest of the world. China is emerging at a time of global development evening out, and the conditions that allowed Europeans to dominate the planet are not going to be repeated. Likewise, the conditions that made it possible for a peaceful shift of power from the UK to the USA simply don't exist either.
China not only needs to make the USA leave the South China Sea, but they also need to worry about India, who may actually prove to be a far bigger problem for China than the USA. While economically still a long way behind, India's growth rate is now outpacing China's, and lots of industries in China are now moving to India (and Bangladesh, and Vietnam) in search of even cheaper labour. India is also not going to take China's apparent encirclement lying down - see their recent missile sales to Vietnam, for example. Why China Should Fear India's Arms Sales to Vietnam (Think South China Sea)
Now, remember the historical context and Chinese worldview. A rising India frustrating China's foreign policy would be a huge blow to Chinese exceptionalism, one of the ideological foundations of CCP rule, and would also make them look weak. Combine this with China's looming economic crisis which will likely be exacerbated by a trade war with the USA (which India will probably be the ultimate beneficiary of) and the CCPs legitimacy is weakened further. A successful India would also weaken China's justifications for autocratic rule - chiefly that China has too many people and is too ethnically diverse, something that applies to India too, which will soon have a bigger population than China. A perception of autocratic Chinese stagnation and democratic Indian vibrancy would undermine CCP rule still further.
As for control over the South China Sea and Taiwan, this is probably not possible without direct confrontation with the USA. If we assume that neither side is keen on nuclear apocalypse, then the most likely scenario is a new cold war. The other alternative is China calls the USA's bluff, attacks Taiwan, and the USA withdraws but attempts to punish and isolate China economically. Both these scenarios are likely to deepen the recent trend towards paranoia, myopic nationalism and authoritarianism, and as a result the shift of FDI flow to India/Bangladesh/South East Asia will continue to accelerate.
So, a stagnant or deteriorating economy, denied expectations of restoring China's mythical past glory, a return to xenophobic isolation and authoritarianism, and competition with India - these are the conditions which will lead to the end of CCP rule. In my opinion anyway.
october_lost
It's not hip any more...
Have people been following the attempt of Shanghai SIPG to lure away Costa away from Chelsea? According to the same article, Tevez is the highest paid footballer in the world on £615,000 a week. Seriously, talk about the stark contrast in lifestyles. I make out the average yearly wage in China to be the equivalent of £7,500.
I read a few things in the UK media indicating there was an uproar in China. Today, I saw there has been an alteration to the number of foreign players allowed.
Anyone else seen anything?
I read a few things in the UK media indicating there was an uproar in China. Today, I saw there has been an alteration to the number of foreign players allowed.
Anyone else seen anything?
not-bono-ever
meh
aprops of nothing specific really, but a reader of English language chinese papers on regular basis, I am seeing many more veiled warnings about fucking with the PRC in editorials and PRC academic written articles submitted in the past couple of months. Nothing gets published in these prop rags without an offical nod
teqniq
DisMembered
Chinese President Xi Jinping calls for nuclear disarmament | News | DW.COM | 18.01.2017
Not sure what to make of this really, especially the bit about developing and upholding human rights, oh rly? So anyway opinions from knowledgeable China watchers appreciated.
the article goes on to say:
Not sure what to make of this really, especially the bit about developing and upholding human rights, oh rly? So anyway opinions from knowledgeable China watchers appreciated.
the article goes on to say:
Last edited:
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
China strikes me as a world unto itself. I suspect your understanding of China is far more an expression of Western culture and insecurity than a true understanding of that society, it's history or its ambitions. I wonder if there's a study of orientalism through the ages somewhere, from decadent sultans and crusader armies to yellow perils and communist dominos, from the white mans burden to Exceptionalism or whatever. The West is a fascinating world really, 'myth' has it that our history goes all the way back to Ancient Greece apparently.
Last edited:
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Seems likely a response to Trump saying stuff about China a lot.
teqniq
DisMembered
So you base your assumptions of what to me seems to be a very informative post on what, exactly?
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Based on what I know about how Western culture tends to understand outsiders ( barbarians, savages, not like us, ungodly/undemocratic, uncultured, a threat, tyrranous, inferior, teeming... the usual really), a modicum of history yeilds plenty of examples. Just my opinion really. That's allowed isn't it?
teqniq
DisMembered
Who am I to say what is allowed, lol? It's just that the poster seems to me to be speaking from an informed perspective. Which on this subject is more than I can say for myself.
You can read Liu Mingfu's "The China Dream" for a manifesto on the Chinese century. May not be a reflection of the leadership's views as a whole, but there is a lot to suggest that it has a lot of influence on the thinking of Xi Jinping. His flagship slogan is the title of the book, for one thing.
Also, I don't think my view is orientalist at all, and for what it's worth, Chinese soft power is largely based on self-orientalising, which exceptionalism is derived from. Pointing out that Chinese exceptionalism guides their foreign policy is actually demystifying China's self-orientalising, not an example of the latest incarnation of Western orientalism.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Well fair play... I'll have to content myself by taking what you've said with dash of soy-sauce until someone who knows more about China than I turns up and bucks the general trend of the thread thus far, which conforms to the usual profile of discussions of China in the West (Evil China, not a real civilization, bound to collapse eventually, who can foil their evil plans for world domination, etc).
october_lost
It's not hip any more...
China is in a pickle because it has to deal with both Japan and Taiwan, both seen as linked to western powers. Its old, but this illustrates some thoughts on Japan. It asks are they US mercenaries, do they have nuclear capability etc.
This is a recent popular article which suggests Trumps advisors are already talking about a military build-up in Taiwan.
Part of it roughly translates "One of the foundations of Chinese and American diplomatic relations is the withdrawal of US troops from Taiwan. If Americans again set foot on Taiwanese soil, it can only be resolved through a military confrontation." Not policy, but mainstream news...
BTW Military affairs are well covered in the Chinese press.
This is a recent popular article which suggests Trumps advisors are already talking about a military build-up in Taiwan.
Part of it roughly translates "One of the foundations of Chinese and American diplomatic relations is the withdrawal of US troops from Taiwan. If Americans again set foot on Taiwanese soil, it can only be resolved through a military confrontation." Not policy, but mainstream news...
BTW Military affairs are well covered in the Chinese press.
I'm not going write out my CV here, but I am pretty confident that I know a lot more about China than you do. If you think you know more, than you are free to say where you disagree with what I wrote. I've kind of been on a downer with China lately so I'm open to the idea that my post is reflecting western anxiety about China's rise - but me being on a downer comes from some recent bad experiences living in the country and my first hand observations of how the country has been developing in recent years. Not necessarily objective, true, but not without justification either.
Also, I never said China is "not a real civilization," which to start with is not even an orientalist trope. I said that there is nothing uniquely "ancient" about it, which is the opposite of orientalising. And if you're going to play the orientalist card, please bear in mind that the idea that only the west can be an active imperialist and "the other" is largely passive is nothing but the flip side of orientalism. .
Don't be easy on the CCP because they have "communist" in the name. The National People's Congress is chock full of millionaires and billionaires, the alliance of money and politics is far, far worse than even the US. I also have never met a Party member who wouldn't be regarded as rabidly right wing in western political terminology.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
I meant it when I said that, trust me if I could take on what you said with rigour I would, I can only say I "suspect" though on the basis of what I know about the West, not what I know about China. For one thing I think Westerners tend to project ourselves a lot, we're like a bunch of Mongolians form the 12th century forever seeing an attempt to make compound bows and bare-back horse-riding techniques in other people. Aircraft carriers for example, we're obsessed with the idea that China and Russia want to build carrier groups because how else will they project power across the globe like our hegemony does. I once read on here someone scoff at Russian military industry because "it's not profitable" (yeah... the making of tanks and missiles being a matter of profitable is not necessarily a good idea in my opinion but I guess that's another thread).
But a lot goes into the long range carrier-group and the stack of political/economic/military realities they rest upon that I honestly don't think China shares or requires. Let em try then... I reckon you'd be right, if China tried to act like the US they'd be in for a nasty surprise from within, but I don't think they've a mind to try being the next US and I think expecting them to power project as far as Kenya and beyond is a projected fantasy of how we do things in the West. I doubt China has the slightest interest or ability in being like the US on the world stage, even if the US is obsessed with the idea that other people want to be just like the US (they almost seem to crave an equal-opposite actually, poor fuckers have seemed a bit lost ever since the USSR went away).
Even rightwing members of the Chinese government that did want to move in that direction as you've said- would find themselves constrained in that because China is not the US, or Imperial Britain. China (or the Chinese cultural world sort of thing) once pulled gold coins from the Roman empire even though the two never really met, and so much silver from the Brits we tried to force em to buy opium just to balance trade, if China regains it's place as the center of gravity in world trade it will do so in its own way, and I bet it won't involve carrier-groups or lilly-pad bases. I word-clouded Xe's UN speech last year, the biggest word was "Development". The US relies on militarism to make itself great while China builds shit. Want to see how they'll impact things going forward- look to their Silk Road project thing, not to island fortifications or naval activity, my opinion anyway.
So, I just think we should stop projecting ourselves on China. Does that make sense given all you seem to know about the place?
Last edited:
But they are projecting power as far as Kenya. It is explicitly their foreign policy and it is trumpeted in their media all the time as part of the "new silk road" 一带一路。Of course they use the language of development, but so does all capitalist imperialism. They've established a military base in Djibouti, and they have a network of ports linking them to the Port of Sudan - they may not be military bases yet, but I see no reason to think that isn't the desired outcome, seeing as they are building up their naval capabilities and their submarines are regularly sighted in the Indian Ocean.
The fact that they are in competition with western imperialism can have some positive outcomes for African countries, in terms of getting a better deal. But I don't see it as qualitatively different from how the US operates.
The fact that they are in competition with western imperialism can have some positive outcomes for African countries, in terms of getting a better deal. But I don't see it as qualitatively different from how the US operates.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
I guess we'll see in say... 20 years how it turns out. I don't think they'll do well by acting like a sea-powered hegemony in the long run, perhaps you're right and the current regime has a different opinion.
bi0boy
Power User
Good article about China's quest for food imports: Why China Must Figure Out How to Feed the Whole World
Similar threads
