Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considering our supply chain and economic dependence on China a shooting war with them probably isn't in our best interests. Nor do I believe that the loss of American lives that would result from a war with China would make it worth it. That said, at least the ChiComs know we have a plan if they attempt to invade Taiwan.
I watched this entire film and unfortunately will never get that time back again. I kept waiting for it to get more objective and stop apologizing for merits of the Chinese Communist Party. John Pilger is a long time critic of U.S., Australian and British foreign policy. This documentary paints a picture that China after Mao as a utopia. The political foundation of the modern Chinese Communist Party has it's roots on the millions of Chinese people that were murdered by the government since 1949. It's expanded into an economic superpower because U.S. politicians and corporate CEO's sold out their nation and began to invest in China in the late 70's. U.S. foreign policy has many flaws but our military presence in the Pacific rim is one of the reasons that China hasn't expanded it's empire beyond it own borders.
I watched this entire film and unfortunately will never get that time back again. I kept waiting for it to get more objective and stop apologizing for merits of the Chinese Communist Party. John Pilger is a long time critic of U.S., Australian and British foreign policy. This documentary paints a picture that China after Mao as a utopia. The political foundation of the modern Chinese Communist Party has it's roots on the millions of Chinese people that were murdered by the government since 1949. It's expanded into an economic superpower because U.S. politicians and corporate CEO's sold out their nation and began to invest in China in the late 70's. U.S. foreign policy has many flaws but our military presence in the Pacific rim is one of the reasons that China hasn't expanded it's empire beyond it own borders.
Then, let me waste some of your time: apparently, Mao was a capitalist but wanted more independence, similar to what Asian countries did after the war. Truman did not respond, and likely because he saw China as part of the Iron Curtain. What most don't realize is that Commies are actually capitalist: the difference is that they want state capitalism, not bourgeois capitalism. That's why one Chinese pundit came up with that fascinating remark: China is ruled by the Communist Party, and the U.S. by Wall Street. This also explains why after 1979, China started engaging in the equivalent of nationalist economics, similar to what neighboring countries did, except for the Philippines.
China after Mao wasn't a utopia, and the same can be said for all countries in general. The foundation of the CCP isn't rooted on murder but on control of the populace by feudal lords of the Middle Kingdom. That's why the Koumintang, which still lived with that while calling for nationalism, fell apart and fled.
That murder involved four failed programs leading to millions dead, followed by a Cultural Revolution leading to more millions dead. Then the U.S. re-established friendly ties with China, and six years later the latter reformed two of those programs, leading to incredible levels of economic growth.
U.S. businesses didn't sell out their nation but followed what every good capitalist wants: maximization of profits. As the U.S. started weakening (its economic growth started slowing down starting in the 1960s, it experienced chronic trade deficits starting in the early 1970s, and it began to accumulate increasing debts after the early 1980s thanks to Reagan's "voodoo" economics), and likely because the use of the dollar as a reserve currency made the U.S. immensely strong but also became the source of its demise (see the Triffin dilemma), it started to outsource to regions of the world which had young, eager workers and consumers, and one of them was China. And as countries like Japan went the same way as the U.S. (and even Europe), with workers moving from manufacturing to service industries, the Asian "tiger" economies (like South Korea and Taiwan) took over, and then later emerging markets plus China and even Vietnam:
Not surprisingly, U.S. hawks got butthurt, and called for foreign policy and even the military to counter the growing strength not only of China but of these other economies, by protecting the petrodollar and access to natural resources through the grand chessboard: use over 800 military bases and installations worldwide to keep countries in control. Hence, that presence in the Pacific, which climaxed with Obama's desperate pivot to Asia, following Bush's attempts in the Middle East.
However, it's no longer working, which is why not only China but even its own ally, the Philippines, as well as Malaysia, Vietnam, and even Taiwan have been setting up military installations in the area and have been actively engaged in bilateral relations, isolating the U.S.
And that's why Pilger thinks that there will be a coming war on China: such an arrangement involving a multilateral world is not acceptable to the Washington swamp. And that will force China to play its hand, which is what happened with Russia and Ukraine recently.
That murder involved four failed programs leading to millions dead, followed by a Cultural Revolution leading to more millions dead. Then the U.S. re-established friendly ties with China, and six years later the latter reformed two of those programs, leading to incredible levels of economic growth.
Why did these murders have to occur? Chicoms being nationalist capitalists means they must cull their population?
The idea of Communists being capitalists really turns the most people's preconceived notions on both terms, on its heads.
Why did these murders have to occur? Chicoms being nationalist capitalists means they must cull their population?
The idea of Communists being capitalists really turns the most people's preconceived notions on both terms, on its heads.
Mao promoted state planning without much planning, and the result was widespread famine, and with that millions dead.
After that, Mao's wife tried to counter those who went against Mao by "re-educating" them, leading to another revolution and millions dead again.
Finally, Mao's opponents took over, reformed two of the programs, and the country experienced significant economic growth after: something like an average 7-pct growth rate per annum throughout, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.
Why are most confused by the claim that they are capitalist? Because most people don't know what "capitalism" means: they think it means being anti-Communist. Actually, it refers to the use of resources (capital) plus labor to manufacture goods. Why? Because there's no way to manufacture out of thin air, and even commies need to manufacture things.
What's the difference, then, between Communists and capitalists, i.e., the definition of capitalist as anti-Communist?
Capitalists want bourgeois capitalism, or private ownership of the means of production (the capital + hiring laborers): the profits (sales of manufactured goods minus paying off part of the cost of the capital plus wages) goes to them, the owners. One example is Alibaba, which is a multinational company but founded in China.
Communists want state capitalism, or state ownership of the means of production. That means the profits go to the state representing the public. One example is Saudi Aramco, which is obviously located in a non-Communist country.
Both types of capitalists don't mind worker-owned capitalism, where those employed in the business are part-owners; also, cooperatives. An example is the Mondragon Corporation, in the northern part of Spain. They are also found in China and the U.S., and Vietnam particularly encourages them.
Given that, most countries in the world are mixed economies: they have bourgeois, state, and worker-owned capitalism. Examples are the U.S. and China.
I had to use terms that you could understand. LOL.
Gee, that was an original comeback. Your use of juvenile terms like "Butthurt" and "LOL" as well as referencing Wikipedia as a legitimate on line source don't say much for your depth of knowledge about his topic. This discussion is over!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
