1984 In China

[Wu Wei]

Eh, I'm a wee bit skeptical.
Who did she originally reveal this to?
Is that organization opposed to China?
For example, South Korea has paid "survivors" to speak ill of the DPRK many times.
I'm wondering if this is a similar situation.

Agreed
I have no idea how completely factual her story is, it may be 100%, it may not be at all, Hard to say.

It has been my understanding that the Chinese have not done much torturing of the Uighur minority, they just outright shoot them. Also China is also having a bit of a terrorist issue and Xinjiang is a Muslim province where the Uighur live. The Chinese could be changing tactics and they are known for punishing all instead of trying to find all who are responsible and punishing only those responsible

 

[Stevicus]

It was not a feeling. China and USSR had diverged in ideology prior to Nixon almost leading to WW3. See the 69 border conflict. Both Chinese and American governments used the general divergence to open up diplomacy. China wants to be free of the USSR as much as the USA wanted that separation. There are whole declassified briefings dating back to Johnson covering this. China got a pass as it was not a major threat in comparison.

I'm not sure if this refutes anything I said. I think we're in agreement on this point.

But the point you made earlier was about the US voters. When the monied interests saw China as an enemy, they riled up public opinion against China (and in favor of Taiwan, aka "China"). Once that situation changed, then the media changed their tune, and the voters eventually went along with it (although there were still some holdouts for a long time, even to this day). Now, as you say, the voters are willing to give China a pass because that's what the government and media have been doing for a long time.

However, it appears that there might be subtle shifts again towards Taiwan. If the US reverses nearly a half century of policy and gives full diplomatic recognition to Taiwan again, it will send some shockwaves for sure.

China needs the US economy.

It seems more of a symbiotic relationship at this point. A lot of Americans (particularly those of the business class) seem to suggest that the US needs China just as much. They're obviously afraid of offending China, and that speaks volumes.

 

[Stevicus]

In reality I do not personally care that much about people so very far away, and I feel that it would be dishonest to pretend to feel more. We have problems right here where we are that people do nothing about. This is why people need to have our own countries. We just have trouble caring about people that live far away. I care a little. I care about our foreign policy, but I'm not taking a smack in the face just because I'm not desiring to go to war against a foreign government. Be real! Its their country, and unfortunately its their problem. We can make trade deals and exchange ideas. That's what we can do.

I can understand what you're saying about caring about people so very far away. I'll admit I have mixed feelings about it myself, both past and present. That's why I've had mixed feelings about US foreign policy in general. I sometimes why we cared so much about the people of South Korea, South Vietnam, Israel, Kuwait, Somalia, Rwanda, Grenada, Panama, or anywhere else for that matter. We could have taken a more neutralist approach with no foreign entanglements, which is what many of our Founders wanted.

George Washington warned in his Farewell Address against the practice of having "favored" nations and antipathies towards other nations. As he stated so clearly "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all":

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

So many other nations have wanted to use America as some kind of tool for their own benefit, and with each nation having its own advocates and lobbyists operating in and around our government (expending and investing capital towards that end), it has caused incalculable injury to our national fabric and consciousness.

By the same token, it hasn't really benefited us in any measurable way. Our economy is unstable. Our debts are insurmountable. Our reputation around the world has diminished greatly since the World Wars. As you say, we have numerous problems here within America, and nobody really seems to care all that much. Even with all the help that we've given to other nations, none of them have really reciprocated. None of them care about our people all that much. Some of them might pay lip service about "freedom" and speak highly of the American system, but as far as how they talk about the American people themselves, most I ever hear is scorn and ridicule (particularly those from countries who are supposedly our closest allies).

Ironically, in my experience, those who seem to hate the US government the most actually demonstrate more positive feelings towards the American people themselves, while those who speak positively of the US government seem to hate the American people. It makes one wonder who our friends truly are in this world.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As you say, we have numerous problems here within America, and nobody really seems to care all that much. Even with all the help that we've given to other nations, none of them have really reciprocated. None of them care about our people all that much. Some of them might pay lip service about "freedom" and speak highly of the American system, but as far as how they talk about the American people themselves, most I ever hear is scorn and ridicule (particularly those from countries who are supposedly our closest allies).

I think its a similar situation to our relationship with France. France lent the foundling USA its support in the war of independence, gave us some of its blood and heroes. Since then we still appreciate what she did, but we can't expect a lot more reciprocation from helping other countries than that what she has seen. France gets honorable mention, but we don't send a percentage of our GDP. Mostly what we value about France are its innovative ideas, its language, freedoms, writers, things like that. The USA has a lot of those kinds of things and will be valued for them in coming centuries. That's a type of greatness that continues. We have a lot of that kind of wealth. Rock'n Roll is from the USA, for example. Its American, and its always going to be American.

 

[Shad]

I'm not sure if this refutes anything I said. I think we're in agreement on this point.

You said feel. I said evidence base. That is where we disagree hence why I provided background information.

But the point you made earlier was about the US voters. When the monied interests saw China as an enemy, they riled up public opinion against China (and in favor of Taiwan, aka "China"). Once that situation changed, then the media changed their tune, and the voters eventually went along with it (although there were still some holdouts for a long time, even to this day). Now, as you say, the voters are willing to give China a pass because that's what the government and media have been doing for a long time.

No the voters give China a pass as they like cheap products. See the freak out over tariffs. Each tariff argument I heard ended up being grounded in self-interest.

However, it appears that there might be subtle shifts again towards Taiwan. If the US reverses nearly a half century of policy and gives full diplomatic recognition to Taiwan again, it will send some shockwaves for sure.

Taiwan is used as a pawn to influence China, no more.

It seems more of a symbiotic relationship at this point.

Trade statistics show otherwise.

A lot of Americans (particularly those of the business class) seem to suggest that the US needs China just as much.

There is mutual benefits no doubt. Some products such as low grade plastics are not as feasible in America due to min wage, unions and lack of robotics. China does provide an environment for manufacturing which no longer exists in Western nations.

They're obviously afraid of offending China, and that speaks volumes.

As the government has far more control over the economy than say the US. Merely offending the government with valid criticism can see a company barred from Chinese markets. Hence why Google and FB work diligently with the Party to censor the Chinese population all while proclaiming how pro free speech each is outside China.

 

[Wu Wei]

based on the title of the thread, I can no longer resist

老大哥在看
Lǎo dàgē zài kàn​

Translate: Big Brother is watching
​

And if I lived on mainland China, and posted that on We Chat...I'd be in big trouble

 

[Stevicus]

You said feel. I said evidence base. That is where we disagree hence why I provided background information.

I think you took the word far too literally.

No the voters give China a pass as they like cheap products. See the freak out over tariffs. Each tariff argument I heard ended up being grounded in self-interest.

The "voters," as in the common people of America, didn't freak out at all. It was all the elite, the upper classes. Where did the "voters" freak out? Please provide some evidence of panic in the streets, rioting, or other evidence of "voters freaking out" over tariffs.

Taiwan is used as a pawn to influence China, no more.

Maybe.

Trade statistics show otherwise.

In what way?

There is mutual benefits no doubt. Some products such as low grade plastics are not as feasible in America due to min wage, unions and lack of robotics. China does provide an environment for manufacturing which no longer exists in Western nations.

That was due to choices made in the West, by Western politicians and business leaders looking to break unions, destroy the middle class, and ruin Western civilization just to make a fast buck.

As the government has far more control over the economy than say the US. Merely offending the government with valid criticism can see a company barred from Chinese markets. Hence why Google and FB work diligently with the Party to censor the Chinese population all while proclaiming how pro free speech each is outside China.

Then, I guess that confirms my earlier point about a symbiotic relationship, which you denied existed. Now, you're suggesting that such a relationship does exist. Can't you make up your mind?

 

[Shad]

I think you took the word far too literally.

Seems like it as you provided clarification.

The "voters," as in the common people of America, didn't freak out at all. It was all the elite, the upper classes. Where did the "voters" freak out? Please provide some evidence of panic in the streets, rioting, or other evidence of "voters freaking out" over tariffs.

Now you are taking a word beyond it's scope. If I was going to say people were rioting I would have used the word riot instead of one of emotion as a primary.

Maybe

Strategic military position due to it's proximity to China. The same issue Cuba had during the Cold War. Diplomatically to use as a pretext for action otherwise unwarranted. For example Taiwan has obvious territorial claims which have been an issue between Taiwan and China for decades. This provides justification due to treaties the US otherwise would not. Ergo the US hegemony

That was due to choices made in the West, by Western politicians and business leaders looking to break unions, destroy the middle class, and ruin Western civilization just to make a fast buck.

I was talking about support of external communist movement in other states. This is one of the issues that divided the 3rd International.

Then, I guess that confirms my earlier point about a symbiotic relationship, which you denied existed. Now, you're suggesting that such a relationship does exist. Can't you make up your mind?

In what way?

My mistake I misread it as symbolic. I went over the discussion as the response made no sense. If you look over the rest of my posts I have been arguing this point as per mutual benefits and corporate action varying depending the nation being discussed.

 

[Stevicus]

Seems like it as you provided clarification.



Now you are taking a word beyond it's scope. If I was going to say people were rioting I would have used the word riot instead of one of emotion as a primary.

Well, the point I was trying to make is that I didn't see any kind of "freak out" (however it may have been manifested) among the common people over tariffs on Chinese goods. It was talked about in the media among the elite (as if they thought it was some sort of major crisis), but ordinary people didn't seem to care a whit either way.

If America cut off all trade with China altogether, I can't see that the common people would really care all that much. Only those who have deep investments in China would care, whereas average consumers can buy their products from other countries which would be all too willing to export to America.

Strategic military position due to it's proximity to China. The same issue Cuba had during the Cold War. Diplomatically to use as a pretext for action otherwise unwarranted. For example Taiwan has obvious territorial claims which have been an issue between Taiwan and China for decades. This provides justification due to treaties the US otherwise would not. Ergo the US hegemony

For a long time after the 1949 Revolution, Taiwan was China, while the mainland Communist government was not considered legitimate nor recognized by the US government. Their role in US foreign policy was more than just strategic military position. The US was philosophically and ideologically anti-communist, so our government's support and recognition of Taiwan was based mainly on that principle.

The US reversal on that policy indicated that our government wasn't really as anti-communist as they wanted people to believe; they were simply anti-Soviet (or anti-Russian, perhaps).

At this point, both China and the US seem content to maintain the status quo in regards to Taiwan, but if a US leader wanted to stick a serious weed up China's backside, we could reverse that policy again, back to the way it was in the 50s and 60s.

That is, if they really were dedicated to the principles of anti-communism, they would do that. The fact that they don't would indicate that our foreign policy is not quite so principled (or based on any particular moral code) as our leaders would claim it to be.

I was talking about support of external communist movement in other states. This is one of the issues that divided the 3rd International.

You were talking about how some products (such as low grade plastics) were not feasible in America due to minimum wage, unions, and a lack of robotics. You also said the environment that China provides for manufacturing no longer exists in Western nations. China has a captive workforce which will work for whatever meager wages the government tells them to accept.

Essentially, China is selling its own people as exploited labor so Western companies can profit and grow rich (although some highly-placed Chinese are making out pretty well, too). That appears to be a betrayal of the communist ideals they once supported, and it creates a perception in the West that "China isn't really communist anymore," except in name only. A few others might still maintain that China remains very much communist and that their current policies are part of a grander strategy to trap the Western capitalists and dupe them by beating them at their own game.

In any case, it seems clear that Western leaders and other ideologues have no real business clinging to their supposed "anti-communist" principles, since they've already sold out decades ago. That's why few people actually care what the Chinese government is doing in terms of its treatment of ethnic/religious minorities in their country. But our policies are clearly hypocritical when looking at how our government responds to other governments, either because they're communist (i.e. Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea) or even with non-communist governments which we oppose due to alleged human rights violations (i.e. Russia, Iran, Syria, etc.).

 

[Shad]

Well, the point I was trying to make is that I didn't see any kind of "freak out" (however it may have been manifested) among the common people over tariffs on Chinese goods. It was talked about in the media among the elite (as if they thought it was some sort of major crisis), but ordinary people didn't seem to care a whit either way.

I heard enough of the commons complain about tariffs even if they are repeating what the media told them

If America cut off all trade with China altogether, I can't see that the common people would really care all that much. Only those who have deep investments in China would care, whereas average consumers can buy their products from other countries which would be all too willing to export to America.

China is the manufacturing capitol of the planet. While I do agree other nations will fill the void it will take time to develop the infrastructure and industry necessary. This is cause prices to increase which people will complain about. After all if people didn't care about buying products at a low cost China would have never become a manufacture center it is now.

For a long time after the 1949 Revolution, Taiwan was China, while the mainland Communist government was not considered legitimate nor recognized by the US government. Their role in US foreign policy was more than just strategic military position. The US was philosophically and ideologically anti-communist, so our government's support and recognition of Taiwan was based mainly on that principle.

Yes which I covered already.

The US reversal on that policy indicated that our government wasn't really as anti-communist as they wanted people to believe; they were simply anti-Soviet (or anti-Russian, perhaps).

They saw a way to further the divide between two national forms of communism. Standard divide and conquer strategy. China turned to Capitalism and thrived with the USSR collapsed.

At this point, both China and the US seem content to maintain the status quo in regards to Taiwan, but if a US leader wanted to stick a serious weed up China's backside, we could reverse that policy again, back to the way it was in the 50s and 60s.

The "battleground" has shifted to the South China Sea. Ergo the USN sailing down the South China Sea essentially giving China the bird. The government legitimacy issue died not only due to Nixon but Taiwan and China itself. There are still territorial issues not directly involving the Chinese Civil War

That is, if they really were dedicated to the principles of anti-communism, they would do that.

How much of China is still actually communist? The economy sure isn't.

The fact that they don't would indicate that our foreign policy is not quite so principled (or based on any particular moral code) as our leaders would claim it to be.

I think the only principle in foreign policy when it comes to the USA is the often vague "national interest"

You were talking about how some products (such as low grade plastics) were not feasible in America due to minimum wage, unions, and a lack of robotics. You also said the environment that China provides for manufacturing no longer exists in Western nations. China has a captive workforce which will work for whatever meager wages the government tells them to accept.

So? This is a detraction regarding the methods not my point regarding working and economic environments.

Essentially, China is selling its own people as exploited labor so Western companies can profit and grow rich (although some highly-placed Chinese are making out pretty well, too). That appears to be a betrayal of the communist ideals they once supported, and it creates a perception in the West that "China isn't really communist anymore," except in name only. A few others might still maintain that China remains very much communist and that their current policies are part of a grander strategy to trap the Western capitalists and dupe them by beating them at their own game.

Seems like the standard result due the application of communism in reality instead of paper

In any case, it seems clear that Western leaders and other ideologues have no real business clinging to their supposed "anti-communist" principles, since they've already sold out decades ago.

I doubt we could really call them ideologues of an anti-communist bend any longer if they sold out. So just liars from a different ideology be it crony capitalism, corporatism, etc. From a rhetoric side I do agree the previous is taken into account.

That's why few people actually care what the Chinese government is doing in terms of its treatment of ethnic/religious minorities in their country. But our policies are clearly hypocritical when looking at how our government responds to other governments, either because they're communist (i.e. Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea) or even with non-communist governments which we oppose due to alleged human rights violations (i.e. Russia, Iran, Syria, etc.).

Politicians do not care as the issues are not those of the voters. This provides wide latitude in policy which in turns leads to "selling out" as discussed previously.