[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, capitalism is often enforced at gunpoint.

I can think of many examples. Mostly right wing dictatorships in the Latin America.

[B0ycey]

So that is what you tell yourself when you are shooting people?

So you're not going to quote then?

OK.

So you think we should just let the commies do the same shit all over again, another holodomor, more purges, another killing fields, another "great leap forward"?

Serious question why would any sane person let you get within an inch or doing all that stuff again?

What do you think the opinion of Mao is in China? Perhaps he wasn't a very good argculturist. Perhaps he was unlucky with drought. But he isn't actually disregarded in China as he is in the West. He is considered the father of China. Not that I advocate Mao of course. He had his unethical policies like all dictator's. But the current state of China and their economic emergence is not to be undermined. And he was indeed a piece or that success whether you wish it was false or not.

[SolarCross]

And he was indeed a piece or that success whether you wish it was false or not.

No he wasn't, if any "Great Man" should get that credit it should be Deng Xiou Ping. Also China is playing catchup they are backward compared with all their non-communist neighbours until very recently. Maoism was disaster for them, there was no upside.

[Crantag]

Private ownership for profit. Not that I froth at the mouth of it. But is it fair that a bourgeois profits on the surplus labor of his workers because he happened to inherit a factory? Or would it be better that factory was owned by the state and you only work the labor you require for neccesity and not to make a profit? This is a debatable question actually. Because Communism promotes fairness, but Capitalism promotes improvement. Nonetheless Communism isn't evil. And that is been my point all the time.

None of the above.

An ideal situation is that the workers own the factories. At least some factories.

This condition is absent, by design.

Moreover, people don't inherit a factory so often anymore. That was what happened in the 19th century.

People inherit trust funds, with diversified portfolios, which enable them to live of rentier income.

If you inherit $10,000,000, and earn a very measly 3.6 percent (due to gross mismanagement--to earn so low), you'll take home $1,000 a day, in compounding interest, from the day you are born.

Most measly folk experience compound interest through debt, so things go the other way.

The system is somewhat unchanged in terms of rentier incomes--you could say it is a regressive system which has gone back to a rentier system--but you should update you talking points a little. The economic system is what has changed, really. The technical facilities have advanced. Much has stayed the same though, in terms of ends (or much has regressed to a prior mode, with respect to ends, i.e. in terms of rentiers).

[B0ycey]

No he wasn't, if any "Great Man" should get that credit it should be Deng Xiou Ping. Also China is playing catchup they are backward compared with all their non-communist neighbours until very recently. Maoism was disaster for them, there was no upside.

Maoism thought is one of the four cardinal principles, just thought I'd let you know.

[SolarCross]

Maoism thought is one of the four cardinal principles, just thought I'd let you know.

The four cardinal principles are just worthless pseudo-religious dogmatic garbage, just thought I'd let you know.

You are really going for maximum retardation aren't you?

[B0ycey]

The four cardinal principles are just worthless pseudo-religious dogmatic garbage, just thought I'd let you know.

You are really going for maximum retardation aren't you?

Well it is political dogma rather than religious. But it isn't my retardation but China's I might add. I suspect they don't agree with you. Although it will be interesting to see in a few decades time China emerging above America in terms of economic superpowers and a so called Communist state (although more socialist) being politically dominant in terms of global affairs. I doubt it will be as bloody as imperialism actually. So perhaps your assumptions will be unfounded.

[Rancid]

I doubt it will be as bloody as imperialism actually.

Why do you think this? Also, in what sense do you mean by bloody? Do you mean wars in general, or bloodshed caused by instability wrought on various parts of the world?

TO me, it's going to be more of a "same shit, different asshole" situation.

[SolarCross]

Well it is political dogma rather than religious. But it isn't my retardation but China's I might add. I suspect they don't agree with you. Although it will be interesting to see in a few decades time China emerging above America in terms of economic superpowers and a so called Communist state (although more socialist) being politically dominant in terms of global affairs. I doubt it will be as bloody as imperialism actually. So perhaps your assumptions will be unfounded.

On the contrary: the best chance for an ascendant china being even a fraction as mild as European Imperialism will be if they dump communism and reboot Confucianism or Buddhism or something. Communism is predicated only on brutality and slavery, there is zero respect for human beings in communism. Deng Xiou Ping partially normalised China's economics but spiritually he didn't change a thing, it's the same brutalist cult it always was.

[B0ycey]

Why do you think this? Also, in what sense do you mean by bloody? Do you mean wars in general, or bloodshed caused by instability wrought on various parts of the world?

TO me, it's going to be more of a "same shit, different asshole" situation.

Bloody, I meant in terms of wars.

But sorry Rancid. America is run by the Carbal and corporations. China is more interested in internal affairs. They are not likely to destabilise the ME say when they have the funds to just buy whatever they like already. They don't need to please their parties bankrollers either. They are a one party state after all.

[B0ycey]

On the contrary: the best chance for an ascendant china being even a fraction as mild as European Imperialism...

European Imperialism was mild!!

[Rancid]

Bloody, I meant in terms of wars.

This is a general truth and trend already. Fewer people are dying in conflicts today, than just about any other time in history. We are in the most peaceful times in all of human history.

Here's a great video illustrating the point.
[youtube]NbuUW9i-mHs[/youtube]

But sorry Rancid. America is run by the Carbal and corporations. China is more interested in internal affairs. They are not likely to destabilise the ME say when they have the funds to just buy whatever they like already. They don't need to please their parties bankrollers either. They are a one party state after all.

To say China is only interested in internal affairs is complete bullshit. Whey are they claiming large swaths of the South China Sea? Why do they have active military bases in Africa? Why are they buying off regimes in Latin America? What about their plans to take Taiwan eventually? How about the potential for conflict with Russia over Siberia? This sure sounds like international affairs to me.

No nation that is a power can only focus on internal affairs. This is impossible. Eventually, these international affairs get tangled and complicated, which will results in bloodshed. It always does.



What are you smoking?

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross is not aware that European imperialism is still killing people.

[SolarCross]

European Imperialism was mild!!

Compared to the others (including communist imperialism) yeah really mild, because they were substantially Christian empires (Spanish, French, British, German whatever else they had Christianity in common), the actors have some sort of conception that human life is intrinsically valuable in some way and they had an ideal of human behaviour drawn from the example of Jesus Christ, who whatever else you might say about him wasn't a brutalist warlord.

Empires are made by soldierly people, being hard-hearted goes with that, brutality goes with that, but the Europeans were also Christians in the main so even the soldiers have this other example of Jesus Christ to live by and that softened their conduct in practice. The chinese could have that softness with Confucianism or Buddhism or Taoism or even Christianity which is increasingly popular there, but there is nothing in communism that can provide a counter to the brutalist example.

[Rancid]

We need more anti-corruption sweeps.

[B0ycey]

No nation that is a power can only focus on internal affairs. This is impossible. Eventually, these international affairs get tangled and complicated, which will results in bloodshed. It always does.

Until the future materialises, its outcome is merely hearsay. But Americas current foreign policy is clear for anyone to see.

I suspect the size of China and its wealth is the reason I doubt they will undertake global domination actually. They have the wealth to not start wars and they have nearly two billion people to control also. Romans collapse was in my opinion due to over expansion. China would suffer the same problems if they did likewise I suspect. Not to mention the fact America can't even control all of Afghanistan. Would China not learn from Americas mistakes?

[Pants-of-dog]

Compared to the others (including communist imperialism) yeah really mild, because they were substantially Christian empires (Spanish, French, British, German whatever else they had Christianity in common), the actors have some sort of conception that human life is intrinsically valuable in some way and they had an ideal of human behaviour drawn from the example of Jesus Christ, who whatever else you might say about him wasn't a brutalist warlord.

I can think of several examples of Christian oppression.

Residential schools here in Canada are a good example. Forced conversions, such as the Goa Inquisition, are another.

Empires are made by soldierly people, being hard-hearted goes with that, brutality goes with that, but the Europeans were also Christians in the main so even the soldiers have this other example of Jesus Christ to live by and that softened their conduct in practice. The chinese could have that softness with Confucianism or Buddhism or Taoism or even Christianity which is increasingly popular there, but there is nothing in communism that can provide a counter to the brutalist example.

You are committing the logical fallacy of thinking that something is good because the originator of this thing is good.

You are also using the word “Brutalist” incorrectly. It is an art/architecture movement popularised by Le Corbusier.

[SolarCross]

I can think of several examples of Christian oppression.

Residential schools here in Canada are a good example. Forced conversions, such as the Goa Inquisition, are another.

If that is all you can come up with then you prove my point.

You are committing the logical fallacy of thinking that something is good because the originator of this thing is good.

You are also using the word “Brutalist” incorrectly. It is an art/architecture movement popularised by Le Corbusier.

by brutalist I mean a belief in brutality as a good in itself or just a nihilist embrace of brutality as the true reality. Maybe there is a better word for that than brutalist but brutalist will do for now.

[Pants-of-dog]

If that is all you can come up with then you prove my point.

Really? The fact that I can think of two examples off the top of my head (that means “without needing to look up or otherwise research”) that disprove your claim somehow magically proves your claim?

The Albigensian Crusade is another example. So is the Transatlantic slavery trade.

There are many examples throughout history. The evidence is strong for the argument that Christianity and its associated imperialism were not mild, by any means.

Your only argument for Christian mildness seems to be a logical fallacy. It is called the genetic fallacy, by the way. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy)

by brutalist I mean a belief in brutality as a good in itself or just a nihilist embrace of brutality as the true reality. Maybe there is a better word for that than brutalist but brutalist will do for now.

Yes, we are aware of how you were using the word incorrectly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

[Rancid]

Until the future materialises, its outcome is merely heresay. But Americas current foreign policy is clear for anyone to see.

We are intentionally speculating about the future of China. That's kind of the point. To me, America is largely irrelevant in this discussion.

I suspect the size of China and wealth is really the reason I doubt they will undertake global domination actually. They have the wealth to not start wars too. They have nearly two billion people to control also. Romans collapse was in my opinion was due to over expansion. China would suffer the same problems I suspect. Not to mention the fact America can't even control all of Afghanistan.

Perhaps, I won't deny this, but this is just hearsay as well.

Would China not learn from Americas mistakes?

There are always new mistakes to be made. They are a different culture, the global culture is changing, the global economy will be different, they have a different system, etc. etc. Overall, circumstances will be different. With different and changing global circumstances, comes room of new kinds of mistakes. The old lessons learned from America, will likely not apply and be largely irrelevant to the future.


Anyway, my grand prediction is this, which is not too different from yours:
- China will certainly become the sole global hyper-power on the planet.
- They will get involved in international affairs just as much as any power before it did. As always, there will be winners and losers, with China being on the wining side most of the time.
- This sounds harsh, but the amount of people killed in conflicts directly or indirectly connected to China won't really matter in all of this. Just as it doesn't matter all that much today.
- China will continue to lift the standard of living in China, and lift millions out of poverty as they are already doing.
- They will massively influence global pop culture through investment (they are already doing this), which could have some influence on other nations as well.

However, every gravy train comes to an end. I think the gravy train will end sometime well after my death though. Here are some of the factors I think will end that train.

Cultural change at the family level:
Basically, the one party authoritative system works well in China because that's how the family unit in China works. The family in China is very hierarchical (I see it at play with my wife and her parents all the time, I see it at play with all the Chinese folks I work with). Basically, Chinese citizens are groomed to respect (family) authority from birth. The government itself, uses "Communism" to position itself as parental figure in everyone's life (hence this is why Xi Jingpin's Communist party nationalist rhetoric works so well). Creating this sort of national culture makes it easier to keep Chinese citizens in line. When you are use to obeying your family unit, it becomes easier to obey your extended family (the government).

That said, I see this strong family culture weakening in the long (way long) term. The Chinese at home will become more individualist (relatively speaking). Newer generations will want to cast off old ways, and go out on their own as they start becoming more wealthy, travel the world, and get exposed to outside cultures. This erosion of the traditional family culture will lead to more people questioning the government itself which is just another parental figure to rebel against in their lives.

A similar thing happened in India very rapidly in the past few generations. India traditionally also has had a strong family hierarchical system. Once India started to liberalize their economically in the 90s. YOu can clearly see a difference between young and old in India. With younger Indians being much more individualistic, and much more questioning of their government. With this change, came less adherence to traditional family power structures. I know many Indians that simply opted out of an arranged marriage. The culture has shifted to question traditional family and government structures more and more. I think similar will happen in China, but much more slowly, since the economy in China is just doing so well.

As Chinese get wealthier, they will want more freedom:
1/3 of wealthy Chinese would leave China for the US, UK, Canada, etc. etc. if they had the chance:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/more-than-a-third-of-chinese-millionaires-want-to-leave-china.html
Why? Because they travel to the west for business and see the relative freedom we have. They like it. I personally know many Chinese that have green cards and never intend to go back to China. No matter how good things are there. The more freedom in the west, is just that much more valuable to them.

Once the crazy growth economy slows, the Communism party will die a slow death:
The kind of growth China sees year to year will slow. It's just not possible do keep this up indefinitely. This will start to limit how much and where they can invest their money. For example, they are currently lifting millions of people out of poverty yearly. They are creating jobs for people, etc. These are all benefits paid to the people from the coffers of the government. However, once the economic prosperity slows, they will not be able to pay out so many benefits. When this happens, people will start to demand freedom in place of tangible government benefits. People will start to challenge the government, and want to reform it. Let's hope it doesn't devolve into a civil war though.

Notice I didn't talk about the US above, that's because they are irrelevant in this future.