[Potemkin]

That's the opposite of what I said.

No, it's exactly what you said. You seem to think the loss of China to the Communist sphere of influence was so inevitable that you even deny that you ever had China in the first place, contrary to all the evidence. It's the Whig theory of history on steroids, and in reverse.

[Rancid]

No, it's exactly what you said. You seem to think the loss of China to the Communist sphere of influence was so inevitable that you even deny that you ever had China in the first place, contrary to all the evidence. It's the Whig theory of history on steroids, and in reverse.

Everything is the way it is, because it has to have happened. clearly.

This sort of thinking is certainly dangerous.

[ckaihatsu]

Everything is the way it is, because it has to have happened. clearly.

This sort of thinking is certainly dangerous.

I've been hearing the saying 'Everything happens for a reason' for *decades* now, and I've always taken it to be a business-positivism kind of vibe. I learned only *recently* that it's actually a religious-mechanistic-determinism kind of thing -- so that presumbly *everything that happens* is 'meaningful', 'spiritually', apparently.

[Unthinking Majority]

The US is the planet's single greatest danger.

China has almost twice the GHG emissions as the US. It has 1.4 billion people.

The US has many more nukes, but China has nukes also, as does Russia who have the most.

The US military has 1.4 million soldiers, China has 2.8 million, and many more who can be potentially trained.

China has a totalitarian government.

Let's assume the most powerful country is always the most dangerous, so the US is it.

[Pants-of-dog]

China has almost twice the GHG emissions as the US. It has 1.4 billion people.

Yes, China’s emissions per capita are significantly lower than many other countries.

The US has many more nukes, but China has nukes also, as does Russia who have the most.

The USAhas actually used nukes in war.

The US military has 1.4 million soldiers, China has 2.8 million, and many more who can be potentially trained.

The USA has been involved in almost constant war since 1776.

China has a totalitarian government.

I doubt China would fit the definition of totalitarian. Perhaps “authoritarian”.

The US is arguably also authoritarian.

Let's assume the most powerful country is always the most dangerous, so the US is it.

There is that, too.

[Fasces]

China, unlike the US, has a no-first-strike policy on its nuclear arsenal and maintains a defensive nuclear posture that is incapable of launching a first strike. This is something the US should do, also.

Unfortunately, it will not. Because the US State Department is fearful, unwilling to tolerate any perceived risk, and pursuing a dangerous strategy of global primacy.

The US reminds me of a friend of my parents. He was an older guy, in his 50s, who was staunchly pro-2A and had a CCW. He would carry a pistol everywhere. My parents once requested he don't bring it to Thanksgiving, since there would be many children and elderly people present from Spain, who would be intimidated by the gun. He refused to not bring it. When asked to leave it in the car, he just left. What on Earth was he afraid of? Why did he need the gun? He lived, and we lived, in one of the safest neihgborhoods in the country. Why did he cling to it even when he told it made people uncomfortable?

The US is that insanity on a global scale.

[Potemkin]

Everything is the way it is, because it has to have happened. clearly.

This sort of thinking is certainly dangerous.

In my opinion, it’s the same sort of ‘logic’ which led Calvin to his theory of predestination - that the wicked were fated to end in hell and the good in heaven even before they were born. After all, God is omniscient, and must therefore know the future just as well as He knows the past. He must therefore know who will end up in hell and who will go to heaven from the beginning of time. Nothing can be a surprise to God. And so, a few centuries later, we end up with Protestant societies in which the ‘Elect of God’ are a bunch of smug assholes who think that the fact they were born into a wealthy family is a sign that God has blessed them. After all, God must have known they would be the Elect of God before they were born, and decided to reward them ahead of time. In other words, we end up with a parody of Christianity, just as @late’s ideas are a parody of history.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yes, China’s emissions per capita are significantly lower than many other countries.

The environment doesn't care about per capita.

The USA has been involved in almost constant war since 1776.

China has also been at war since then. It's also been at war with its own people and the territories it considers its own people since WWII (Mao). China has total rule and subservience over its own people, it's an evil empire and is now projecting its power and control more outwardly, as Canadians have recently been reminded: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... in-trudeau

You're literally defending a regime that wants to take control of your own country like it has its own people. The CCP literally has police stations in Canadian cities that it uses to intimidate Chinese-Canadians just like it does in China. They arre imperialists no different than the USA. One can argue the USA is also an evil empire, but the potential for more evil is on the CCP because there are no checks on its power, unlike in the US whose politicians are funded by the bourgeoisie but whose government is elected by the proletariat, ironically. The CCP is run and funded by the bourgeoisie in totality. You communists never learn. You and @Fasces are Maoists and CCP apologists and are the enemy of the free world.

I doubt China would fit the definition of totalitarian. Perhaps “authoritarian”.

How?

"Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual and group opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high if not complete degree of control and regulation over public and private life."

The US is arguably also authoritarian.

I've never heard a political scientist argue this. Trump tried to go authoritarian, but he was booted by democracy, the courts rejected his false claims, and the Jan 6 rioters went to jail. The system worked, unless you think Joe Biden is a dictator.

[Potemkin]

I've been hearing the saying 'Everything happens for a reason' for *decades* now, and I've always taken it to be a business-positivism kind of vibe. I learned only *recently* that it's actually a religious-mechanistic-determinism kind of thing -- so that presumbly *everything that happens* is 'meaningful', 'spiritually', apparently.

Most things in our ‘secular’ thinking had a religious origin, @ckaihatsu. For example, even what we call ‘literary criticism’ began as commentaries on and exegesis of religious texts. It was religion which first taught us to pay close attention to written texts, and has influenced how all sorts of texts actually get written. And the very concept that some historical event or social trend has ‘meaning’ is derived from the idea of God’s Plan for the world unfolding in historical time….

[Fasces]

You and @Fasces are Maoists and CCP apologists and are the enemy of the free world.

So literally nothing to say to defend US first-strike policy then, except that "WhAtAbOuT ChInA? ChInA wOuLd bE wOrSe"?

[Pants-of-dog]

The environment doesn't care about per capita.

We should, though.

If other countries can provide a standard of living that is equal to or greater than ours while using significantly less resources and creating far less pollution per person living at said standard, we should seek to emulate them. Those of us in Canada are actually far worse than the US and China.

China has also been at war since then.

I so not think that is true.

It's also been at war with its own people and the territories it considers its own people since WWII (Mao).

Like the way the US and Canada have been using military and police force against or own Indigenous people?

China has total rule and subservience over its own people, it's an evil empire and is now projecting its power and control more outwardly, as Canadians have recently been reminded: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... in-trudeau

This seems more like emotional language than an objective comparison as to which country is more dangerous.

You're literally defending a regime that wants to take control of your own country like it has its own people. The CCP literally has police stations in Canadian cities that it uses to intimidate Chinese-Canadians just like it does in China. They arre imperialists no different than the USA. One can argue the USA is also an evil empire, but the potential for more evil is on the CCP because there are no checks on its power, unlike in the US whose politicians are funded by the bourgeoisie but whose government is elected by the proletariat, ironically. The CCP is run and funded by the bourgeoisie in totality. You communists never learn. You and @Fasces are Maoists and CCP apologists and are the enemy of the free world.

No, I am not defending China at all.

I just think that the USA is more dangerous.

And I disagree that the USA has checks on its power. Even when it is blatant that the USA is going to war simply for oil and power, the populace meekly accepts it or supports it wholeheartedly.

How?

"Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual and group opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high if not complete degree of control and regulation over public and private life."

Because I do not think that the government of China is able to have that much control, even if we assume that the Chinese are all evil and inscrutable and whatnot.

I've never heard a political scientist argue this. Trump tried to go authoritarian, but he was booted by democracy, the courts rejected his false claims, and the Jan 6 rioters went to jail. The system worked, unless you think Joe Biden is a dictator.

I think the level of authoritarianism in the USA is linked to things like skin colour, indigenous background, mental health, poverty, and several other factors. Rich white people can hold the government and police accountable. Some poor black trans person with neurological issues would have far less ability to hold the system accountable if their human rights were ignored.

[Fasces]

Most of China's border disputes on land have been solved. The ones that haven't prohibit soldiers from wielding weapons.

The ones at sea would be resolved if we applied US treaties to the ROC to apply to the PRC. Others have been resolved - most recently, one with Vietnam. The dispute again comes from US fear - creating territorial disputes which have been legally resolved if only the ROC were still around.

[late]

No, it's exactly what you said. You seem to think the loss of China to the Communist sphere of influence was so inevitable that you even deny that you ever had China in the first place, contrary to all the evidence. It's the Whig theory of history on steroids, and in reverse.

History ain't fantasy.

What we have learned in the intervening years, is that Mao had gained the support of the people. Conversely, Chiang had lost that support.

"© Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2016 1
Why Did the Communists Win the Chinese Revolution?
From 1911 to 1945, China experienced a revolution, a
struggle against warlords, a civil war between the
Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-Shek and the
Communists led by Mao Zedong, and invasion by the
Japanese. After the defeat of the Japanese in World
War II in 1945, a full-blown civil war erupted again in
1946. The Nationalists were backed by the United
States and the Communists had support from the
Soviet Union. By 1949, Chiang and the Nationalists,
despite having more soldiers than the Communists,
were defeated and forced to evacuate the Chinese
mainland for the island of Taiwan.

...Historians point to a number of factors for the
nationalists defeat...

Chiang’s Kuomintang government was filled with
incompetent and corrupt officials. The people especially hated the tax collectors, who
were commonly called “blood-sucking devils.” Chiang himself held dictatorial powers,
but his orders were often ignored. He had little success in rallying Chinese nationalism
to win an unpopular war against the Communists.
Chiang’s decision to go to war against the Communists in 1946 came at the cost of
postponing the economic reconstruction of China. This meant diverting tax revenues,
investment, and other resources to the war effort rather than to the needs of the people.
Heavy taxes, a huge government debt, inflation, unemployment, and food shortages
caused many, especially in the cities, to lose faith in the Nationalist government.
Economic discontent in the cities led to thousands of labor strikes. Students, newspaper
editors, and intellectuals protested against Chiang’s Nationalist government. They
demanded an end to the civil war and the creation of a government that included the
Communists. The Nationalists responded with censorship, beatings, mass arrests, and
even assassinations. This repression drove many to the Communist cause.

Chiang’s army had more soldiers than Mao’s, but it was poorly led. Chiang’s military
was not coordinated by a central command. Generals tended to head independent
armies and even competed with one another for food and ammunition. Many officers
were corrupt, sometimes selling for personal profit the rice intended for their troops.
Chiang’s military supply system was inadequate, unreliable, and crippled by corruption.

More important, few
volunteered to join Chiang’s
armies. Most soldiers were
drafted against their will or
even kidnapped by army
“recruiting squads.” Soldiers
were poorly trained, clothed,
and fed. Officers enforced
discipline by beating them.
Some were roped together on
marches to prevent them
from deserting."

More at the link:

https://www.crf-usa.org/images/t2t/pdf/ ... lution.pdf

[Potemkin]

History ain't fantasy.

What we have learned in the intervening years, is that Mao had gained the support of the people. Conversely, Chiang had lost that support.

"© Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2016 1
Why Did the Communists Win the Chinese Revolution?
From 1911 to 1945, China experienced a revolution, a
struggle against warlords, a civil war between the
Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-Shek and the
Communists led by Mao Zedong, and invasion by the
Japanese. After the defeat of the Japanese in World
War II in 1945, a full-blown civil war erupted again in
1946. The Nationalists were backed by the United
States and the Communists had support from the
Soviet Union. By 1949, Chiang and the Nationalists,
despite having more soldiers than the Communists,
were defeated and forced to evacuate the Chinese
mainland for the island of Taiwan.

...Historians point to a number of factors for the
nationalists defeat...

Chiang’s Kuomintang government was filled with
incompetent and corrupt officials. The people especially hated the tax collectors, who
were commonly called “blood-sucking devils.” Chiang himself held dictatorial powers,
but his orders were often ignored. He had little success in rallying Chinese nationalism
to win an unpopular war against the Communists.
Chiang’s decision to go to war against the Communists in 1946 came at the cost of
postponing the economic reconstruction of China. This meant diverting tax revenues,
investment, and other resources to the war effort rather than to the needs of the people.
Heavy taxes, a huge government debt, inflation, unemployment, and food shortages
caused many, especially in the cities, to lose faith in the Nationalist government.
Economic discontent in the cities led to thousands of labor strikes. Students, newspaper
editors, and intellectuals protested against Chiang’s Nationalist government. They
demanded an end to the civil war and the creation of a government that included the
Communists. The Nationalists responded with censorship, beatings, mass arrests, and
even assassinations. This repression drove many to the Communist cause.

Chiang’s army had more soldiers than Mao’s, but it was poorly led. Chiang’s military
was not coordinated by a central command. Generals tended to head independent
armies and even competed with one another for food and ammunition. Many officers
were corrupt, sometimes selling for personal profit the rice intended for their troops.
Chiang’s military supply system was inadequate, unreliable, and crippled by corruption.

More important, few
volunteered to join Chiang’s
armies. Most soldiers were
drafted against their will or
even kidnapped by army
“recruiting squads.” Soldiers
were poorly trained, clothed,
and fed. Officers enforced
discipline by beating them.
Some were roped together on
marches to prevent them
from deserting."

More at the link:

https://www.crf-usa.org/images/t2t/pdf/ ... lution.pdf

None of which makes the Communist victory historically inevitable. This is just the Whig theory of history, applied in reverse while swallowing handfuls of steroid pills. Looking at history in retrospect gives a distorted view. It begins to seem as though everything in history inevitably and logically led to us in this present moment. I assure you, it didn’t.

[ckaihatsu]

The CCP is run and funded by the bourgeoisie in totality.

The bourgeoisie in any country is socially organized according to *capital* -- a bureaucracy *isn't*. A bureaucracy / corporation / household is organized / held-together *socio-politically*, not economically (though economics is a major aspect as well of course).

(I'd say note the 'political capital' (blue), and 'economic capital' (green) components in the following illustration.)


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show

---

I've never heard a political scientist argue this. Trump tried to go authoritarian, but he was booted by democracy, the courts rejected his false claims, and the Jan 6 rioters went to jail. The system worked, unless you think Joe Biden is a dictator.

Would you concur that the world is generally *elitist* -- ? Is there currently a chasm of income inequality?

Could you even go as far as to say that the world is *plutocratic* -- that's it's more-or-less the running of the world by the wealthy. In *this* sense 'the system worked', as you put it.

[late]

None of which makes the Communist victory historically inevitable. This is just the Whig theory of history, applied in reverse while swallowing handfuls of steroid pills. Looking at history in retrospect gives a distorted view. It begins to seem as though everything in history inevitably and logically led to us in this present moment. I assure you, it didn’t.

Repeating doesn't improve wrong..

We had a similar problem in Vietnam, we used vast sums of money and hundreds of thousands of our men, to no avail.

Corruption can become like cancer, silent, but deadly. While you can't say a historical event was inevitable, facts can get you close.

If you want to continue this tedious nonsense, please consult actual history. That takes some effort, since the relevant works and journal articles will be found at university.

Btw, historically, the people that argued we "lost" China are hard Right losers like Bluto. For me, this is a very, very old argument.

[ckaihatsu]

Most things in our ‘secular’ thinking had a religious origin, @ckaihatsu. For example, even what we call ‘literary criticism’ began as commentaries on and exegesis of religious texts. It was religion which first taught us to pay close attention to written texts, and has influenced how all sorts of texts actually get written. And the very concept that some historical event or social trend has ‘meaning’ is derived from the idea of God’s Plan for the world unfolding in historical time….

Yes, good historical point.

On the *other* hand, invoking the light frothy effervescence / professional-political-marketing that *is* class-rule 'civilization' and *culture* (such as they are), one could readily make the argument that *anyone*, educated or not, could tell their own asshole from a hole in the ground, etc. Reasoning ability *exists*, in other words, even without the use of language -- though language and conceptual framing do *help*, if used, of course.

Obviously literary criticism goes back to ancient Greece, but the whole Western tradition is based on *idealism*, unfortunately, which is *elitist*, because not everyone throughout history has been able to afford the luxury of self-absorbed *bullshit*, basically.

(You're welcome, Qatzel.) (grin)

[ckaihatsu]

idealism

I'd like to add that much of my personal motivation for *making* all of those diagrams over the years has been to place social-science-type terrain on a solid *materialist* footing, *since* the Western tradition is so idealist / dualist.


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show

[Potemkin]

Yes, good historical point.

Indeed it is, which is why I made it.

On the *other* hand, invoking the light frothy effervescence / professional-political-marketing that *is* class-rule 'civilization' and *culture* (such as they are), one could readily make the argument that *anyone*, educated or not, could tell their own asshole from a hole in the ground, etc. Reasoning ability *exists*, in other words, even without the use of language -- though language and conceptual framing do *help*, if used, of course.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. But maybe that’s the point.

Obviously literary criticism goes back to ancient Greece

Not really. Homer’s work was given close attention, and dredged for ‘meanings’, but both the Iliad and the Odyssey were regarded as primarily religious texts rather than literary creations. The kind of exegesis to which novels, plays or poems are subjected nowadays was unknown in ancient times. Only religious texts were given that treatment.

[ckaihatsu]

Indeed it is, which is why I made it.


Not sure what you’re trying to say here. But maybe that’s the point.


Not really. Homer’s work was given close attention, and dredged for ‘meanings’, but both the Iliad and the Odyssey were regarded as primarily religious texts rather than literary creations. The kind of exegesis to which novels, plays or poems are subjected nowadays was unknown in ancient times. Only religious texts were given that treatment.

Okay, interesting.

I had *this* kind of thing more in mind:

dialogues, in which Socrates and his interlocutors examine a subject in the style of question and answer; they gave rise to the Socratic dialogue literary genre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates