Pro-China bias?

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

In traditional Marxism, the people's revolution was I think supposed to arise naturally in an inevitable historical process out of the will of the people, or the working class. I think this is what happened within Russia and China when Communist parties initially came to power, i.e. it was the organization of Russian and Chinese peoples that brought about the regime change within their own countries.

In the case of Tibet in the 1950s though, the movement to reorganize the society on communist principles did not come from the Tibetan people, but from the People's Liberation Army of China coming in to liberate the people on their behalf. This is I think comparable to the West bringing "democracy" to other countries like Iraq, supposedly "for their own good", at the point of a gun.

 

[hlat]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

It's disturbing to me that after what happened in Kiev last year, you still think the Western perspective of China has any merit.

I'm not sure what I have said specifically triggered this response. I have a Western perspective of China? Maybe a lot of this conversation has been you responding to previous conversations with other people.

It's fine if you want to talk about realpolitik and geopolitics. But that's not what I've been trying to get at.

The only question is, does the elite, or solitary leader, at any given time genuinely try to do what is best for all? It's rare, but it can and does happen.

This is the heart of the matter. No, I do not think the current Chinese government is genuinely trying to do what is best for all. Let's have a look at this regime since 1949. There have been very bad things, like the Cultural Revolution. The butcher Mao still has his face hanging above Tiananmen Square and the propaganda lives how great he was. If you are look a regular Chinese person standing on the street and take a picture of Zhongnanhai, bad things will likely happen to you (rough equivalent of taking a picture of the White House).

 

[Siberia]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Such position is convenient: when you label an imperfect government as psychopathic, you free yourself from making a conscious choice. This means avoiding responsibility. It is always easier to criticize any government than support the better one for the sake of the world's stability and development.

This world view is often popular among students: they have already read many books, but yet unable to think and act as statesmen. And so they go to the streets and honestly protest against some "injustice," while their "opposition" leaders are only following their own personal agendas.

That doesn't mean that Tibet shouldn't care about preserving their culture and ethnos. But the current Chinese policy towards the neighbouring Tibet is incomparable to the US policy towards nearly all other nations worldwide. Tens of thousands of people died of war crimes in 2014 only. Most of those war crimes were committed by the US proxies.

Comparing the current Tibet freedom movements and the US-sponsored mass bloodshed all around the globe is like complaining about a toe corn amidst Ebola outbreak, imo. When the world is burning in dozens regional wars and is one step from WW3, people make their choice towards incomparably more peaceful policy. OSIT

 

[Niall]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I'm not sure what I have said specifically triggered this response. I have a Western perspective of China? Maybe a lot of this conversation has been you responding to previous conversations with other people.

Maybe. And maybe that's not it at all. Maybe the "triggered response " here stems from an "invested position" of maintaining the illusion that 'the West is the best', despite all indicators to the contrary.

No, I do not think the current Chinese government is genuinely trying to do what is best for all. Let's have a look at this regime since 1949...

Hang on a minute, I thought you were going to back up your contention that the current Chinese government isn't trying to play fair!?

There have been very bad things, like the Cultural Revolution. The butcher Mao still has his face hanging above Tiananmen Square and the propaganda lives how great he was. If you are look a regular Chinese person standing on the street and take a picture of Zhongnanhai, bad things will likely happen to you (rough equivalent of taking a picture of the White House).

Bad men doing bad things, eh?

It's 2015, hlat, not 1949.

If you want to get historical, then you have to take the long, wide view. A selective view only fits into a particular perspective. In what context did Mao rise to power? What came before? What was going on in and around China at the time? What conditions existed in China?

This exercise isn't done with a view to justifying unspeakable crimes, but understanding them. You can't talk about Mao and the Cultural Revolution without talking about the Century of Humiliation and Western invasions.

And now, at the 'End of History', maybe the West is going down the tubes while China rises because the Chinese leadership is onto something about most people needing to:

1.) be put to hard work

2.) not be 'entitled to their opinions' because their opinions are not only not worth a damn, they contribute to the fragmentation of social cohesion

3.) have strong leaders who will discipline them as parents do a child

 

[Niall]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

"I am a staunch believer in democracy."

That right there tells you all you need to know about why the Chinese don't trust him! He's a useful idiot at best, a predator cloaked in ideology at worst.

What happens next is that Tibet is opened up for Western corporations to pillage and plunder, US military bases are installed, and more chaos 'magically' manifests in neighboring China. The net result is bad for Tibet, bad for China, and bad for the world as a whole.

When considering what's best for any given country or region, you have GOT to look at it from the same perspective the Western oligarchy does. It's not really about the country or regime in question; it's about the WHOLE PLANET, which they think they own as a matter of birthright - everything else is just 'management details'.

Here's a snippet from something I read last night:

A key aspect of Britain's policy towards the partition of India concerned the north Indian region of Kashmir, which London wanted annexed to Pakistan. [Preceding passages in this book explain how the creation of 'Pakistan' at this time was a purely British instrument for control of South Asia and the Middle East, and retaining "a little bit of India", as Winston Churchill put it.] Pakistan invaded and occupied Kashmir in October 1947, and throughout the ensuing border war with India, Britain maintained a strongly pro-Pakistan stance. The Commonwealth secretary noted, five days after Kashmir acceded to India in October, that "it would have been natural for Kashmir to eventually accede to Pakistan on agreed terms." At the UN, Britain lobbied in favor of Kashmir's becoming a Pakistani province, based on the argument that 77 percent of the population was Muslim. Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin told US Secretary of State George Marshall that "the main issue was who would control the main artery leading into Central Asia." Indeed, Pakistan was, as the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Hugh Dalton put it, central to Bevin's ambition to organize "the middle of the planet."

~ Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion With Radical Islam, by Mark Curtis

...and this was post-WW2 Britain, where the Labor government was the 'least imperial' the country had had in some 500 years of interfering in other countries' affairs! No matter; as far as the entrenched oligarchy behind it was concerned, 'We still own this planet'...

 

[Niall]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

In traditional Marxism, the people's revolution was I think supposed to arise naturally in an inevitable historical process out of the will of the people, or the working class. I think this is what happened within Russia and China when Communist parties initially came to power, i.e. it was the organization of Russian and Chinese peoples that brought about the regime change within their own countries.

So it was a democratic choice?!

I dunno about China, but that certainly wasn't the case in Russia. The people there loved their Tsar and only Wall Street and German money could bring the Bolsheviks to power.

Granted, there may be something to the fact that some form of Communism survived as long as it did in both countries... perhaps it's because Eastern peoples/cultures are more community-based than the individualist West?

In the case of Tibet in the 1950s though, the movement to reorganize the society on communist principles did not come from the Tibetan people, but from the People's Liberation Army of China coming in to liberate the people on their behalf. This is I think comparable to the West bringing "democracy" to other countries like Iraq, supposedly "for their own good", at the point of a gun.

Eh, no, it's not comparable. One absorbed its related neighbor; the other completely obliterated a foreign country/culture/civilization.

Leave well and good alone! Tibet is in China! Stop whispering sweet-nothings into their ears, especially when you see the fruits of those sweet-nothings in your own land: they lead to nihilism and collective spiritual suicide.

If you want to see some regime change, advocate for the break-up of the US or UK. Now THAT would make the world a better place.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

The Bolshevik revolution was anything but an organizing of the Russian people. This is a proven fact. It was a bloody mess besides that killed unimaginable number of Russians. Democracy?!! Despite the name, the Bolsheviks were a TINY minority! A diverse group of pathological types under the banner of revolutionaries. All financed and controlled from the financial and power centers of the West.

I'm really astounded that people who are members of this forum and community really think that the whole "democracy" shtick is not a TOTAL facade. Look over history. When has there EVER been a functioning democracy that wasn't or quickly became dominated by the familiar pathocratic oligarchic elites just as today. LOOK at the state of the general population of this planet!!! HOW can any of it inspire any confidence that they can make sound decisions about their own welfare and that of the whole planet?!!!! All I can say is - I am NOT Charlie!!!

 

[hlat]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

A reminder to myself and to all of patience, kindness, order, and knowledge.

Themes I have noticed in some responses:
Masses don't know what is best for them.
Masses should be denied what they want.
A benelovent philosopher king/council should decide what is best for masses.
Support the current Chinese government because: they are a geopolitical counter to Western hegemony; or the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

...China rises because the Chinese leadership is onto something about most people needing to:

1.) be put to hard work

2.) not be 'entitled to their opinions' because their opinions are not only not worth a damn, they contribute to the fragmentation of social cohesion

3.) have strong leaders who will discipline them as parents do a child

I do not wish to live in your utopian vision. I do not wish any government to put me to hard work, to censor me of my opinions, and to discipline me like a child. I work hard of my own choosing, I reach my opinions from experience and knowledge that most often are vastly superior to official governmental positions, and I try to do the right thing without the government telling me or threatening me with what they want me to do.

Do I have the right to control my body and family, or the government? Should the government tell me I can only have one child when I want more? What types of government actions and tactics are acceptable to enforce compliance with the one child policy? Forced inspections of my body? Forced insertion of devices? Forced abortions? Forced sterilizations? If you wish to ignore and disregard the past of CCP, fine; these questions are directed at the 2015 Chinese government.

Is it wise and just and prudent to put the Chinese people to hard work building ghost cities?

I am curious, whether someone living in mainland China can access Sott or the forum without resorting to methods to circumvent internet censorship? Is the mere fact that I have to ask the question a sign that something is amiss in Chinese governmental behavior?

an "invested position" of maintaining the illusion that 'the West is the best',

Again, you are making projections onto me. Since you wish to project this on me, I ask that you support your assertion with some quotes or some other evidence. If I have mistakenly attributed something to you, please call me out so that I can retrieve and discuss the quotes that led me to my mistakes.

 

[Esote]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

... the West is going down the tubes while China rises because the Chinese leadership is onto something about most people needing to:

1.) be put to hard work

2.) not be 'entitled to their opinions' because their opinions are not only not worth a damn, they contribute to the fragmentation of social cohesion

3.) have strong leaders who will discipline them as parents do a child

Wow ! Let me rephrase this :

The West will be destroyed while the 4th Reich (or whatever psychopathic power) will rise, whom leadership will be onto something about most people needing to:

1.) be put to hard work

2.) not be 'entitled to their opinions' because their opinions are not only not worth a damn, they contribute to the fragmentation of social cohesion

3.) have strong leaders who will discipline them as parents do a child

Frightening isn't it ? I can even hear the sound of martial boots !

Big Brother knows what's best to you !
At least it sounds like that.

Interesting thread. About the same could be discussed concerning Russia.

 

[Bobo08]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Themes I have noticed in some responses:
Masses don't know what is best for them.
Masses should be denied what they want.
A benelovent philosopher king/council should decide what is best for masses.

Maybe it's because those who responded know better about social/crowd psychology than the average people? Do you know anything about authoritarian followers who make up of 50% of the population? Have you read "The Crowd; study of the popular mind"?

 

[Siberia]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I do not wish to live in your utopian vision. I do not wish any government to put me to hard work, to censor me of my opinions, and to discipline me like a child. I work hard of my own choosing, I reach my opinions from experience and knowledge that most often are vastly superior to official governmental positions, and I try to do the right thing without the government telling me or threatening me with what they want me to do.

Quite interesting, if you do exactly what you describe: work hard at your own choosing, reach your opinions from experience and knowledge and try to do the right thing, you might find yourself exactly where a wise government would lead you otherwise. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same thing. If you are free and responsible at the same time, then you know where you should restrict yourself and where not.

Do I have the right to control my body and family, or the government? Should the government tell me I can only have one child when I want more? What types of government actions and tactics are acceptable to enforce compliance with the one child policy?

This is a MUST for China, if you are at least slightly aware of the demography science.

Is it wise and just and prudent to put the Chinese people to hard work building ghost cities?

If only all governments could build cities like China does.

I am curious, whether someone living in mainland China can access Sott or the forum without resorting to methods to circumvent internet censorship?

The internet censorship is applied in many countries at the times of threats to their security. China is no exception here.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

In traditional Marxism, the people's revolution was I think supposed to arise naturally in an inevitable historical process out of the will of the people, or the working class. I think this is what happened within Russia and China when Communist parties initially came to power, i.e. it was the organization of Russian and Chinese peoples that brought about the regime change within their own countries.

So it was a democratic choice?!

I dunno about China, but that certainly wasn't the case in Russia. The people there loved their Tsar and only Wall Street and German money could bring the Bolsheviks to power.

OK I take back what I said about how Communism came to power in Russia. I know very little Russian history.

The people there loved their Tsar and only Wall Street and German money could bring the Bolsheviks to power.

I think something similar could be said about Tibet pre-1950 - The people there loved their Buddhist Chief and only an armed invasion, brutal social re-education programs, Chinese money and a large influx of Han Chinese settlers could incorporate Tibet into the Chinese Motherland.

Regarding the increasing numbers of self-immolations in Tibet, I think the causes must be significant, since burning yourself to death is not something that comes easily or naturally to a person in normal circumstances. I think the causes are most likely to have a local origin, i.e. to be a feeling of increasing frustration by Tibetans that their culture is being suppressed and they are not finding social opportunities for a fulfilling life. I find it harder to believe that they would be taking the extreme step of self-immolating because of whisperings in their ear or some form of manipulation from covert US agitators.

The following quote is from an email today from the International Campaign for Tibet, the main US lobby group for Tibet. I agree this group's interests may be aligned with those of the US, but FWIW I think it has some interesting information, which I haven't independently verified, about Facebook aligning itself with the Communist Party of China over whether self-immolation "news" should be able to be posted:

On December 26, Tibetan writer and activist Tsering Woeser used her Facebook page to post a report and video of a Buddhist monk's self-immolation in Tibet. Sadly, since 2009, 136 Tibetans have chosen this form of protest to call for the attention of the outside world to end China’s repression in Tibet. Within hours, Facebook deleted the post because it allegedly violated the social media giant's “community standards”.

The existence of freedom of expression can be seriously assessed only when “controversial” issues, and in particular social and political events, are considered.

Whether or not one agrees with this form of protest is another matter, but clearly a public self-immolation is an inherently political action and although the images can be very graphic and disturbing, the decision to ban or delete such videos from Facebook is not purely a technical choice, but rather a very serious political decision that violates freedom of expression.

Additionally concerning was the timing of the video’s deletion- just a few weeks after the head of the Chinese internet censorship machine was welcomed at Facebook’s headquarters. During this visit Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg publicly praised a book of speeches by Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, stating that he bought the book for his colleagues, and saying “I want them to understand socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

In the case of Tibet in the 1950s though, the movement to reorganize the society on communist principles did not come from the Tibetan people, but from the People's Liberation Army of China coming in to liberate the people on their behalf. This is I think comparable to the West bringing "democracy" to other countries like Iraq, supposedly "for their own good", at the point of a gun.

Eh, no, it's not comparable. One absorbed its related neighbor; the other completely obliterated a foreign country/culture/civilization.

Tibet was geographically adjacent to China, but culturally distinct.

The Xinhai Revolution occurred under slogans of the fight against foreign invaders the Manchus, and restoring the Han state. The concept of “five races” was elaborated by the Han nationalists without any participation of Mongols and Tibetans, who sought independence from this new state. However, claims of Chinese nationalists for all other lands and dependencies of the collapsed Qing Empire were largely supported by Western powers because to ensure that obligations from the Qing State (as a predecessor) would be transferred to the new ROC (as the successor state). However, the succession of states is not the same as the continuity of states, and both do not necessarily mean conservation of borders.

Tibetan authorities repeatedly stated the independent status of their country. Some aspects of Tibet’s relationships with neighboring countries (e.g. Nepal and Ladakh) may be considered as signs of its tacit international recognition. Tibet was expressly recognized under the Tibet - Mongolia Treaty of 3 January 1913, during the short period when Mongolia was formally recognized as an independent state by Russia (under the Russian - Mongolian Agreement of 3 November 1912). Therefore, Tibet was not only de facto but also de jure recognized as an independent state. The declaration of Tibet’s independence issued by the 13thDalai Lama on 23 January 1913 only stated the fact that former relations of Tibet with its northern neighbor had ceased to exist.

On the other hand, the ‘sense of statehood’ among Tibetans differed from that in the West. They considered their independence rather as a matter of life style, culture, religion and authority. As a result, since 1912, Tibetans in some cases affirmed their independence and on other occasions appeared willing to accept some form of vassalage to China if the system inside Tibet would not thereby be affected. For example, Tibetans, were prepared, as a compromise, to accept the nominal suzerainty of China at the urging of the British in the tripartite Simla negotiations in 1913 - 1914. This never materialized because the Simla agreement was not signed by the Chinese side and that provision did not, therefore, come into force.

Application of modern legal concepts to the Yuan, Ming and Qing empires is fruitless because their traditional political doctrines were based on other, in a large part, opposite principles. So international law does not have a category to denote the relations of Tibet with these empires. Nevertheless, at the time of formation of the ROC, Tibet met all the essential modern criteria for statehood, as listed in the Montevideo Convention of 1933: a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. In addition, in modern times Tibet, like other states, had its flag, anthem, passport, currency and stamps,army, judicial system, taxation, telegraph, mail and self-sustainment. Indeed, on some significant maps Tibet was designated as a separate state.

Thus, at the time of the nation-state formation upon the collapse of the Qing Empire, Tibet was a state de facto and de jure.

- _http://www.academia.edu/7730104/Kuzmin_S._2013._Tibet_as_a_state_historical_facts_and_international_law_abstract_

 

[Niall]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

1.) be put to hard work

2.) not be 'entitled to their opinions' because their opinions are not only not worth a damn, they contribute to the fragmentation of social cohesion

3.) have strong leaders who will discipline them as parents do a child

Frightening isn't it ? I can even hear the sound of martial boots !

When I say 'hard work', I don't mean grinding slavery, just an honest day's work. The people's needs would be substantially or, ideally, fully met. China has a whopper of a challenge on that front given that its population is 1.3 billion.

What I mean with respect to some opinions not being equal to others is that we see how easily people are manipulated into supporting causes that are objectively bad for both the people being manipulated and others who suffer the consequences (color revolutions, getting public support for warmongering, and other government-created memes that further oligarchs' designs).

As for strong leaders approaching statesmanship as parents would a child, I am of course talking about strong conscientious leaders. The child might have all kinds of wants, but parents understand its needs (at least, they're supposed to). Parents should use active and harsh discipline sparingly (if ever), and they should not be afraid to say 'No!' and mean it. What happens more often than not is that the parents, because of unresolved issues from their own childhoods, are manipulated into letting the child rule from time to time, and then abuse the child in the resulting power-struggles (by striking out at him or emotionally abusing him).

Good statesmanship/governorship requires strong leadership in the sense that the leader(s) must resist the temptation to please all the people all the time, otherwise the minority of his people who are brats will end up manipulating him into power-struggles that will make everyone suffer in the resulting intrigues. S/he must try to ensure what is best for all, in spite of the far greater wants of that minority. S/he must be able to say 'No!' and not care too much about being seen as 'the bad guy'. Not only that, s/he has to keep an eye on those brats being manipulated by foreign powers who would use them to get to him and thus gain a foothold in his country. Contrary to the projections of Western liberal-democratic regimes, where the brats have basically taken over and run amok, the strong leader isn't afraid of losing his or her own power, but of losing his people to the predations of brats who are consuming country after country.

 

[Joe]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Themes I have noticed in some responses:
Masses don't know what is best for them.
Masses should be denied what they want.
A benelovent philosopher king/council should decide what is best for masses.
Support the current Chinese government because: they are a geopolitical counter to Western hegemony; or the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

All true.

I do not wish any government to put me to hard work, to censor me of my opinions, and to discipline me like a child. I work hard of my own choosing, I reach my opinions from experience and knowledge that most often are vastly superior to official governmental positions, and I try to do the right thing without the government telling me or threatening me with what they want me to do.

Why do you chose to identify yourself with the masses of humanity?