Some great things China has done to Tibet

[KarlXII]

http://www.tibet.net/en/diir/pubs/wp/tb96/Tibet%20Proving%20Truth.pdf

PDF above.

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=18451&article=Dalai+Lama+accuses+China+of+'demographic+aggression'&t=1&c=1

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/china-99/tibet-test0613.htm

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/009/2002/en/dom-ASA170092002en.html

http://www.tibet.com/humanrights/hratglance.html

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/EM177.cfm

According to the Heritage Foundation:


If the matter of Tibet's sovereignty is murky, the question about the PRC's treatment of Tibetans is all too clear. After invading Tibet in 1950, the Chinese communists killed over one million Tibetans, destroyed over 6,000 monasteries, and turned Tibet's northeastern province, Amdo, into a gulag housing, by one estimate, up to ten million people. A quarter of a million Chinese troops remain stationed in Tibet. In addition, some 7.5 million Chinese have responded to Beijing's incentives to relocate to Tibet; they now outnumber the 6 million Tibetans. Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet


Though I'm glad good China has brung civilization to the backwards, war mongering monks of Tibet :dizzy2:

[DemonArchangel]

Whoa, hold on there. Think about what you're trying to say. Amdo, one of the most desolate, harsh and painfully bleak places on earth, cannot *possibly* hold 10 million people in Gulags, especially since there's simply not enough water to keep those people alive, and all food would have to be trucked in (due to a lack of rail lines). The Chinese government probably keeps no one in Amdo.

Xinjiang and Manchuria are far better locations.

As for the rest of those articles. I don't dispute their contents. Although if Tibet really wants its independence, everything China built in the province must be systematically dismantled first. Roads, rails, bridges, electrical infrastructure, water treatment facilities, schools, businesses, everything will have to go. I want to see how the Tibetans will react to that.

[PanzerJaeger]

Communism is a plague wherever it manifests. I'm proud my grandfather and other family members were involved in trying to destroy it for good. Its only too bad that they failed...

[DemonArchangel]

That's right. Communism is a plague, which is why China is no longer communist. Fascism is a plague wherever it manifests as well, but it doesn't seem to deter you, does it?

[LittleGrizzly]

Although if Tibet really wants its independence, everything China built in the province must be systematically dismantled first. Roads, rails, bridges, electrical infrastructure, water treatment facilities, schools, businesses, everything will have to go. I want to see how the Tibetans will react to that.

From the sounds of it, it is the native chinese who mostly benefit from these facilities, im sure they would trade some luxurys for thier freedom.

This doesn't quite seem in the spirit of what Banquo said when he closed the other topic...

[KarlXII]

Communism is a plague wherever it manifests. I'm proud my grandfather and other family members were involved in trying to destroy it for good. Its only too bad that they failed...

Please, Communism has been horribly twisted by the dictators and mass murderers we associate the Ideology with. I'm glad my grandfather fought the Soviets, however, they were Communist in name only, really.

Ideologies cannot kill, people who twist them do.

[DemonArchangel]

Although if Tibet really wants its independence, everything China built in the province must be systematically dismantled first. Roads, rails, bridges, electrical infrastructure, water treatment facilities, schools, businesses, everything will have to go. I want to see how the Tibetans will react to that.

From the sounds of it, it is the native chinese who mostly benefit from these facilities, im sure they would trade some luxurys for thier freedom.

This doesn't quite seem in the spirit of what Banquo said when he closed the other topic...

I know, the Chinese do benefit from the facilities, but if the Tibetans want their own nation, their first step will obviously have to be to stop using Chinese things, especially roads, water and electricity. If they're so bent on independence, they can develop those things themselves.

[KarlXII]

I know, the Chinese do benefit from the facilities, but if the Tibetans want their own nation, their first step will obviously have to be to stop using Chinese things, especially roads, water and electricity. If they're so bent on independence, they can develop those things themselves.

So you're saying China should deindustrialize a region who's native population already has a low life expectancy, GPA, and such?

You think China may want to be, I don't know, humane, and leave something for the Tibetans to work with?

[DemonArchangel]

So you're saying China should deindustrialize a region who's native population already has a low life expectancy, GPA, and such?

You think China may want to be, I don't know, humane, and leave something for the Tibetans to work with?

Nope. If they want independence, then the Chinese take what is theirs, and then go, leaving the Tibetans as free as they wish to be.

[Adrian II]

[..] if the Tibetans want their own nation, their first step will obviously have to be to stop using Chinese things, especially roads, water and electricity.Maybe the Tibetens could strike a deal with Beijing: every truly 'Chinese' thing would be dismantled, and in exchange Beijing promises to restitute all stolen land, stolen income, stolen profits, destroyed monasteries, unnecessary deaths and of course all lost foreign investment and foregone benefits from tourism. How does that sound?

Can't we have a serious debate about this? In another thread you expressed mild disappointment that Beijing had not killed all Tibetans instead of only a few million. Now you want to break down the entire infrastructure in Tibet as 'punishment'. Punishment for what, I asked myself as I read those lines.

Could it be that you are so vindictive about Tibet because it is the single most unnecessary mistake Beijing made in the last fifty years? Because this mistake is now the worst pr nightmare for the regime, following every Chinese official wherever he goes in the entire world? At least that would make your attitude psychologically understandable to me. Otherwise we would have to explain your spiteful, disdainful attitude to a downtrodden, half-extinct nation from sheer Chinese racism.

Or is there a third explanation?

[KarlXII]

Nope. If they want independence, then the Chinese take what is theirs, and then go, leaving the Tibetans as free as they wish to be.

:inquisitive: :no:

I seriously wonder.......

[KarlXII]

Let me ask, are the Tibetans guilty of some high crime worthy enough to be invaded? Should they be punished further by having the Chinese take the infastructure, money, etc. and leaving the Tibetans nothing? I honestly wonder how you find some justification in that.

[HoreTore]

Though I'm glad good China has brung civilization to the backwards, war mongering monks of Tibet :dizzy2:

Right. Are you honestly so naive that you think Tibet is only full of peace-loving hippies?

Here's a clue; not every Tibetan is a Dalai Lama. And also; religious people are not pacifists. That includes buddhist monks.

[KarlXII]

Right. Are you honestly so naive that you think Tibet is only full of peace-loving hippies?

Here's a clue; not every Tibetan is a Dalai Lama. And also; religious people are not pacifists. That includes buddhist monks.

I forgot the time when Tibet called for war against China.

I forgot how they launched the invasion of China, only for the noble Chinese to occupy the evil Tibetan country.

No, not ever Tibetan is a Dalai Lama, however, does this allow China to invade it and occupy it?

[Kralizec]

No real surprises in this thread. What's mindboggling is that there are so many useful idiots in the west who tacitly support Tibet's ungoing occupation, and think that maybe the Chinese will stop their cultural genocide if pressured asked nicely behind the stage.

[HoreTore]

I forgot the time when Tibet called for war against China.

That has happened numerous times, and a great number of tibetans want a war against china, as they see the actions of the Dalai Lama as weak and ineffective.


I forgot how they launched the invasion of China, only for the noble Chinese to occupy the evil Tibetan country.

No, not ever Tibetan is a Dalai Lama, however, does this allow China to invade it and occupy it?

That is, of course, something else... I was merely frustrated at the rosy look on Tibet, you seemed to imply that they are completely incapable of barbarism.

The Dalai Lama and his kin have a very good chance at creating a free society, like Mandela and Ghandi. The other guys, however, are more likely to create another nazi state in this world.

[DemonArchangel]

Maybe the Tibetens could strike a deal with Beijing: every truly 'Chinese' thing would be dismantled, and in exchange Beijing promises to restitute all stolen land, stolen income, stolen profits, destroyed monasteries, unnecessary deaths and of course all lost foreign investment and foregone benefits from tourism. How does that sound?

Can't we have a serious debate about this? In another thread you expressed mild disappointment that Beijing had not killed all Tibetans instead of only a few million. Now you want to break down the entire infrastructure in Tibet as 'punishment'. Punishment for what, I asked myself as I read those lines.

Could it be that you are so vindictive about Tibet because it is the single most unnecessary mistake Beijing made in the last fifty years? Because this mistake is now the worst pr nightmare for the regime, following every Chinese official wherever he goes in the entire world? At least that would make your attitude psychologically understandable to me. Otherwise we would have to explain your spiteful, disdainful attitude to a downtrodden, half-extinct nation from sheer Chinese racism.

Or is there a third explanation?

Your first proposition sounds entirely acceptable.

However, you're jumping to conclusions about the whole punishment part. If Tibet wants to be free, it can be free without any of China's assistance. China has poured a lot of money into a rather unproductive section of the world, with full knowledge that it won't get any return on its investment, so if the Tibetans don't want anything to do with China, then China shouldn't have anything to do with Tibet.

And yes you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Tibet has been...to put it politely, a :daisy: of unimaginable proportions. However, these days, keeping Tibet is pretty much a matter of Chinese national pride, as pigheaded as it is, and especially with all the money that's gone into it and will never come back out. And I unfortunately, am in a position where I am the only voice representing the other side on this forum. It's painful and detestable, but I must argue for the Chinese regime, if only because there is no one else here to do so.

[Adrian II]

Your first proposition sounds entirely acceptable.

However, you're jumping to conclusions about the whole punishment part. If Tibet wants to be free, it can be free without any of China's assistance. China has poured a lot of money into a rather unproductive section of the world, with full knowledge that it won't get any return on its investment, so if the Tibetans don't want anything to do with China, then China shouldn't have anything to do with Tibet.

And yes you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Tibet has been...to put it politely, a :daisy: of unimaginable proportions. However, these days, keeping Tibet is pretty much a matter of Chinese national pride, as pigheaded as it is, and especially with all the money that's gone into it and will never come back out. And I unfortunately, am in a position where I am the only voice representing the other side on this forum. It's painful and detestable, but I must argue for the Chinese regime, if only because there is no one else here to do so.Okay, I appreciate your frankness. Though the final point eludes me. No one ever defends the Dutch government in this forum when it fouls up, yet I feel no need to do so whatsoever.

Maybe you feel that way with regard to China because the Tibet issue seems to overshadow everything thatg is good about the country, its history and culture, its huge achievements in this century in the face of extremely adverse conditions. I could understand that, too. I wouldn't agree, but I can understand. And I made it clear in the other thread that my views about the regime in no way reflect my attitude about Chinese culture. Personally I have nothing but pleasant memories from Shanghai, Hong Kong, various Chinatowns across the world. And in my view the greatest victim of the present regime is the Chinese people themselves, not the Tibetans.

[JR-]

Your first proposition sounds entirely acceptable.

However, you're jumping to conclusions about the whole punishment part. If Tibet wants to be free, it can be free without any of China's assistance. China has poured a lot of money into a rather unproductive section of the world, with full knowledge that it won't get any return on its investment, so if the Tibetans don't want anything to do with China, then China shouldn't have anything to do with Tibet.

i think i must have missed the press-release where beijing said they would pack their bags and decamp if tibet said they weren't welcome anymore...................

[LittleGrizzly]

DA was responding to one of adrians points rather than announcing a goverment position on tibet...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Please, Communism has been horribly twisted by the dictators and mass murderers we associate the Ideology with. I'm glad my grandfather fought the Soviets, however, they were Communist in name only, really.

That's because communism in theory, when put in practice, inevitably screws up somehow. Every single communist country in the world, and here's a list of current or former ones:

Cuba
Soviet Russia (+ Eastern Bloc)
Cambodia
Vietnam
China
Ethiopia
Laos

I know I'm missing a few, but think about this - is there any one of those communist countries that was never guilty of mass murder and/or imprisonment? Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism-Leninism...these are all forms of communism, all of which have led to the deaths of millions.

[LittleGrizzly]

That's because communism in theory, when put in practice, inevitably screws up somehow.

Yes, a small chance perhaps that those in power after the revolution got greedy and rather than being communists they were greedy/power hungy ?

I really don't think the cold war helped either, look what happened to various developing capitalist countries that got interfered with at the time, chile and pinochet being a prime example...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, a small chance perhaps that those in power after the revolution got greedy and rather than being communists they were greedy/power hungy ?

Which happens to be one of the key flaws of communism. Anyways, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism are, as I've said before, all forms of communism.

[DemonArchangel]

Okay, I appreciate your frankness. Though the final point eludes me. No one ever defends the Dutch government in this forum when it fouls up, yet I feel no need to do so whatsoever.

Maybe you feel that way with regard to China because the Tibet issue seems to overshadow everything thatg is good about the country, its history and culture, its huge achievements in this century in the face of extremely adverse conditions. I could understand that, too. I wouldn't agree, but I can understand. And I made it clear in the other thread that my views about the regime in no way reflect my attitude about Chinese culture. Personally I have nothing but pleasant memories from Shanghai, Hong Kong, various Chinatowns across the world. And in my view the greatest victim of the present regime is the Chinese people themselves, not the Tibetans.

I guess the Dutch are rather apathetic about their government. Then again, nobody goes to great lengths to attack the Dutch government and Dutch people. And the Chinese are usually far harsher on themselves than on minority peoples. It's probably a personality quirk taken too far.

[HoreTore]

I know I'm missing a few, but think about this - is there any one of those communist countries that was never guilty of mass murder and/or imprisonment? Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism-Leninism...these are all forms of communism, all of which have led to the deaths of millions.

Show me a country that isn't guilty of mass murder/imprisonment.

[PanzerJaeger]

Please, Communism has been horribly twisted by the dictators and mass murderers we associate the Ideology with. I'm glad my grandfather fought the Soviets, however, they were Communist in name only, really.

The whole "The Soviets weren't real communists!" meme is exhausting in its repitition and complete in its falsehood.

[LittleGrizzly]

The whole "The Soviets weren't real communists!" meme is exhausting in its repitition and complete in its falsehood.

take the n't out of this sentence, add and annoying to the end as well...

Which happens to be one of the key flaws of communism.

Which happens to be the flaw of any system not use democratic checks and balances, and well i would say democracys have that problem as well


That's because communism in theory, when put in practice, inevitably screws up somehow. Every single communist country in the world, and here's a list of current or former ones:

Cuba
Soviet Russia (+ Eastern Bloc)
Cambodia
Vietnam
China
Ethiopia
Laos

Those countries were all going to end up badly off anyway, for most of them just look at nearby nieghbours that choose different systems and still managed to end up badly off, you could sit here all day listing monarchies and capitalist countrys that failed or were vicious in various ways but i doubt that would convince you of the uselessness of monarchies or capitalism..

[rvg]

The whole "The Soviets weren't real communists!" meme is exhausting in its repitition and complete in its falsehood.

Indeed. Any ideology or religion is only as good as its followers.

[Devastatin Dave]

Some great things China has done to Tibet? Hmmmm, oh they have brought them population control!!!:wall:

[HoreTore]

The whole "The Soviets weren't real communists!" meme is exhausting in its repitition and complete in its falsehood.

They were one form of socialism. That one failed does not mean that others(like social democracy) is a failure. Look at europe for proof of that.

[rvg]

They were one form of socialism. That one failed does not mean that others(like social democracy) is a failure. Look at europe for proof of that.

Communism has failed in its every incarnation. At least so far. Not having high hopes for Nepal's future either, if maoists are indeed allowed to fully implement their plans.

[Adrian II]

They were one form of socialism. That one failed does not mean that others(like social democracy) is a failure. Look at europe for proof of that.Don't confuse socialism with communism, come on. Communism is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' carried out by a one-party state. This has nothing to do with the advocacy of social justice through democratic means.

[PanzerJaeger]

They were one form of socialism. That one failed does not mean that others(like social democracy) is a failure. Look at europe for proof of that.

I don't disagree. Even the most extreme forms of European socialism cannot be confused with what was attempted in Russia, though.

Most people do not know much about the internal workings of the USSR. People sympathetic to the left seem to have convinced themselves and much of the general population that Russia was simply a dictatorship operating under the guise of communism, thus washing their hands of the undesirable outcome. "If only they were real communists, things would have been so much better." However, the USSR made vast efforts to conform to Marxist theory in all levels of society, eventually leading to its downfall. Stalin, apart from being a cold hearted bastard with a penchant for genocide, was also a devoted communist - and so were those that followed him. I could go on about collectivization, class destruction, elimination of private holdings, state owned industry, etc... but all of that can be condensed into a simple examination of the vast amount of time and energy spent on trying to ensure every house in the Soviet Union was exactly the same size. (Party members excluded of course.. ~;))

A simple comparison of gross domestic product clearly demonstrates that the USSR was very much a communist nation… to a fault. After WW2, Russia and America had roughly the same population, vast resources, and huge industrial bases. Granted, Russia had some serious rebuilding to do after the war, so they started off at a disadvantage. However, even into the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the Russian GDP was not even 10% of that of America… or even Germany, and began to fall long before the state did. This can be directly attributed to staunch communist ideology and principles applied to the economy.

As can be seen in China, when a communist nation begins to abandon communist ideology – prosperity ensues.

Year US *******Russia
1969 3795.076 216.3361
1970 3803.296 223.0269
1971 3912.682 229.9247
1972 4129.993 237.0358
1973 4373.621 244.3668
1974 4349.16 251.9245
1975 4334.417 259.716
1976 4578.701 267.7484
1977 4793.936 276.0293
1978 5061.152 284.5663
1979 5223.534 293.3673
1980 5210.976 302.4405
1981 5338.742 311.7944
1982 5228.449 321.4375
1983 5455.041 331.3789
1984 5852.097 341.6277
1985 6075.413 352.1935
1986 6280.384 363.0861
1987 6491.47 374.3155
1988 6761.525 385.8923
1989 6998.383 397.8271
1990 7120.47 385.8923
1991 7085.089 366.4166


http://www.swivel.com/data_columns/show/2085375

[seireikhaan]

Hmm. Last I checked, the Dalai Lama wasn't demanding complete independence from China. Only for the Tibetans to be allowed basic freedoms of speech, religion, and culture. They don't mind paying taxes and such, they just want their basic human rights.

[Sarmatian]

Socialism is in a way an effect communism had on capitalism. That's one of the few good things about communism, the effect in had on European workers to organize themselves better. The difference between capitalism in western Europe and in the US is the proof of that.

On the other hand there are examples of communism improving standard of living. In Yugoslavia for example. Country turned from agrarian to industrialized, roads, railroads and airports built, GDP growth was around 10% (until the oil crisis), medical care was free, education was free, literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality rate brought on par with western Europe, civil rights increased, women were encouraged to take important positions, tourism revenues were booming...

True, Yugoslavia probably had the most liberal version of communism there was, but it still was communism.

[KarlXII]

That's because communism in theory, when put in practice, inevitably screws up somehow. Every single communist country in the world, and here's a list of current or former ones:

Cuba
Soviet Russia (+ Eastern Bloc)
Cambodia
Vietnam
China
Ethiopia
Laos

I know I'm missing a few, but think about this - is there any one of those communist countries that was never guilty of mass murder and/or imprisonment? Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism-Leninism...these are all forms of communism, all of which have led to the deaths of millions.

All forms of government have killed. What's your point?

[rvg]

All forms of government have killed. What's your point?

The point is that Communism in addition to killing millions of people has a strong propensity towards killing the economy of the affected state, which in turn leads to the demise of the communist system in the affected state. It's is similar in many ways to an infectious disease.

[KarlXII]

The point is that Communism in addition to killing millions of people has a strong propensity towards killing the economy of the affected state, which in turn leads to the demise of the communist system in the affected state. It's is similar in many ways to an infectious disease.

True, however, I don't see why Communism is the only political ideology that continually is critisized for the murders it's practicers commit. As stated before, an ideology is only as good as it's followers.

[rvg]

True, however, I don't see why Communism is the only political ideology that continually is critisized for the murders it's practicers commit. As stated before, an ideology is only as good as it's followers.

Exactly... and judging by the followers of communism and its achievements, it is a very crummy ideology. There are a few silver linings in that cloud, but overall it is still overwhelmingly a cloud.

[seireikhaan]

EMFM, how could you forget good ol' Robby Mugabe. :no:

[CountArach]

On the other hand there are examples of communism improving standard of living. In Yugoslavia for example. Country turned from agrarian to industrialized, roads, railroads and airports built, GDP growth was around 10% (until the oil crisis), medical care was free, education was free, literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality rate brought on par with western Europe, civil rights increased, women were encouraged to take important positions, tourism revenues were booming...

True, Yugoslavia probably had the most liberal version of communism there was, but it still was communism.
Amen :bow:

[TevashSzat]

And I unfortunately, am in a position where I am the only voice representing the other side on this forum. It's painful and detestable, but I must argue for the Chinese regime, if only because there is no one else here to do so.

Well, you're not the only one here. I am a native Chinese here and was born in Beijing. I'm a permanent resident in the US atm. Didn't really want to get into the discussion before since frankly, I don't want to spend all that time writing posts as long as this one

Anyways, I'll try to give some thoughts, some anecdotes, and basically give you a Chinese viewpoint

Okay first of all, Communism, imo, works on paper but will never even come close to success in real life which is why the only reason the Chinese government hasn't fallen yet is that right now, it's not really even attempting to keep the Communism ideal; its is just communist in name.

As for why we adopted it, keep this in mind. China has a 5000 year history. We, as a civilization, have been one of the most dominant nations in the world until the modern times. We rivaled the Romans, the Greeks, any ancient civilization you can name and ancient China was probably comparable if not better. In China right now, basically these last 100-150 years were called something like the century of downfall when we went from the best in the world to one of the most underdeveloped ones. Now, the nationalists whose government were democratic, really messed up horribly before and in WWII. Given China's state at that point, I doubt any government could have done too much better, but they were the government at that time and their failure created the impetus for the rise of the Communist Party.

Now, has the Communist government in the past half a century or so done some terrible things? Yes, without a doubt and the people do know that. However, China is one of the great powers of the world now and is only growing in power, which I don't think anyone can deny. Progress has been made and the average person is living MUCH better than half a century ago. As much as the critics blame the Chinese government for human rights issues, there is no doubt that the country has improved tremendously.

Now, many have said that China only improved once the Communist restrictions were lifted, but that is not the full picture. The Cultural Revolution, as horrible as it was, did have a few benefits: it gave a chance to millions of poor farmers and created a generation determined to succeed. My father was born is a very very poor village in one of the poorest provinces in China. He literally lived in a mud hut, his father was a blacksmith, and they sold crops for a living and this was in the 60s/70s. In any nation, he would basically grow up like his father and would never improve in socioeconomic status.

Now, the cultural revolution equaled the educational opportunities between rural and urban areas. My father studied hard and managed to get into one of the best medical schools in the country. He graduated and became a cardiologist. Now, with a more capitalistic kinda society setting in, there is absolutely 100% no chance of that happening. NO CHANCE. I don't care if the child is as smart as Albert Einstein, but the simply fact is that if your family background is that poor, the disparity between rural and urban areas is too large for anyone to cross

As for the Tibet issue, this is what the people feel: Before China went in, Tibet was terribly backwards, even by Chinese standards at that time, which is saying alot. Now, Tibet has improved tremendously, even for the natives there. For gods sake, I've seen monks using cell phones in Tibet. Now, lots of people have been killed in Tibet, but so have millions in rest of China so most people feel that there is nothing special or overly harsh that Tibet has suffered through.

Essentially, most people see Tibet trying to get independence right after it has gained a tremendous amount of benefit from China and tons of investment. Its akin to something like Hawaii wanting independence right now from the US (well, thats not the best comparison there, but still). Hawaii, btw, only joined the United States because the wealthy sugar plantation owners and what not started a Coup to overthrow Hawaii's rightful government.

I can say that for the near future, barring some major change in world politics, Tibet will never be free. If it declares independence, China will surely invade and crush the opposition easily. Now, don't say that the US will help or anything because it won't. Just look at Georgia and Russia right now. Georgia is actually a sovereign nation and all the US is doing is sending in humanitarian supplies....

China and US have too much of a symbiotic relationship for either country to break off relations. US needs China for borrowing money for government debts and for cheap Chinese goods. Without Chinese goods, the US economy will downspiral and crash and there will be another great depression. China needs US consumers to buy Chinese goods and if US stops buying them, the Chinese boom will collapse and there will be a great depression too.

So.... this 862 word reply is finally finished.....and yeah. Kinda a semi rant, but I'm hopefully coherent enough there. Please don't end up making me write another one because this really takes up alot of time....

Edit: Some grammar and spelling corretions here

[DemonArchangel]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply good sir.

[Somebody Else]

I kind of like the idea of a free Tibet. I mean, everyone loves a theocracy.

I did hear that some of the more worldly Tibetans (ie. those that have left the country to do something other than protest about their poor benighted monks &c.) saying that being part of the rather Secular Chinese hegemony is vastly superior to the rather more radical Muslim regimes that do their damndest to spread in that part of the world.

Oh, by the way... I've lived here in China for most of my life. I can't remember seeing anyone in a Mao suit, waving a little red book, being oppressed (except by the sodding heat). The government may be 'communist' but the Chinese are about as socialist as my left foot. In fact, I don't know a race more naturally capitalistic than the Chinese - I think it's somewhere in the genetic code.

As for the whole human rights thing. I agree with DA - so the various people have lost some of their culture (mostly the bit involving living in mud huts to the grand old age of 35). I travelled around Xinjiang a couple of years ago; sure, conditions out there aren't as good as they are in the more developed regions in the East, near the coast. But on the other hand, every dinky little homestead in the Taklamakan desert, no matter how far from the nearest town, has a government issued solar panel, and thus electricity. There are parts of UK Plc. that don't have that.

One of those things really, westerners who haven't spent any time in China get very indignant about 'those awful commies in Red China'. Those of us that have been here think that the Chinese are actually doing things very well. (If, occasionally, in a pretty peculiar way)

Maybe I've been watching too much CCTV.

SE

*edit*

I forgot to mention, the Han are the Borg. Everyone will be assimilated, one way or another.

[Sarmatian]

Very good post by TevashSzat. A giant that is China can not be reformed in a blink of an eye. It's not Switzerland, Belgium or Ireland. It takes time. And if someone doesn't see the improvement in China in every aspect, from standard of living to human rights in the last several decades, than he is blind.

[Adrian II]

So far I have seen only ridicule for Tibet and Tibetans from those who purport to represent Chinese views. More genrally, they merely confirm my impression that offical and (to a large extent) popular attitudes in China are highly vindictive, virtually seething with jealousy at other great powers and more affluent parts of the world, as if the self-inflicted wounds, poverty and structurally induced stupidity of their political system was somehow to blame on the rest of the world. Such little zest or capacity for self-criticism bodes ill for China's role on the world stage, even for its capacity to take care of its own problems.

[rvg]

So far I have seen only ridicule for Tibet and Tibetans from those who purport to represent Chinese views. More genrally, they merely confirm my impression that offical and (to a large extent) popular attitudes in China are highly vindictive, virtually seething with jealousy at other great powers and more affluent parts of the world, as if the self-inflicted wounds, poverty and structurally induced stupidity of their political system was somehow to blame on the rest of the world. Such little zest or capacity for self-criticism bodes ill for China's role on the world stage, even for its capacity to take care of its own problems.

I always look at Taiwan when I want to imagine what the real China should be like.

[KarlXII]

I always look at Taiwan when I want to imagine what the real China should be like.

Little off topic, but do you think Taiwan is still the legit government of China?

[rvg]

Little off topic, but do you think Taiwan is still the legit government of China?

Tough question. Koumintang didn't perform as well as the Commies did during WW2, and then Commies beat them fair and square in a civil war. Too bad they lost, but they did lose. So imho, the legit government is whichever one is power. However, legitimate, doesn't necessarily mean optimal.

[Adrian II]

I always look at Taiwan when I want to imagine what the real China should be like.Taiwan has been the true representative of mainland China in a symbolic sense, if not politically and militarily. They have been the model for mainland China for many years and nowadays are, ironically, a main foreign investor in mainland China. Taiwan GDP per capita is $29500. The Republic of China's is only $2,034 (ranked 107th in the world).

[ICantSpellDawg]

Too bad they lost, but they did lose. So imho, the legit government is whichever one is power. However, legitimate, doesn't necessarily mean optimal.

I agree that the PRC is the legitimate government of China.
However, I don't see the PRC as the legitimate government of Taiwan. They obviously didn't fight hard enough to take Taiwan away. If you believe that China should eventually step into Taiwan and take over shop - then I immediately demand that the United Kingdom cede it's territory to the U.S. since we won our revolution, too.

[Caius]

I know I'm missing a few, but think about this - is there any one of those communist countries that was never guilty of mass murder and/or imprisonment? Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism-Leninism...these are all forms of communism, all of which have led to the deaths of millions.
And their enemies also.

[rvg]

I agree that the PRC is the legitimate government of China.
However, I don't see the PRC as the legitimate government of Taiwan. They obviously didn't fight hard enough to take Taiwan away. If you believe that China should eventually step into Taiwan and take over shop - then I immediately demand that the United Kingdom cede it's territory to the U.S. since we won our revolution, too.

Of course not. They couldn't get Taiwan in time, now it's not theirs to rule over. At least not until they introduce a true multi-party democracy on the mainland. That's the price of getting Taiwan back. ,mmm

[PanzerJaeger]

Now, many have said that China only improved once the Communist restrictions were lifted, but that is not the full picture. The Cultural Revolution, as horrible as it was, did have a few benefits: it gave a chance to millions of poor farmers and created a generation determined to succeed. My father was born is a very very poor village in one of the poorest provinces in China. He literally lived in a mud hut, his father was a blacksmith, and they sold crops for a living and this was in the 60s/70s. In any nation, he would basically grow up like his father and would never improve in socioeconomic status.




Yea, the Holocaust was pretty nasty as well, but you know without all those Jews, there were lots of nice jobs and houses to be had!

So your dad benefited from the persecution and deaths of the educated? Victory for the idiots! :no:

What a joke.... :shame:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

True, however, I don't see why Communism is the only political ideology that continually is critisized for the murders it's practicers commit.

I'd go so far as to say that communist governments have caused more deaths in the 20th century than any other type of government due to mass murder and disregard for human life - despite the fact that the large majority of nations were never communist. Communism, in practice, has proven to be a deadly ideology, and, as has been said, it destroys the economy (and human rights).


As stated before, an ideology is only as good as it's followers.

Very true, I don't at all disagree.

[DemonArchangel]

Yea, the Holocaust was pretty nasty as well, but you know without all those Jews, there were lots of nice jobs and houses to be had!

So your dad benefited from the persecution and deaths of the educated? Victory for the idiots! :no:

What a joke.... :shame:

I actually *AGREE* with you on that one (dear god what have I become?). The Cultural Revolution was pretty much some sick joke. My mother was a Red Guard during that time period. Don't ask what happened. Just don't. I'm not a very big fan of Mao. He did some good things (like massive vaccination programs), but did many, many, many terrible things (like kill a bunch of people).

Adrian: What is so great about Tibet, that you feel the need to stick up for them? Why don't you argue for the rights of other oppressed people? Or is China just your favorite target? Tibetans are certainly not a peaceful, innocuous people. Look how they screwed over Mongolia. What have they done to earn the respect of the Chinese?

Nothing. That's what.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

To be honest - as well as completely blunt - I don't give a damn about Tibet. Not in the slightest. Just like I don't give a damn about Quebecois, the Basques, the Catalonians, the Alban...I mean, Kosovars, or the Scots. The only reason I do give a damn about South Ossetia is because I don't give a damn about Georgia, and the only reason I'm not getting started on Bavarian seperatists is because my grandmother was Bavarian.

It's very early and I've been watching rather too much Yes, Minister recently. Please excuse the outburst. I can bleep everything out nicely if required.

[KarlXII]

To be honest - as well as completely blunt - I don't give a damn about Tibet. Not in the slightest. Just like I don't give a damn about Quebecois, the Basques, the Catalonians, the Alban...I mean, Kosovars, or the Scots. The only reason I do give a damn about South Ossetia is because I don't give a damn about Georgia, and the only reason I'm not getting started on Bavarian seperatists is because my grandmother was Bavarian.

It's very early and I've been watching rather too much Yes, Minister recently. Please excuse the outburst. I can bleep everything out nicely if required.

So you don't give a damn about a sovereign nation but you give a damn about a rebellious area? You give a damn about South Ossetia, but not Quebec?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So you don't give a damn about a sovereign nation but you give a damn about a rebellious area? You give a damn about South Ossetia, but not Quebec?

I said why in that post. ~;)

If you want a real reason, it's because in reality I couldn't care less on whether South Ossetia had independance or not, because it doesn't really change anything. I do care about Quebec because Quebec is both important to Canada and has no good reason to split from Canada - in addition to every Quebec seperatist I know of being an arrogant prick, and half of the Quebec federalists as well (I'm looking at you Mr. Trudeau).

[TevashSzat]

Yea, the Holocaust was pretty nasty as well, but you know without all those Jews, there were lots of nice jobs and houses to be had!

So your dad benefited from the persecution and deaths of the educated? Victory for the idiots! :no:

What a joke.... :shame:

Again, I don't defend what Mao did to the educated, but I want people to understand some of its more positive effects. Just talking about the quite awful ones is like beating a dead horse, imo.

Well, what I don't think people in the west understand is that during the Cultural Revolution, hundreds of millions living in rural areas actually had a chance of doing something worthwhile in their lives. Now, all of them have no chance at all at moving up the social ladder. This disparity and lack of upward movement from the lower and middle classes is an incredible concern in China right now

[Adrian II]

Adrian: What is so great about Tibet, that you feel the need to stick up for them?I remember throwing some acid on a thread about Tibet three years ago because the OP seemed to admire the Dalai Lama and all he stood for. I explained that the Lama regime was backward and violent and had practically no political or cultural advantage over the Chinese occupation. Some were very disappointed in me and asked why I felt the need to clobber those poor Tibetans. Now you are asking me why I think they are so great.

If we can exchange views instead of prejudices, and listen to each other instead of assuming all sorts of stuff, I am your man. Everything I wrote in this thread is in plain English. There is not a word of admiration for Tibetan culture in it.

I don't pretend to love or admire Tibet, there is not enough room in my heart, so sorry. But I detest cruelty, stupidity and deceit, particularly the combination of all three, and this combination has characterized Chinese policies toward Tibet. Besides, to me the Tibet issue is part of the wider issue of the Chinese regime's failures, and more or less the symbol of it.

And in case you didn't notice, in the thread about Georgia I have consistently castigated Mr Saakashvili for behaving in a similar manner toward Ossetia, or for trying to, because his attempt was thwarted by the Russians. Love for the Ossetians plays no role in this whatsoever. Nor does love for the Russians.

[DemonArchangel]

*Snip*
I don't pretend to love or admire Tibet, there is not enough room in my heart, so sorry. But I detest cruelty, stupidity and deceit, particularly the combination of all three, and this combination has characterized Chinese policies toward Tibet. Besides, to me the Tibet issue is part of the wider issue of the Chinese regime's failures, and more or less the symbol of it.

*snip*


Cruelty: So? The Tibetans should stop whining. They've received enough benefits from the Chinese. The Chinese treat Tibetans a whole lot better than they treat the Han Chinese.

Stupidity: I don't see anything stupid about the occupation of Tibet.

Deceit: I fully acknowledge everything China has done in Tibet. By that, I mean everything. The only divergence is that I think China is doing the right thing in Tibet, and you don't.

Failures of the Chinese Regime: The Chinese Regime has failed many, many, many, many, many, many times. Except it's also succeeded just as many times, if not more. The Chinese government is like any other normal government. It's burdened with running the affairs of 1/5th of the humanity, so they'll probably take some expedients, just so that everything that really needs to be done can be done. And given its sheer size and scope, everything the Chinese government does is magnified. As Sarmatian said, the Chinese government can't simply move overnight. Give it some time.

Hell, it took Taiwan until 1990 to stop being authoritarian.

[Adrian II]

Cruelty: So?I told you, I happen to loathe it.
Stupidity: I don't see anything stupid about the occupation of Tibet.Maybe you can answer your own question.

Let me remind you of post #17 where you said: 'Tibet has been...to put it politely, a :daisy: of unimaginable proportions.'

You seem to be veering from one proposition to the next, even if they are contradictory, as long as it allows you to defend the present regime. Why don't you admit to its gruesome aspects? Like you said, every civilization has its episodes of mass cruelty. Why deny them as such? I don't mind being reminded of the Holocaust, which is a black hole in European civlization. I don't identify with those who perpetrated it, or with those who deny it. Heck, even Marxism, the very ideology that helped wreak havoc in your country for decades, is of European origin. We 'invented' modern (i.e. ideologically or scientifically justified) mass murder. I'm not proud of those 'achievements', nor do I deny them. Why should you deny or defend the horrible episodes in recent Chinese history caused by one-party rule and insane economic policies?

[Moros]

Again, I don't defend what Mao did to the educated, but I want people to understand some of its more positive effects. Just talking about the quite awful ones is like beating a dead horse, imo.

Well, what I don't think people in the west understand is that during the Cultural Revolution, hundreds of millions living in rural areas actually had a chance of doing something worthwhile in their lives. Now, all of them have no chance at all at moving up the social ladder. This disparity and lack of upward movement from the lower and middle classes is an incredible concern in China right now

So they were killed and robbed, instead of merely being killed. That's much better indeed! :help::wall:

[DemonArchangel]

I told you, I happen to loathe it.Maybe you can answer your own question.

Let me remind you of post #17 where you said: 'Tibet has been...to put it politely, a :daisy: of unimaginable proportions.'

(blah blah blah)

Tibet has been a :daisy: of unimaginable proportions. To leave now would be a bad idea though. It would show the world that China is weak and is willing to bend over and get :daisy:ed by the West. China won't leave Tibet, even if it stupid, for the simple reason that the West disapproves of the occupation of Tibet (but can't really do anything about it).

I admit to every gruesome aspect, as previously stated. I don't care if you think they're wrong, because for the most part, the gruesome parts are necessary, whether for profit, order or just keeping the unwashed masses in their place. Cruelty is necessary expedient. Otherwise, China instantly dissolves into a state that looks like India.

[rvg]

Otherwise, China instantly dissolves into a state that looks like India.

India is doing rather well so far.

[Devastatin Dave]

Cruelty: So? The Tibetans should stop whining. They've received enough benefits from the Chinese.


Sounds like a wife beaters excuse.

[DemonArchangel]

http://www.dbresearch.de/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000192108.pdf

Compare.

Dave: May be. But I would never beat a woman. :wink: That would be just unseemly.

[Viking]

http://www.dbresearch.de/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000192108.pdf

Compare.

Dave: May be. But I would never beat a woman. :wink: That would be just unseemly.

What if she was Tibetan? Sure thing that would make it OK. :idea:

[DemonArchangel]

What if she was Tibetan? Sure thing that would make it OK. :idea:

Damn you and your quandaries! :tongue2:

By the way, it's not ok to randomly beat Tibetans. The arm holding your nightstick will eventually tire.

[Viking]

By the way, it's not ok to randomly beat Tibetans.

That's one thing settled.

[Moros]

Tibet has been a :daisy: of unimaginable proportions. To leave now would be a bad idea though. It would show the world that China is weak and is willing to bend over and get :daisy:ed by the West. China won't leave Tibet, even if it stupid, for the simple reason that the West disapproves of the occupation of Tibet (but can't really do anything about it).

I admit to every gruesome aspect, as previously stated. I don't care if you think they're wrong, because for the most part, the gruesome parts are necessary, whether for profit, order or just keeping the unwashed masses in their place. Cruelty is necessary expedient. Otherwise, China instantly dissolves into a state that looks like India.

So it is always better to show your strenght instead of doing the right thing? Do (or will) you tell you son that if someone steals his cookie, he just needs to beat the kid up instead of telling the teacher? You don't want your son to look weak right? Also I don't think anyone is going to think that China's weak. I mean if even G. W. Bush figured that out... Lets be hounoust if it would let Tibet go it would be viewed as a strong country, but with respect. That is moving forward not only econmically but also humanly. Cause it's not a country's strenght that makes someone respect or like it.


By the way, it's not ok to randomly beat Tibetans

How about if you beat them up starting with the smallest working your way up to the tallest? Or perhaps in a alphabetical order (name)? ~;)

[Adrian II]

I don't care if you think they're wrong, because for the most part, the gruesome parts are necessary, whether for profit, order or just keeping the unwashed masses in their place. Cruelty is necessary expedient.You sound like the arrogant, racist European elite of the old days speaking about their colonial subjects. There is nothing Communist or even civilized about such views, and in combination with your adoration of violence they are plain Fascist.

[DemonArchangel]

You sound like the arrogant, racist European elite of the old days speaking about their colonial subjects. There is nothing Communist or even civilized about such views, and in combination with your adoration of violence they are plain Fascist.

I never said I was a Communist, and I refuse to apologize for my cruel and fascist views. What China is doing in Tibet is colonialism, plain and simple, but I won't apologize for it.

Moros: Better to be feared than loved. Also, it's best simply to beat the Tibetans that complain loudly. Smallest to Tallest works too I guess.:clown: :wink:

clown smilie added to reinforce poster's assumed ironic intent. ~Kukri

[Moros]

Moros: Better to be feared than loved. .

You really think so?


Also, it's best simply to beat the Tibetans that complain loudly. Smallest to Tallest works too I guess
Smallest to Tallest works? Great, I never could stand tibettan dwarves. How do I hate them tibettan dwarves. :laugh4:

[KarlXII]

Communism is a plague wherever it manifests. I'm proud my grandfather and other family members were involved in trying to destroy it for good. Its only too bad that they failed...

It'd be easy for me to find numerous sources that show the deaths, inderect and direct, that radical right wing, right wing, and capitalist governments have killed.

I'm glad my grandfathers helped fight the Communist Soviet Union and Fascist Nazi Germany.

[KarlXII]

and I refuse to apologize for my cruel and fascist views

I think we can end the thread here, guys. :dizzy2:

[Adrian II]

I think we can end the thread here, guys. :dizzy2:Well yeah. QED, so to speak.

But the fact that China is evolving into a Fascist state merits some more debate. See you guys in another thread. :wave:

[Louis VI the Fat]

It'd be easy for me to find numerous sources that show the deaths, inderect and direct, that radical right wing, right wing, and capitalist governments have killed.

I'm glad my grandfathers helped fight the Communist Soviet Union and Fascist Nazi Germany.Hey, I didn't know you had non-Swedish ancestors too...:tomato:




and I refuse to apologize for my cruel and fascist views I think that maybe you are so determined to save face and 'defend' your country and family's honour that you allowed yourself to be driven into a corner, from which then your only way out was to lash out with wild counter-accusations and fascist tough talk.

[DemonArchangel]

I think that maybe you are so determined to save face and 'defend' your country and family's honour that you allowed yourself to be driven into a corner, from which then your only way out was to lash out with wild counter-accusations and fascist tough talk.

I still refuse to apologize for anything.

[JR-]

But the fact that China is evolving into a Fascist state merits some more debate. See you guys in another thread. :wave:

that would be an interesting thread, with all kinds of lurid comparisons to other empires and their versions of colonialism. someone should start it now................. :2thumbsup:

[KarlXII]

Hey, I didn't know you had non-Swedish ancestors too...

Haha. Actually, my recently passed grandfather fought in the Volunteer Brigade during the Winter War. Mannerheim Line, 1939-40. Wounded. Healed then fought in Norway, went into Sweden following the capitulation, sailed in merchant ships.

My other grandfather also fought in Norway (Neither saw each other :laugh4:) and evacuated with the other Allies to Britain where he was a gunnery officer in the North Sea. Died before I met him.


Funny, isn't it?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Fascist Nazi Germany.

I have to argue with the terms you're using. While I'm not a fascist, Nazism differs radically from the fascism in common practice at the time. The concept of fascism exists in Nazism, but the core of Nazism is different from the core of fascism.

[KarlXII]

I have to argue with the terms you're using. While I'm not a fascist, Nazism differs radically from the fascism in common practice at the time. The concept of fascism exists in Nazism, but the core of Nazism is different from the core of fascism.

So I'm comparing bannanas to green bannanas :laugh4:?:2thumbsup:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So I'm comparing bannanas to green bannanas :laugh4:?:2thumbsup:

No, more like strawberry chocolate-covered ice cream to vanilla chocolate-covered frozen yogurt. They look similar, but take one bite...

[KarlXII]

No, more like strawberry chocolate-covered ice cream to vanilla chocolate-covered frozen yogurt. They look similar, but take one bite...

I look at it like this:

You have two bowls of vanilla ice cream, one has nothing on it, the other has sprinkles. The sprinkles being Nazism. You essentially have the same thing, one has more flavor to it.

[Papewaio]

I have to argue with the terms you're using. While I'm not a fascist, Nazism differs radically from the fascism in common practice at the time. The concept of fascism exists in Nazism, but the core of Nazism is different from the core of fascism.

End results weren't much different. I think the difference is closer to chocolate vs fudge then chocolate vs carob.

[CountArach]

I look at it like this:

You have two bowls of vanilla ice cream, one has nothing on it, the other has sprinkles. The sprinkles being Nazism. You essentially have the same thing, one has more flavor to it.
The problem with that analogy is that neither of them taste good...

I did laugh when I read it though, well done sir :2thumbsup:

[Jolt]

Cruelty: So? The Tibetans should stop whining. They've received enough benefits from the Chinese. The Chinese treat Tibetans a whole lot better than they treat the Han Chinese.

Stupidity: I don't see anything stupid about the occupation of Tibet.

Deceit: I fully acknowledge everything China has done in Tibet. By that, I mean everything. The only divergence is that I think China is doing the right thing in Tibet, and you don't.

Somehow, I think if a foreign country invaded your country without any pretext (Other than "[Insert Authoritarian Power-Hungry Dictator here] wants to.") And half of your familly was killed in the invasion. And the other half of your familly would die in consequence of persecutions (Cultural, religious, political, etc.), you wouldn't be endorsing what China did.

[KarlXII]

Nazism is to fascism what Stalinism is to communism. A radical extreme.

Yet they both have a core politicial philosophy. That only proves my point. Communism is a radical liberal ideology, yet still a liberal ideology.

[Incongruous]

Yet they both have a core politicial philosophy. That only proves my point. Communism is a radical liberal ideology, yet still a liberal ideology.

Liberal ideology?
I wonder from which part of that cesspit of rampant destruction and murder you managed to dredge up a liberal ideology?

[Adrian II]

Liberal ideology?
I wonder from which part of that cesspit of rampant destruction and murder you managed to dredge up a liberal ideology?That one made me smile as well. Here's what the Wiki on Liberalism says:


Liberalism is a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.Locke, Montesquieu and Mill, the founding fathers of Communism. :sneaky:

[Adrian II]

[..] dilettantes of the history of ideas [//]'Dilettante' is a French word, isn't it?

Says it all. :smug:

[Louis VI the Fat]

:smug:Communism is incomparable to liberalism. Sworn enemies. Communism, however, has its roots firmly planted in liberal thought. It is part resistance to, and part radicalisation of, liberal ideas.

How about, to name one example, class struggle (http://mises.org/story/2217#1)?* Liberalism is the class ideology of the bourgeoisie. Communism is the ideology of the proletariat. Both share a sense of class struggle, with communism basing itself on a liberal origin of the concept, derived from liberal, bourgeois thinkers both before and after the Revolution:


Marx asserts: Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes.

Few ideas are as closely associated with Marxism as the concepts of class and class conflict. Yet, as with much else in Marxism, these concepts remain ambiguous and contradictory. The two most prominent "bourgeois historians" whom he names are the Frenchmen, Francois Guizot and Augustin Thierry; two years later, Marx referred to Thierry as "the father of the 'class struggle' in French historiography.

This "bourgeois" lineage of the Marxist theory was freely conceded by Marx's immediate followers.


*Warning! Unlike Wiki, it's full of difficult, multi-syllable words. ~;p

[Kralizec]

Communism is the ideology of the proletariat.

Communism is not an ideology. Ideologies are products of bourgeois intellectuals who want to legitimize the status quo, or at least distort reality enough to prevent the workers from realizing that they're being exploited. It can only delay the inevitable, and when the workers do take over revisionists like you will be the first against the wall :rifle:

[Adrian II]

Liberalism is the class ideology of the bourgeoisie. Communism is the ideology of the proletariat.:zzz:

[Louis VI the Fat]

:zzz:I had hoped that - you being a child of the 60's/70s after all - that this would've sounded very convincing to you. ~:mecry:

[Jolt]

Communism is not an ideology. Ideologies are products of bourgeois intellectuals who want to legitimize the status quo, or at least distort reality enough to prevent the workers from realizing that they're being exploited. It can only delay the inevitable, and when the workers do take over revisionists like you will be the first against the wall :rifle:

Ideologies as we speak means a set of ideals, principles, doctrines and symbols of a socio-political organization. Shouldn't you consider yourself "lucky" you can speak freely in "their" regime and not be arrested/killed for it? After all, if they relied on the same basic principals towards free speech as you, you'd be dead already.

[HoreTore]

This subject frustrates me to no end. It is so glaringly obvious that the democratic European nations after WWII economically drastically outperformed both the Communist and the authoritarian regimes. Yet, fellow travellers of both kind persist and persist and persist in singing the praise of the economic miracles of the dictatorships. They did it in 1958. And in 1968. And in 1978. And in 1988. And in 1998. And in 2008. :wall::wall::wall:

:2thumbsup:

[Adrian II]

I had hoped that - you being a child of the 60's/70s after all - that this would've sounded very convincing to you. ~:mecry:You imbéc funny Frenchman, after years of seeing my views and ideas splattered all over this forum, haven't you realised that I'm a 'child' of the likes of George Orwell, Hanna Arendt, and Jean-Francois Revel? Doubters, skeptics, dystopian visionaries. My motto: try not to make the world a worse place during your lifetime then when you entered it. No 'barbarian dreams of revolution'(Foucault) for Adrian II.

[Incongruous]

Communism is incomparable to liberalism. Sworn enemies. Communism, however, has its roots firmly planted in liberal thought. It is part resistance to, and part radicalisation of, liberal ideas.

How about, to name one example, class struggle (http://mises.org/story/2217#1)?* Liberalism is the class ideology of the bourgeoisie. Communism is the ideology of the proletariat. Both share a sense of class struggle, with communism basing itself on a liberal origin of the concept, derived from liberal, bourgeois thinkers both before and after the Revolution:




*Warning! Unlike Wiki, it's full of difficult, multi-syllable words. ~;p

Ha!
Communism is not a proletariat ideology, perhaps if you're family had any real knowledge of communism you might know that one:yes:.
Jesus, anyone who spout bollocks like that clearly has no idea about what he talks.

The only link between the two is that the middle classes reign supreme.
Just what part of "liberal" ideology do you think the commie gits twisted?

[Banquo's Ghost]

The discussion on Franco has been moved here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=107084).

Let's keep on topic, or at least, within touching distance.

:bow: