Rant du jour: China are a disgrace

[Simster]

Are you secretly wishing it was a Chocolate Mousse?

Clearly not, otherwise I'd have purchased a chocolate mousse instead.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

Clearly not, otherwise I'd have purchased a chocolate mousse instead.

ah, the free market inaction.

 

[Buzzer]

no.

socialism: some control over the means of production
communism: total control over the means of production.

socialism: some redistribution of wealth
communism: total redistribution of wealth.

socialism: equality of opportunity
communism: equality of outcome.

i know you know these differences, which makes me wonder why you (and indeed anyone, but the articulate in particular) are so opposed to a more just society.

communism cannot work. socialism has not worked.

This is the very thing I'm getting at TiD. When socialism goes wrong we get told that it's the wrong type of socialism and that the brand that is good has never been tried sufficiently. How many more socialist experiments in the world does there need to be before you see that it's flawed?

Also, why is it you are allowed to have discrete types of socialism and thus be able to opt out of responsibility for the errors in it's name but capitalism is just capitalism. It's all global, it's all bad, it's all about big business screwing the working man.

Not according to me it isn't. I believe in a true laissez-faire approach to business, something that's alien to the Tescos and British Airways of this world. There are as many types of capitalism as there are types of socialism in this world. They're not perfect but they're mainly fair, they're mainly free societies and they seem to work without too much oppression.

So when you say I'm a capitalist, therefore I'm a global capitalist you are so so so wrong. Try free-market libertarian or a fan of Adam Smith and you'll be nearer the mark.

As for Nixon, the man was a genius. The last great intellectual US president. A completely political man despised by the Democrats as much for his humble upbringing as compared to the Kennedys as his politics. Driven by a hunger for trying to make the world a fairer place. He was the 1st US president to seriously be pro-active about rights for minorities rather than have changed forced upon him. He was very vocal and active in his support for equal rights for black people and women in the US. He pulled the country out of Vietnam. His biggest weakness was his complete mistrust in people. He's not so different from Gordon Brown. And Watergate was a complete stitch-up. All the evidence points to a conspiracy sadly.

 

[Pavilionaire]

What would Smashy and Nicey have said about this?

Nicey: "Well, er, human rights. Everyone has the right to be human, right mate?"

Smashy: "Too right mate, the Chinese are great in a Tianamen-tastic type way, don'tcha think Nicey?"

Nicey: "Certainly do, they're Mao-mungus. And they do great food!"

Smashy: "Can't beat it Nicey - Everybody loves a little Chinese in 'em on a Friday night. Here's a record for all our little yellow-faced slitty eyed listeners out there, it's Level 42 with "The Chinese Way" - now let's WOK!"

 

[Cian]

This is the very thing I'm getting at TiD. When socialism goes wrong we get told that it's the wrong type of socialism and that the brand that is good has never been tried sufficiently. How many more socialist experiments in the world does there need to be before you see that it's flawed?

Its worked surprisingly well here

 

[Collar Feeler]

Never talks about womens hair or politics is a rule that has served me well over the years but I will indulge myself today.

It seems to me that terms such as 'Communism', 'Socialism', 'Facism' et al are all very broad in scope and interpretation and therefore become unreliable labels to describe nations or leaders of nations. To me it makes more sense to call it Maoism, Hitlerism, Blairism etc etc since the architects of these varying forms of society take a basic idea and bastardise is to suit their own ideologies. Socialism for instance can be described entirely differently by well educated and intelligent people depending on who you listen to.

Personally I get very confused with the whole issue and find it difficult to find any consistency to support any reasonable debate. The key I guess is to accept that my opinion and understanding of Communism, Socialism etc may be completely different to yours and how ever many sources I can quote to support my view are likely to be easily countered with equally valid quotes and sources from your viewpoint.

Good debate though if you can ignore the personal insults!

 

[glasfryn]

My old mum used to say if you want to how people are look at how they treat their animals (and it seems the same goes for nations too) the Chinese treat their animals like shit so why would they be any different with people who ask questions and poignant ones at that.
There are many other nations who come into this category who I am not going to mention for fear of upsetting people needless to say I will not be watching any of the Olympics from China (rather spend my time trying to stop the imports of dog and cat skins for that country).

 

[The Merry Prankster]

The "Its never been tried properly" argument. I wonder exactly how many people need to be expended before we might come to the conclusion that how ever Utopian the ideal, in practise it has just been too costly.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

This is the very thing I'm getting at TiD. When socialism goes wrong we get told that it's the wrong type of socialism and that the brand that is good has never been tried sufficiently. How many more socialist experiments in the world does there need to be before you see that it's flawed?

Also, why is it you are allowed to have discrete types of socialism and thus be able to opt out of responsibility for the errors in it's name but capitalism is just capitalism. It's all global, it's all bad, it's all about big business screwing the working man.

Not according to me it isn't. I believe in a true laissez-faire approach to business, something that's alien to the Tescos and British Airways of this world. There are as many types of capitalism as there are types of socialism in this world. They're not perfect but they're mainly fair, they're mainly free societies and they seem to work without too much oppression.

So when you say I'm a capitalist, therefore I'm a global capitalist you are so so so wrong. Try free-market libertarian or a fan of Adam Smith and you'll be nearer the mark.

As for Nixon, the man was a genius. The last great intellectual US president. A completely political man despised by the Democrats as much for his humble upbringing as compared to the Kennedys as his politics. Driven by a hunger for trying to make the world a fairer place. He was the 1st US president to seriously be pro-active about rights for minorities rather than have changed forced upon him. He was very vocal and active in his support for equal rights for black people and women in the US. He pulled the country out of Vietnam. His biggest weakness was his complete mistrust in people. He's not so different from Gordon Brown. And Watergate was a complete stitch-up. All the evidence points to a conspiracy sadly.

the trouble with political theory is that it is precisely that: theory, not science. so it is little wonder that none has not been implemented perfectly. i'm not interested in a 'socialist state'. i just want socialist policies implemented in this one. we don't need a revolution.

can i ask, do you think governments need to/should intervene in the market to guarantee competition and encourage free and fair trade, or can this be left up to the market?

 

[Icy Gull]

I really miss LI's input into these political arguments, we'd be up to 10+ pages by now if he still posted and it would be a far more interesting and spirited read too

*voyeur*

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

he's watching.

 

[NMH]

China basically stopped still in time, since about 200 years ago. They were supposedly an advanced culture - but it has resulted in them realizing that they'd been overtaken by most of the western world.

Now, they're all rushing to catch up - which means buying cars and personal technology, while in some places they are (relatively) still sending kids up chimneys to clean them.
Imagine Dickensian Britain suddenly jolted into the present time, Tiny Tim with a playstation, Scrooge checking his bank balance on his p/c, and Gradgrind popping over to Paris on the 200mph train for some shopping.
They have the wherewithal to catch up, because they've been extremely industrial for many many decades. Although there will undoubtably be incongruity between the haves and have-nots, they won't struggle with the problems of, say, India, or South America.

 

[Silvanus]

I've just received Amnesty's latest campaign leaflet through the post, they are launching an offensive against China in the build-up to the Beijing Games.

While superficially putting on a front of a tolerant new regime for the cameras, the Chinese are still merrily killing and torturing dissidents of all types behind the scenes.

They are particularly sensitive in tourist areas, and would far rather beat/torture a confession out of an innocent than have an unsolved crime sitting on the books.

How the f**k did this lot get awarded the Games, which are supposed to symbolise harmony and unity. It's an utter disgrace, but hey, if their child labour can rustle up a few cut-price consumer goods in the sweatshops for a while longer, let's turn a blind eye.

They should be stripped of the games!