[Politics] Nazi China

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

And yet the United States has more prisoners.

Are we only counting officially known prisoners or are we also including people who have mysteriously disappeared after critiquing China?

How many people do you think that is? Is it as many as 450,000? Or to put it another way, is it literally more than a quarter of the entire Chinese prison population?

China has a population of 1.39 billion and a prison population of 1.65 million.
The United States, by contrast, has a population of 0.33 billion and a prison population of 2.12 million.
Per 100,000 people China has 118 imprisoned whereas the United States has 655.

The number of Uighurs, as well as Kazakhs and other Muslim minorities, who have been detained in the camps is unclear. Estimates range from several hundred thousand to perhaps a million, with exile Uighur groups saying the number is even higher.

Link [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/asia/china-uighur-muslim-detention-camp.html?module=inline]

Regardless, this is clearly an attempt at ethnic cleansing in a way that should be deeply concerning regardless of what's happening in the US. Essentially an entire culture is being forced to discard their most fundamental cultural practices under threat of arrest, torture, or disappearance, to the point that even leaving the country and seeking asylum is not an escape (particularly for family members that are not authorized to leave).

 

[Trunkage]

The biggest problem with communism is how many right-wing despots use it as a way to trick common people into supporting fascism. Stalin, Mao, Putin, Xi, all are right-wing despots.

Oh, no.

Stalin and Mao were certainly not right wing, they were left wing. Both actually believed in communism and tried to make it happen, both had no qualms at all with ending traditions and changing society in perceived progressive ways ultrafast. Pretending otherwise is as stupid as those arguments that pretend that Nazis were actually socialist.

Modern day Russia is not the SU. And modern day China is a far cry from the China of Maos days, even if they did not have as hard a break as Russia with the end of the cold war.


If you had restricted yourself to Putin and Xi, we could consider that, but the way you did it, it is pure nonsense.

Secret Police, mass murder and fascism is not left-wing.

Stalin and Mao are even more right-wing than Putin and Xi. They WISH they were on their horrible level. Stalin and Mao Jrs.

They aren't inherently Left Wing, but they are Authoritarian, and that's not analogous to Right Wing. You can have Libertarian Left or Right, and you can have Authoritarian Left or Right.

Stalin, Trotsky, etc all truly believed in their Socialist utopia, their methods were in order to remove elements that they believed were undermining that, and then, over time, as power does, it became more about sustaining their own position than anything else, but you can't say that they weren't attempting to implement their interpretation of Marx and Engels (Why do all horrible ideologies originate in Germany?) without revealing yourself as someone who has never actually read a history book.

EDIT: Your attempts at redefinition remind me of this:

One point: Libertarians aren't about Freedom. They are about their version of Freedom. An example of this they like of Capitalism. They see it as good and everyone should have it. You know, despite what everyone else thinks. They can be Authoritarian.

They definitely aren't the opposite of Authoritarian. That's Anarchism.

 

[Trunkage]

And yet the United States has more prisoners.

Are we only counting officially known prisoners or are we also including people who have mysteriously disappeared after critiquing China?

How many people do you think that is? Is it as many as 450,000? Or to put it another way, is it literally more than a quarter of the entire Chinese prison population?

China has a population of 1.39 billion and a prison population of 1.65 million.
The United States, by contrast, has a population of 0.33 billion and a prison population of 2.12 million.
Per 100,000 people China has 118 imprisoned whereas the United States has 655.

The number of Uighurs, as well as Kazakhs and other Muslim minorities, who have been detained in the camps is unclear. Estimates range from several hundred thousand to perhaps a million, with exile Uighur groups saying the number is even higher.

Link [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/asia/china-uighur-muslim-detention-camp.html?module=inline]

Regardless, this is clearly an attempt at ethnic cleansing in a way that should be deeply concerning regardless of what's happening in the US. Essentially an entire culture is being forced to discard their most fundamental cultural practices under threat of arrest, torture, or disappearance, to the point that even leaving the country and seeking asylum is not an escape (particularly for family members that are not authorized to leave).

They're not doing a comparison based on race. They are doing it because Americans keep pretending they are the good guys yet lock up way more people.

So let's go back to race. Yes, the Chinese government, I think, here is being more racist. AND, I think, American is not that far behind. There is a whole bunch of laws that seem to only effect African Americans or Hispanics, hence they make up a large portion of the incarcerated population. It's not that far behind.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

They're not doing a comparison based on race. They are doing it because Americans keep pretending they are the good guys yet lock up way more people.

So let's go back to race. Yes, the Chinese government, I think, here is being more racist. AND, I think, American is not that far behind. There is a whole bunch of laws that seem to only effect African Americans or Hispanics, hence they make up a large portion of the incarcerated population. It's not that far behind.

I'm not pretending that the US has some serious issues with criminal justice, particularly disparate impact by both formal and informal approaches to policing. But we should stop saying "but what about the US" every time we see an atrocity being committed and actually address the issue itself rather than getting on a tangent that is ultimately not related to the key issue.

The Uighurs in China and, to a somewhat lesser but potentially more literally explosive extent, the crisis in the Kashmir region in India are really serious attempts at essentially ripping out an entire culture directly by government action. These are serious issues that those governments feel emboldened to do largely because they know that the Trump administration will turn a blind eye to it and European powers are in such disarray that there's no real organized means of addressing the issue. We're watching ethnic cleansing happen in both counties and there's no one lifting a finger that can actually do anything. And that doesn't even cover the rise of right-wing authoritarians around the world who are itching to do the same to various minorities in their countries, including ones that are ostensibly long-standing liberal democracies.

It's a really fucking scary time to look outside and inside the boarders of my county and see a collapse of liberal values through the use of scapegoating, misinformation, and nationalism by conservatives and authoritarians around the globe.

 

[vallorn]

The biggest problem with communism is how many right-wing despots use it as a way to trick common people into supporting fascism. Stalin, Mao, Putin, Xi, all are right-wing despots.

Oh, no.

Stalin and Mao were certainly not right wing, they were left wing. Both actually believed in communism and tried to make it happen, both had no qualms at all with ending traditions and changing society in perceived progressive ways ultrafast. Pretending otherwise is as stupid as those arguments that pretend that Nazis were actually socialist.

Modern day Russia is not the SU. And modern day China is a far cry from the China of Maos days, even if they did not have as hard a break as Russia with the end of the cold war.


If you had restricted yourself to Putin and Xi, we could consider that, but the way you did it, it is pure nonsense.

Secret Police, mass murder and fascism is not left-wing.

Stalin and Mao are even more right-wing than Putin and Xi. They WISH they were on their horrible level. Stalin and Mao Jrs.

They aren't inherently Left Wing, but they are Authoritarian, and that's not analogous to Right Wing. You can have Libertarian Left or Right, and you can have Authoritarian Left or Right.

Stalin, Trotsky, etc all truly believed in their Socialist utopia, their methods were in order to remove elements that they believed were undermining that, and then, over time, as power does, it became more about sustaining their own position than anything else, but you can't say that they weren't attempting to implement their interpretation of Marx and Engels (Why do all horrible ideologies originate in Germany?) without revealing yourself as someone who has never actually read a history book.

EDIT: Your attempts at redefinition remind me of this:

One point: Libertarians aren't about Freedom. They are about their version of Freedom. An example of this they like of Capitalism. They see it as good and everyone should have it. You know, despite what everyone else thinks. They can be Authoritarian.

They definitely aren't the opposite of Authoritarian. That's Anarchism.

Liberty is the opposite of Authority. Libertarian in this isn't the political theory of Libertarianism, simply the point on the sliding scale of people.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Libertarian in this isn't the political theory of Libertarianism

Erm, in the same way that Saelune's use of "left-wing" or "communist" isn't the one everyone else seems to be using?

I'd personally question how communist a leader was that's enjoying luxuries while the lesser classes starve, but then I may as well get on the redefinition bandwagon and say communism is like what countries calling themselves communist are like, rather than anything much to do with Marx.

 

[Saelune]

Liberty is the opposite of Authority. Libertarian in this isn't the political theory of Libertarianism, simply the point on the sliding scale of people.

As long as there are 'centrists' who are actually right wing and 'libertarians' who defend ICE, I am not going to concern myself over this BS. Left-wing = Good. Equality, fair liberty, human rights, and protective oversight of responsibilities. These are good things, these are left-wing things.

Religious zealotry, hypocrisy, bigoted 'traditions' are all garbage and need to go.

 

[Kwak]

I'm not pretending that the US has some serious issues with criminal justice, particularly disparate impact by both formal and informal approaches to policing.

Who's pretending?

 

[Trunkage]

Libertarian in this isn't the political theory of Libertarianism

Erm, in the same way that Saelune's use of "left-wing" or "communist" isn't the one everyone else seems to be using?

I'd personally question how communist a leader was that's enjoying luxuries while the lesser classes starve, but then I may as well get on the redefinition bandwagon and say communism is like what countries calling themselves communist are like, rather than anything much to do with Marx.

I despise Lenin and think he's at fault for Communism turning Authoritarian. But I have to say that he generally live a pretty austere lifestyle. If you're a leader of Communism but have a lifestyle better than everyone else, you're doing it wrong

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

I agree that China's actions and economics are moving towards an authoritarian and inhumane state. However, I feel that simply admonishing them won't work. The way their culture operates is technically different from ours even if they are westernizing. This isn't just a "oh, east vs west" thing. They have had a long history and turmoil and their government and culture revolves around trying to prevent stuff like the yellow turban revolt and the boxer rebellion from destabilizing the country.

Granted, i'm not a cultural anthropology major so anyone with a major or better education in that area can feel free to rail and deride me. The point i'm making though is that a simple admonishment or economic sanction won't work. We need to work within the methods of their culture to enact change and only use forceful methods if there proves to be a dissonance.

 

[Trunkage]

From a military/imperialistic point of view China can very well be compared with pre-WW2 germany. It is claiming territory against everyone's will and against international law, has an ever increasing military strength and is being generally ignored by everyone.

Sort of...but China's land grabs in the South China Sea are still a far cry away from Nazi Germany outright annexing territory - territory that in the leadup to WWII, it never had a claim to (e.g. Czechslovakia). And similarly, Nazi Germany was stirring up hatred towards Jews, gypsies, and so on. You can point to the Unghyr, but as tragic as that is, it's nowhere near the scale of Nazi Germany's attrocities. "Reeducation camps" aren't Auschitz.

Also, in the context of international law and military strength, are we really putting the US on a pedastal above China? Need I remind everyone that Iraq was an illegal war built on falsehoods that, among other things, created a power vacuum that led to ISIS? Has China outright invaded another country in recent decades?

My other problem is that India is invading right now. They have a jingoistic, patriotic (Trump's patriotism where you only allowed to do what they say) and has been denigrating anyone who isn't Hindu. They've been building up militarily and made a 'defense pact' with Japan. How are they not Germany in this situation.

Because it goes further. France did nothing about Germany because they were super worried about Russia. And Russia definitely had it's very clear issue, like illegalising homosexuality and putting people in Gulag. China is more like Soviet Russia. Worthy of scorn but maybe also be worried about another country

None of those parallels make any sense. The border dispute over Kashmir goes almost as far back as the British colonial presence. Both Pakistan and India have made incursions, but for decades this has been kept in check through a nuclear balance. Maybe Modi feels particularly confident now that Pakistan is losing U.S. support and forces the regime to cut loose the ties between it's security apparatus and the Islamic hardliners in Waziristan and the Taliban. Without U.S. support for Pakistan there is no one to reel India in, but given the chance Pakistan would do the same. Hell, has done the same both overt and covert.

France(just like Britain) did nothing about Germany b/c Europe was tired of war after the Great War had torn the continent to pieces and decimated an entire generation of young men. France and Belgium in particular suffered lots of trench warfare. It wasn't until the invasion of Poland that Britain realized another war was inevitable. That France was somehow more worried at the time about Russia 'illegalising homosexuality' then German aggression is laughable. [ ]Anti-Bolshevism wasn't even a thing until 1942 in semi-autonomous Vichy France[/b].

Technically it was a thing that pretty much coincided with Hitler?s increasing involvement in politics. Bolshevism and all it stood for was Nazi Germany?s greatest and most immediate concern, for which their remilitarization efforts were largely started to thwart its spread in Europe. The rise of Bolshevism was also largely in part a reactionary movement largely supported by communist Jews who were resigned to living in the ever-crowding Pale of Settlement for more than a century prior while under Imperial rule. Bolshevik communism and Jews pretty much went hand-in-hand to Hitler, which was a leading factor in their oppression.

 

[vallorn]

Libertarian in this isn't the political theory of Libertarianism

Erm, in the same way that Saelune's use of "left-wing" or "communist" isn't the one everyone else seems to be using?

I'd personally question how communist a leader was that's enjoying luxuries while the lesser classes starve, but then I may as well get on the redefinition bandwagon and say communism is like what countries calling themselves communist are like, rather than anything much to do with Marx.

No, I'm using the terms as understood in the widely used political compass test. I don't just conjure new terms out of thin air after all.

Liberty is the opposite of Authority. Libertarian in this isn't the political theory of Libertarianism, simply the point on the sliding scale of people.

As long as there are 'centrists' who are actually right wing and 'libertarians' who defend ICE, I am not going to concern myself over this BS. Left-wing = Good. Equality, fair liberty, human rights, and protective oversight of responsibilities. These are good things, these are left-wing things.

Religious zealotry, hypocrisy, bigoted 'traditions' are all garbage and need to go.

Really stickin it to the radical centrists there Saelune. Good job. Maybe you should go out and tell them what you think so they know what awful people they really are? Maybe you'll even swing some votes?

 

[Saelune]

Liberty is the opposite of Authority. Libertarian in this isn't the political theory of Libertarianism, simply the point on the sliding scale of people.

As long as there are 'centrists' who are actually right wing and 'libertarians' who defend ICE, I am not going to concern myself over this BS. Left-wing = Good. Equality, fair liberty, human rights, and protective oversight of responsibilities. These are good things, these are left-wing things.

Religious zealotry, hypocrisy, bigoted 'traditions' are all garbage and need to go.

Really stickin it to the radical centrists there Saelune. Good job. Maybe you should go out and tell them what you think so they know what awful people they really are? Maybe you'll even swing some votes?

This isn't your little discord. If you're going to just shit on me, put some effort in.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

While I don't like the US prison system, and China's prison system is worse. We have to remember they got this idea from Singapore whose prison system and reeducation camps are also something I don't like. China just took it and made it an order of magnitude worst.

I would be honest to you guys even Obama didn't do anything regarding Myanmar's islamophobe ethnic cleansing, and I wouldn't either against China because to do so would be to put the US economy at risk against China. (Even if I would against Myanmar as it's a weaker country)

It weakens your geopolitical hand and to ask another country to do something. The more you ask, the more you need to give.

You also couldn't destabilize China but doing so risks counter-destabilization in the US.

The most I could see any leader do is a UN-style bolded letter, and maybe some Turkish nationalism if your Turkey.

Again Trump is either a populist or a realist in Foreign Policy. If he's a populist he hates Muslims as he's not one, and won't do anything for them as he views them as an immigration threat to the US, if he's a realist(So was Obama) he won't weaken his hand in the trade talks which is what I am guessing he is.

His meeting with Xi will mostly be about opioids made in China, US manufacturing, North Korea, or US agribusiness, and maybe buying China LNG natural gas.

Even the neoconservatives aren't crazy enough to want war with China. Progressives could confront them, but the democratic party and the republican party are controlled by baby boomers/old people who don't want to upset the status quo or are racist because they own most of the US assets.

Your best bet against China in the short-term is OPEC. Get OPEC to stop selling fossil fuels to China, then China would have to buy them from Russia at a higher rate, and that could kill China's economy, and weaken their hand. Long-term you could economically improve surrounding countries around China, and your own economy(and not buy 5g telecommunications From Huawei). You could also weaken China's soft power as well with Islamic countries, but Muslim-banning Trump isn't the man for the job, and neither is Tulsi.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

I'm not pretending that the US has some serious issues with criminal justice, particularly disparate impact by both formal and informal approaches to policing.

Who's pretending?

Pretty much every self-described "law and order" conservative I've read and, until very very recently, Joe "My time is up" Biden[footnote]Please, for god sake, stop running for president[/footnote], for starters.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Libertarian in this isn't the political theory of Libertarianism

Erm, in the same way that Saelune's use of "left-wing" or "communist" isn't the one everyone else seems to be using?

I'd personally question how communist a leader was that's enjoying luxuries while the lesser classes starve, but then I may as well get on the redefinition bandwagon and say communism is like what countries calling themselves communist are like, rather than anything much to do with Marx.

No, I'm using the terms as understood in the widely used political compass test. I don't just conjure new terms out of thin air after all.

Fair enough, my mistake.

 

[Agema]

No, I'm using the terms as understood in the widely used political compass test. I don't just conjure new terms out of thin air after all.

Wow. "Libertarian" Ron Paul really isn't very libertarian at all.

 

[Agema]

I agree that China's actions and economics are moving towards an authoritarian and inhumane state. However, I feel that simply admonishing them won't work. The way their culture operates is technically different from ours even if they are westernizing. This isn't just a "oh, east vs west" thing. They have had a long history and turmoil and their government and culture revolves around trying to prevent stuff like the yellow turban revolt and the boxer rebellion from destabilizing the country.

I think this is a very important point.

China's long history will have established quite a strong cultural feeling about what it takes to maintain stability and unity. These might be rather different from the West's, and fundamentally colour how it views various freedoms. A historian of China (which I am surely not) might well conclude that the message from their history is that very strong control from the top is preferable.

One also has to consider the possibility that things like China's managed capitalism and society or Russia's illiberal democracy might in fact turn out to be "better" (i.e. survive longer) than our Western democracies, because it turns out they're more suited to the circumstances of the modern world.

 

[stroopwafel]

One also has to consider the possibility that things like China's managed capitalism and society or Russia's illiberal democracy might in fact turn out to be "better" (i.e. survive longer) than our Western democracies, because it turns out they're more suited to the circumstances of the modern world.

China and Russia might be better at suppressing social discontent and unrest so it appears less divided but it comes at the cost of a corrupted justice system and nepotism, which rule of law and transparancy is a democracy's biggest strength. It's why well-to-do Russians stash all their rubles in European real estate and why China won't subjugate Hong Kong militarily despite serious protests(independent courts + insurance companies). International business values transparency and the law state above all else so democracies will always have the competitive edge. You don't want a dictatorial regime confiscate all your possessions when you fall out of grace and have no independent court or justice system to fall back on.

 

[Seanchaidh]

One also has to consider the possibility that things like China's managed capitalism and society or Russia's illiberal democracy might in fact turn out to be "better" (i.e. survive longer) than our Western democracies, because it turns out they're more suited to the circumstances of the modern world.

China and Russia might be better at suppressing social discontent and unrest so it appears less divided but it comes at the cost of a corrupted justice system and nepotism, which rule of law and transparancy is a democracy's biggest strength. It's why well-to-do Russians stash all their rubles in European real estate and why China won't subjugate Hong Kong militarily despite serious protests(independent courts + insurance companies). International business values transparency and the law state above all else so democracies will always have the competitive edge. You don't want a dictatorial regime confiscate all your possessions when you fall out of grace and have no independent court or justice system to fall back on.

Which is why world war 2 was fought primarily between bureaucratic social militarists and totalitarian state capitalists, and the "democracies" to a large extent turned to centralized planning and rationing to stay competitive. Which is why the space race started with bureaucratic socialism in the lead and "democracy" caught up by dumping tons of government money on a space program-- but fifty years later, SpaceX is doing fuck all that hasn't been done before. Which is why China has sustained economic growth faster than any country that followed the IMF's neoliberal policy prescriptions. International business hardly gives a shit about 'transparency' and the 'law state'; otherwise they would not have so heavily invested in China in the first place.

It is only a matter of time before centralized state capitalism will more obviously outcompete private capitalism, and for the same reason that centralized absolute monarchies outcompeted the decentralized feudalisms of the dark ages. It doesn't really matter what international business likes or dislikes, what matters is who controls the means of production and who can compel the labor.