Political and Military Analysis on China

advill said:

Is this concept of "One Nation State" ideal now? Perhaps it was in "Ancient Times" BUT no longer relevant from the 20th Century. People everywhere are no longer subservient, that would include the Chinese in China & throughout the world. There should never be absolute control by 1 person or 1 party.

Click to expand...

But nationalism is always relevant. Just observe what is happening in Europe or the British with their anti-EU rhetoric.

If the citizens don't like the leader or the party they should be given the choice of choosing another leader or party.

Click to expand...

Free from foreign affiliation and interest of course

Look at what is happening to most countries with 1-party leadership - Corruption, Nepotism, Autocracy, Bullying, Unfair Legal System etc. etc. Give the people freedom to choose their governments, unless the leadership is afraid to loose power.

Click to expand...

And look what happens when they do get "democracy" or indeed many of the countries that are deemed "democratic". Freedom for the oppressed doesn't necessarily mean free of oppression.

advill said:

Is this concept of "One Nation State" ideal now? Perhaps it was in "Ancient Times" BUT no longer relevant from the 20th Century. People everywhere are no longer subservient, that would include the Chinese in China & throughout the world. There should never be absolute control by 1 person or 1 party. If the citizens don't like the leader or the party they should be given the choice of choosing another leader or party. Look at what is happening to most countries with 1-party leadership - Corruption, Nepotism, Autocracy, Bullying, Unfair Legal System etc. etc. Give the people freedom to choose their governments, unless the leadership is afraid to loose power.

Click to expand...

LOL, mankind always had that choice to choose regardless of if it is a one party state or not. If you don't like something enough, no one can stop you from picking up arms to express what you are unhappy about; they can only put a bullet in your head or something like that.

Is corruption, nepotism, autocracy, bullying, unfair legal system a trait of 1-party states? Absolutely not, graft is a major issue in the Western world, Nepotism -> should I point you to the powerful American political family like the Kennedies, Bushes - the latter family made a shit load of money investing in the MIC-USA prior to the Iraq war?; Bullying - exists everywhere and I dare you to find a fair legal system in the world; find one which does not favor the wealthy and the powerful and is fast and efficient.

Honestly all the crows in the world are equally as black, the power line tower they sit on or the nest they come from does not matter.

Frankly, if you "equate" party membership to citizenship, a one party system is actually quite democratic. Just think of the west with their citizens and the second class citizens whom may be born there but have no real status like... the Mexicans in the US, Africans in France, illegal workers in Japan or the UK.

The Dictators & their families including "princelings", & the autocratic countries will eventually face their citizens' wrath & possible revolutions. We have seen what has happened and is happening via the media (without censorship in democratic countries). I am sure most would have heard/read about the fall of dictators of the former Eastern Bloc countries. Also what has happened in recent times to Sadam Hussein, Gadafi etc. etc. BTW, even blindmen can realise & cherish freedom/democracy.

advill said:

The Dictators & their families including "princelings", & the autocratic countries will eventually face their citizens' wrath & possible revolutions. We have seen what has happened and is happening via the media (without censorship in democratic countries). I am sure most would have heard/read about the fall of dictators of the former Eastern Bloc countries. Also what has happened in recent times to Sadam Hussein, Gadafi etc. etc. BTW, even blindmen can realise & cherish freedom/democracy.

Click to expand...

There are few dictatorships in East Asia. One of them is the military junta in Myanmar. Another is the hereditary monarchy in North Korea. The other is the hereditary monarchy in the Philippines.

advill said:

The Dictators & their families including "princelings", & the autocratic countries will eventually face their citizens' wrath & possible revolutions. We have seen what has happened and is happening via the media (without censorship in democratic countries). I am sure most would have heard/read about the fall of dictators of the former Eastern Bloc countries. Also what has happened in recent times to Sadam Hussein, Gadafi etc. etc. BTW, even blindmen can realise & cherish freedom/democracy.

Click to expand...

I would say this is bull. Democracy had also been known to go out with a round of applause - had you known history, from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, from the Weimer Republic to Nazi Germany; From republican Italy to Fascist Italy - etc. History have shown democracy to go out with a round of applause while autocracy are generally only toppled by arms. -> and more importantly, for the 8000~ years of written history, most of it was spent under autocracy; or technocracy which China is nowadays.

You mistaken freedom with democracy, in no definition do autocracy, monarchy, theocracy, stratocracy, Kritarchy and every other non democratic system to not allow public freedom.

Without censorship in democratic countries? are you nuts? all country have censorship may it be voluntary or involuntary.

It takes a man with the will to see and to understand; to actually know what is freedom and what is democracy and call them out as what they really should be. The USA for example is more of a plutocracy, I dare you to find me a state/country/nation which is truly democratic.

Agreed gyy 2105. Once a person is an ardent party member or follower, he cannot change his thinking. Really sad that such a person/s is unrealistic to happenings in the real world. At least in most democratic countries, we allow even obnoxious and crazy people to protest or demonstrate peacefully, as long as they do not create chaos or riots. Try doing it in Autocratic Countries, not only the peaceful demonstrators but their innocent family members would be locked up. Get REAL my friends. No offense, just different viewpoints - i.e. to agree to disagree - and that's democracy!

advill said:

Agreed gyy 2105. Once a person is an ardent party member or follower, he cannot change his thinking. Really sad that such a person/s is unrealistic to happenings in the real world. At least in most democratic countries, we allow even obnoxious and crazy people to protest or demonstrate peacefully, as long as they do not create chaos or riots. Try doing it in Autocratic Countries, not only the peaceful demonstrators but their innocent family members would be locked up. Get REAL my friends. No offense, just different viewpoints - i.e. to agree to disagree - and that's democracy!

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree; is generally pointless in a forum which purpose traditionally as an instrument of democracy is to allow different ideas to fly and allowing a consensus to be made. Again, democracy have nothing to do with freedom; who define what is peaceful and what is not?

Why the abuse of police power is well known in the USA/Canada/UK/France/EU? and history have shown a great majority of western "democratic" countries putting people and their family under "house arrest" for "national security" issues or trumped up charges.

Agreeing to disagree, is more authoritarian than democratic; It is a my way or the highway approach and is in disagreement of what democracy actually is. Democracy, as in politics is well defined; from Cleisthenes, Plato, Aristotle to... modernity, Democracy is very well defined; there is no argument on what it entails or excludes; if you wish to invent a new term for a form of democracy which includes freedom and something else, be my guest. But Democracy as it is defined, does not include any such freedoms.

I.e. democracy, is a methodology to reach a consensus and therefore a decision, it does not garuntee rights or privileges except that every "citizen" is allowed to speak and participate. There is nothing against killing that citizen afterwards if he speak something undesired by the public. Democracy is a form of people rule; majority rule is a form of people rule; communism is a form of people rule. Or since Democracy is the original form of people rule, you can say that communism is a form of democracy. Fascism, Technocracy, represented democracy, constitutional monarchy is all incommon with stratocracy

So I would suggest you read up on what all these political systems is and where they overlap.

Lezt, surprisingly you only focus on the US & European examples. Have you not heard about the BLIND human rights activisit who wants to flee from captivity after being detained for a considerable period of time - His crime (speaking against the State's abortion policy). What about the case of the famous Chinese artist (Wei?). Even Bo Xi Lai's Police Chief wanted to flee & took refuge in the US Consulate. There are many, many more examples of persecuted people whose crime: believing in human rights. Anyway, I think your reading of politics need to be widen & suggest you dont be dogmatic or narrow-minded. Other opinions are OK - agree to disagree. Best wishes for enlightenment.

Lol wait, how exactly was the bo xilai police chief incident related to human rights?

And anything that directly challenges state power in china will be dealt with -- human rights includes many things beyond "the right to choose your own government" but for some reason the fact that china is not compatible with this aspect, its inherent human rights is terrible. Protests are allowed, so long as they do not challenge sensitive topics or are too anti government. It's not a clear block of black and white, it's a montage of grey.

The government cannot risk social instability at this stage of the country's development. Although we still dont' know how much control the central government has over the dealing with of dissidents. A lot of the treatment they have supposedly received could just as likely be through local government officials.

And I'm dissapointed that this thread has turned from a good talk about china's economics to this dribble about human rights and politics which I believe is a banned topic on SDF (for good reason).

OK Blitizo, I admire the very quick response by you and your colleagues. Anyway, I personally believe each country has the right to choose its government, IF it is truly the wishes of its people. Ok, no more comments by me on human rights & politics as they can be very sensitive to some, and perhaps with dire consequences. Good wishes to you and your pack.