loki said:
You just go way too far with your criticism, especially saying China is worse than Nazi Germany. As a german, I would be very cautious with countervailing nazi crimes as this is a sure way to discredit your whole reasoning. And it really is an absurd comparison anyway. Even if the cultural revolution, etc. cost many victims you have to put things into perspective. The nazi regime was in charge of a nation of 70 million people, for only 12 years - and they managed to cause 20 million deads. The chinese communists have been in power more than 4 times that long, they're in charge of a nation 20 times bigger. Now thats comparing apples and oranges!
For the rest of your argument: you bring up important points but the way you present them is polemic and one-sided, about as far from being fair comment as the usual antiamerican rhetoric you hear from antiglobalists and islamists.
You criticise the lack of environmental protection in China - that's indeed a problem, but not one the chinese have a monopoly on. You have similar problems in India, Russia, and many other countries.
You say the rising chinese consumption of oil and other ressources will cause an energy crisis - I would rather say "trigger", the underlying cause is that the west has ruthlessly exploited natural ressources all around the globe for decades already, without planning for tomorrow. Western Europe and the US' oil consumption is higher than that of the rest of the world together.
You say chinese foreign policy is threatening Europe and the U.S. - maybe you know things I don't know, but from what I've read the chinese government seems pretty sane and pragmatic to me. If the north koreans were like the chinese there would be no problem in the region.
Purely argumentative reasoning, Loki. Comparisons are a normal part of intellectual discourse. I reject the argument that Hitler and Nazi-Germany represent "untouchable" subjects. Nor do I heed the arguments of men like Guido Knopp who browbeat Germans into accepting the "Sonderweg" thesis. Quantitative and qualitative data counts. [I do not, however, want to start an argument. If you feel that my position is wrong, fine. Just please refrain from warning me or telling me to be "cautious". I was only responding to the use of Nazism in earlier posts. If they do it; I'll do it. Nazism is dead. Buried. The typical German paranoia concerning the past only holds back a logical appreciation of why the idiotic political philosophy even emerged in the first place.]
The rest of your "rebuttal" of an obviously saracastic post demonstrates a great sensitivity towards the Third World. Commendable? Maybe. I did, however, write a propaganda piece that was intended to heat up the discussion. Why? China, even if that state were liberal and democratic, would by virtue of domestic organizational talent and the large number of citizens become a major global player. Potential Chinese economic power forces the west to think about the consequences. These consequences, especially for average Germans and not the elite, verge on the catastrophic. If we do not adapt, what will happen to us? Think about the following:
(1) Cheap Third World production (based on low wages and an extremely poor environmental policy) has already revolutionized Germany. Millions of unskilled Germans cannot find jobs because manufacturers have moved their facilities to countries where they can more fully exploit the local population. Since many of the German unemployed cannot and will not subject themselves to the rigours of higher eduction, they represent a permanent class of structurally poor with no hope and no future. Do you think this is a good thing? Chinese (or Polish or Indian, etc.) labour policy and global trade patterns have systematically destroyed what our forefathers (the trade unionists) have fought for...the right to live a decent life.
(2) Cheap Third World production will also ruin the environment. Think about scale. German industry cannot possibly do the same damage as uncontrolled Chinese and Indian industrial expansion. Our firms are once again heavily responsible. European capitalists revolt against official environmental policy. From their perspective, it makes sense to move to where energy is cheap, the labour is cheaper, and no laws inhibit their greed. They then bring the Third World our technology and the situation gets even worse.
Even without an aggressive China, the future is bleak. Can we stop this development? Of course we can. Our societies created the problem in the first place. It, like all human endeavours, is not due to the unknown laws of nature. Policies in China mingled with capitalist greed. I can only say one thing: trade barriers, trade barriers, trade barriers. The west should erect a system that forces Third World countries to consider (1) significant wage increases and (2) environmental protection. We have to level the playing field.
Many economists despise this "solution" and argue for more advanced western technologies...ie. more western development and a more highly skilled population. The fact that tens of millions of westerners cannot adapt is accepted as unfortunate. I will NOT argue the right of the Chinese to develop themselves in a way that condemns millions of Europeans and Americans to a life of misery. If you are a typical German, Loki, you will argue precisely for that eventuality. If not, great. I can only say: those Europeans who support Third World development at European expense should slit their own wrists before condemning millions of their countrymen to destitution. The problem is that the intellectual and business elite know full well that they will profit at the expense of millions of their own damn people. Maybe it is time to get "socialist" and start hitting back at our own companies?
Quick Additional Conclusion: The previous sections demonstrate that I in fact do not care about China...only Chinese developments as they impact the lives of western citizens.
[Add an aggressive China to the argument, and we really have a problem on our hands]
