Does democratic china produce Hitler?

loki said:
I admit this [trade barriers] sounds tempting. But I doubt it can be implemented. The west has been preaching liberalization of trade for years. And the only parties that might propagate something as "backwards" as that are on the far left and I don't like the other things they offer. I guess so do you, especially concerning foreign policy.

Hi Loki,

Western states use sanctions or trade barriers for a variety of reasons. Normal power politics, for example, influences the flow of armaments to China, Iran and other countries. International agreements (like Wassenaar) theoretically inhibit western states from sending a wide range of finished military goods to the Developing World. If we in the west actually want to limit the damage brought by our military systems, why not adopt a similar policy for environmental and humanitarian reasons?

Yes, our economists and elite generally preach "trade liberalism". I actually agree. Trade (not just in theory) leads to wealth and a general improvement regarding the general quality of life. Look at Europe between 1947-1970. What a boom period! The leftist and nationalist extremists in our societies are therefore quite wrong.

I nevertheless think that a Wassenaar-style system should control regular trade until we can ensure relatively sane industrial policies in China or India. Here is an example. It does not make any sense to eliminate national steel capacities by purchasing Indian substitutes. A poor labour policy and basically no environmental laws keep prices low. Not only does this policy constitute unfair competition, for both our citizens and those of the Developing World, but it could lead to a massive shift in the industrial power balance.

After WWII, the Allies met in Berlin to plan the industrial castration of Germany. The victorious powers understood that dual-use capacities ultimately meant real military power. While the original conceptions died in planning, owing to the massive economic crisis facing European society, the Germans and French got together and instituted the Coal and Steel Union--a control mechanism that permitted both states to protect domestic steel-making and thereby avert the trade wars that had led to regional friction and ultimately massive and destabilizing German dominance.

Why not use these systems today? They worked in the past. How about a "Global Industrial Union" that forces the Developing World (ie. China and India) to import greater quantities of goods produced in America and Europe? The Germans in 1950 decided to adopt the Coal and Steel Union even though it theoretically lowered potential output and lessened the chances for dominance. Unbridled capitalism can be a really bad thing. [If we already have these types of systems, please offer a few links...I am not an economist...anyway, I still say "screw the Austrian School"]
 
Last edited:
Ollie Garchy said:
If we in the west actually want to limit the damage brought by our military systems, why not adopt a similar policy for environmental and humanitarian reasons? [...] How about a "Global Industrial Union" that forces the Developing World (ie. China and India) to import greater quantities of goods produced in America and Europe? [...] If we already have these types of systems, please offer a few links..
I don't know of any such system and I doubt such a system can/could coexist with the WTO, because one of the fundamental principles of the WTO is the most-favored-nation clause, meaning in each member state every other member-state gets the same treatment concerning customs duties...

I still think its an interesting idea. It would stop the decline of western economies, meanwhile IMO it would definitely not rank behind the WTO-system in terms of global responsibility, people in less-developed countries would profit much more from every foreign investment. Yet I believe something like that would be extremely hard to implement, because neither would (transnational) companies cooperate wholeheartedly (obvious) nor the administration of the countries concerned. There would have to be a central organisation to closely monitor i.e. the tax legislation of each country, to ensure that higher wages aren't actually channeled back to the the companies in some way (i.e. tax abatements, subsidies, cheap energy/ressources/realties,...). It would also have to ensure that safety at work and environmental protection are actually enforced on the spot.

And there would still be enough ways for companies to avoid the system. Just imagine a german company has a bicycle factory in Bombay, India. Lets say they pay the average worker about 200$ a month. Considering that 40% of the population have less then 1$ a day thats a good salary I guess. Now lets assume the west conjointly introduces the system you propose and the Indian government actually agrees to introduce labour laws, etc. and a minimum wage, adjusted according to purchasing power parity.... maybe $500 a month. Now maybe the company has a housing project nearby for its employees. Maybe the company decides to increase rents from $25 to insane $300 and whoever moves out looses his job somehow. I don't think any employee would report this because nobody wants to loose a well-paid job and hey, they got a $25 raise at least. Now things like that are pretty hard to prevent unless you introduce a world-wide gestapo-state I guess.
 
loki said:
I don't know of any such system and I doubt such a system can/could coexist with the WTO, because one of the fundamental principles of the WTO is the most-favored-nation clause, meaning in each member state every other member-state gets the same treatment concerning customs duties...

Thanks, I can see the complexity. How about only allowing the importation of a certain percentage...ie. controlling the influx of cheap commodities? My problem is that this stuff gets confusing relatively quickly.
 
bulldogg said that
A wise man once said that you learn more from mistakes than from success so I would ask why one would not welcome someone showing them their mistakes?
Whatever , let them enjoy their ignorance again.
And let the stupid goes on.
 
yingying said:
bulldogg said that Whatever , let them enjoy their ignorance again. And let the stupid goes on.

Qualification: Ok buddy, if the ignorance you speak of is not in reference to "us", the following post should be ignored. If it is, fine, read on.

Quick definition of terminology: "We" are ignorant? If you are referring to me, again, fine. If you are referring to the "West", I think that you need a refresher.

Summation of the Problem and Hypothesis: The Third World likes to ride the magical mystery bus. Having given the world basically ZERO in technological terms, I would like to point out a few German accomplishments over the last several hundred years. My hypothesis is simple: China gave the world basically nothing that even remotely compares to Europe. I am going to discount paper, china and gunpowder because it cannot be proven that these developments actually flowed to Europe. These "achievements" are like the wheel...important but not considered the defining technologies of the 21st Century. Anyway, the Egyptian, Persian, Judaic, and Helenistic worlds created the breadth of our culture. These are those which you seek to copy. (unless you want to copy Islam...which is highly unlikely).

Recent German Technological Advances:

1. The combustion & diesel & electrical engines
2. Magnetic recording & microphone
3. Dynamo generators
4. Rocketry
5. X-rays
6. Aspirin
7. Refrigeration
8. The first programmable computer
9. The television & cathode ray tubes & flourescent tubes
10. Clocks & balance springs

This is only a short list of hundreds of possibilities. I am discounting many, many breakthroughs in history, political science, medicine, physics, chemistry, psychiatry, etc. Can you even list 10 Chinese achievements? What about cultural achievements? If I add all of Europe & North America, the list would take a lifetime to type.

Conclusion: Sure, we are ignorant. We have achieved nothing. Right. Sure. I say: Look in the mirror...the scars of ignorance, brought by thousands of years of stagnation, will stare you in the face.

Advice: If you want to seriously consider Chinese culture superior to that of the west, hoot some more crack.

[I am not a western "flamer" who will "kow-tow" (hey, something Chinese) to an oriental mass.]
 
Ollie Garchy said:
Thanks, I can see the complexity. How about only allowing the importation of a certain percentage
Thats forbidden, too. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO#Prinzipien - prohibition of quantitative limitations.

Regards, loki


P.S.: the first working combustion engine - Samuel Brown (english), first magnetic recording - Valdemar Poulsen (danish).
And calling all that stuff "recent" advances is a euphemism - the most recent of those is still 50 years old. Those were the days. :mrgreen:
 
loki said:
P.S.: the first working combustion engine - Samuel Brown (english), first magnetic recording - Valdemar Poulsen (danish).
And calling all that stuff "recent" advances is a euphemism - the most recent of those is still 50 years old. Those were the days.

Loki, thanks for the link. But, really now, my last post was an extremely quick response to the crudity of our Chinese "friends". I only looked at a few websites...the list is an amalgum of sorts. The errors, if any, are not mine. Let us not move away from the matter under discussion; namely, the issue of China. I posed a question that no person seems willing to tackle: what have our Chinese "friends" done for western civilization? Even Hitler's Germany, as seen in the list I posted, offered at least some technological advantages for homo sapiens. And, this is after all a thread comparing China with Nazi-Germany...at least in terms of dangers to the global community.
 
bulldogg said:
Cheers Ollie, I did not know about #8. Fascinating.

Bulldogg, see the following links:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/02/zuse_computer/

http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/zuse.html

http://www.pbs.org/nerds/timeline/elec.html

http://www.primidi.com/2004/06/07.html

It is fascinating, isn't it.

As far as the other stuff:

"The American Samuel Morey received a patent on April 1, 1826 for a "Gas Or Vapor Engine". His first (1862) engine with compression having shocked itself apart, Nikolaus Otto designed an indirect acting free piston compression-less engine whose greater efficiency won the support of Langen and then most of the market, which at that time, was mostly for small stationary engines fueled by lighting gas. In 1870 in Vienna Siegfried Marcus put the first mobile gasoline engine on a handcart."

and,

http://german.about.com/library/blerfinder.htm
 
Last edited:
Ollie Garchy said:
Let us not move away from the matter under discussion; namely, the issue of China. I posed a question that no person seems willing to tackle: what have our Chinese "friends" done for western civilization?
I'm afraid my knowledge of chinese history is way too sketchy to give a substantiated opinion on that. From what I know the chinese did contribute in fields like mathematics, philosophy, arts.

But whether or not they contributed much, I don't get what you're trying to say. Is this meant as a legitimization of the trade policy you advocate? - that the west shouldn't participate in a process that threatens its wealth and way of living? If so: I agree, but I must say I wouldn't endorse such a process if it was the polity of ancient Athens to profit. As the old saying goes "nations don't have friends, they have interests".
 
Socrates, Plato, and Pythagoras have been re-discovered by the Arabs after the time when the Greek school of philosophy have been closed under a Christian Emperor's Decree. Thereafter, the Arab civilization become a very advanced civilization spurring notable Islamic Philisophers while progressing in both Astronomy and Mathematics. So was the Chinese who was actually one of the most technological advanced nations during the early medieval period during the Ming Dynasty. The Silk Trade and the journeys of Marco Polo are prime examples of integrating the East and West and the Europeans have borrowed much from the Arabs and Chinese during this time period. Many of the earlier sea-faring explorers who brang exotic creatures to the Forbidden City in Beijing was actually a Chinese Muslim, by the name of Zheng He commanding a fleet of 125 ships.

During this time period, powerful European Religious institutions, primarily the Roman Catholic Church, have impeded on the progress of the scientific community and virtually silenced many scientists. By then Europe experienced the Dark Ages and countless wars. The Renaissance have virtually ended the Dark Ages and this is the very step in which Europe was able to achieve into becoming one of the most technological advanced communities in the world.

China, the Arab world, and India did not experience much scientific achievements during the modern period because it has recently experienced the same setbacks Europe experienced during the Medieval period. However as we enter the 21st Century, it is highly likely and possible that the situation might reverse itself as China is advancing foward in bio-technology and medical sciences while India is advancing in computer engineering.

I am not Kowtowing to the so-called Orientals of any sort. I am well aware of what is happening and well aware what of these former powerful ancient civilizations are capable of.
 
Last edited:
very true, the chinese history of last 300 years is really shameful, partly due to warlord tore the countries apart, the 2 party keeping stabbing each other during the foreign invasion. it's really good to learn from history.
 
I am curious Cabal as to what you have read that leads you to surmise China is advancing forward in bio-tech and medicine?
 
Well China is well on it's way to becoming a more democratic nation. It's economy is now almost completely on the world market and "democratic" as you would like to call it. Just need a little government change and it's done!
 
Aye and with just "a little government change" the US is a socialist totalitarian government with a lassiez faire economic policy.
:roll:
 
loki said:
I'm afraid my knowledge of chinese history is way too sketchy to give a substantiated opinion on that. From what I know the chinese did contribute in fields like mathematics, philosophy, arts.

But whether or not they contributed much, I don't get what you're trying to say. Is this meant as a legitimization of the trade policy you advocate? - that the west shouldn't participate in a process that threatens its wealth and way of living? If so: I agree, but I must say I wouldn't endorse such a process if it was the polity of ancient Athens to profit. As the old saying goes "nations don't have friends, they have interests".

Greetings,

a good trade system essentially means the mutally beneficial exchange of commodities. In my opinion, the Anglo-Saxon countries fought two world wars against Germany to eliminate that country's serious potential for regional and international trade dominance. Forget the moral excuses. The Anglo-Saxon states feared that future developments would enhance Germany far beyond their own capacities and capabilities. They responded with war. Like you accurately point out, the national interest motivates action.

I do not necessarily support such a narrow policy, and am generally pissed off that the Anglo-Saxon countries successfully masked their Realpolitik with a veneer of morality. Why should Germany not have been permitted regional dominance? Why should the US maintain global dominance? Why not China?

Quite frankly, Germany offered the world a tremendous boost in all areas of technology and the students of universities like Humboldt helped create the world we live in. Americans from MIT now do the same. What about China? I see nothing except the undermining of our way of life. Ho Chi Minh wrote the following in 1924: "Today imperialism has reached such a level of perfection as of a science. It uses white proletariats to conquer the proletariats in the colonies. Then it sends the proletariats from one colony to fight those in another. Finally it relies on the proletariats in the colonies to rule those white proletariats".

Is this really what our elite are doing to us at the moment? Could Ho Chi Minh's rather crude theory be correct? In any case, Chinese labour is driving down prices and sending western workers to the unemployment lines. Our elite calls this inevitable. This is just spurious argumentation. Sort of like their complete rejection of autarky. What is good for them is inevitable. What is good for the people is simply wrong. I am sorry, but I see through this line of rubbish. I want what is good for the people...I do not give a rat's ass about the elite. ARE DEVELOPMENTS IN CHINA GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE? No.
 
Face it Ollie Garchy, these are the effects of Globalization. The Core Industrialized nations have entered the Post-Industrial age, where the production of goods dwindles and to become a service economy. China has just recently came out of being an Agragarian society and is striding towards Industrialization.

Your argument emphasizes that China should not develop. Are you suggesting that China remain as a starving third world nation? If not, I would like to hear an alternative.

Another flashpoint is India. India is the prime location for outsourcing service jobs from the west. How about the developments there? Are you suggesting that their development is bad for the "people"?

Nevertheless I am disturbed about your ethno-centric views.

You failed to refer to the sophisticated scientific communities in Asia, which contributed an equal share of technicological advancement. Most technical graduates per capita is South Korea. Other top scientific research centers are in Japan and Taiwan. Due to their continuation of scientific research and development, top players will also include India and China. What did these nations have in common? They all used to be third world countries.
 
Last edited:
CABAL said:
Face it Ollie Garchy, these are the effects of Globalization. The Core Industrialized nations have entered the Post-Industrial age, where the production of goods dwindles and to become a service economy. China has just recently came out of being an Agragarian society and is striding towards Industrialization.

Your argument emphasizes that China should not develop. Are you suggesting that China remain as a starving third world nation? If not, I would like to hear an alternative.

Another flashpoint is India. India is the prime location for outsourcing service jobs from the west. How about the developments there? Are you suggesting that their development is bad for the "people"?

Nevertheless I am disturbed about your ethno-centric views.

You failed to refer to the sophisticated scientific communities in Asia, which contributed an equal share of technicological advancement. Most technical graduates per capita is South Korea. Other top scientific research centers are in Japan and Taiwan. Due to their continuation of scientific research and development, top players will also include India and China. What did these nations have in common? They all used to be third world countries.

Is globalization a law of nature or a product of human (elite) actions?

The development of the Third World, when it means that poverty increases in Europe, is irresponsible behaviour on the part of our elites. Don't forget: the elites are the ones who decided to invest heavily in Asian countries to drive down wages and eliminate the need for health insurance, etc. Asia, for example, is only "cheaper" if you follow policies that are illegal in Europe.

What about Asia? Some screwed up European men go to Asia in order to circumvent legal problems and have sex with children. Do we call this behaviour noble? Of course not. Why do we call globalization a good thing when it amounts to the same exploitation? The Chinese economic system is de facto slavery. Do you think slavery is a good thing? India is in any case even worse. The average Chinese or Indian is not living in paradise.

The end result of globalization is the creation of a small elite surrounded by a vast horde of slaves. I wanted to know what Asia is doing for Europe. Trade normally means an exchange. When you look at the American trade deficit it seems clear that that globalization is rather one-sided. The elite are getting rich at the expense of everyone.
 
What about Asia? Some screwed up European men go to Asia in order to circumvent legal problems and have sex with children. Do we call this behaviour noble? Of course not.

That is a terrible metaphor. I would like you to rephrase that for moment. First of all, foreign investment is not sex. And second of all, people in Asia is not a group of children in service for sexual services. Once again, an absolutely terrible metaphor.

In an International Free Market System, instead of resorting to Imperialism in search for new markets and sources of production, Corporate Elites aim towards developing nations as a source of new profit. There are scarcities of resources in Europe; quite notably natural resources and human resources. Today Europe will ever again meet up with the growing demand in quantity. And surely most EU nations will not risk another economic slump due to lack of consumer confidence. Although I do not consider Humans as resources, but in most firms they call it the Human Resources Department.

The reason why jobs are being outsourced to other countries mainly because of consumer demand. Pricing and value is the most important aspect of consumer satisfaction. If Europe functions as a free market society, corporations will have no other choice but to expand internationally as a multi-national company. Otherwise we will never become a free market society. A Free Market society is not about equal trade. Its about profit.

Your statement about China and India as a de facto slave society is quite interesting. I've heard these type of arguements from far right leaning Marxists, Communists, and Socialists. Ollie Garchy, are you a Marxist?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top