Tibet doesn't count? In any case, here's the definition of an oligarchy: [quote] 1. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families. 2. Those making up such a government.[/quote] So tell me what happens if, for whatever reason, those 'few' get it in their heads to decide they want take world matters into their own hands? Like, say, if the world economy turns to crap, someone sneezes at the controls of a nuke silo, or some combination of extreme circumstances like that. It's unlikely, sure, but that kind of decision is easier to make with a few people with a lot of power rather than with a country like ours where a lot of people have power. I wouldn't rule out something like that as just complete paranoia. That's why I think a simple gesture of general human respect is so important, in this case. It really gives me a bad omen to see that as too much to ask for.

Tibet doesn't count?

In any case, here's the definition of an oligarchy:

Quote

1. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
2. Those making up such a government.

So tell me what happens if, for whatever reason, those 'few' get it in their heads to decide they want take world matters into their own hands? Like, say, if the world economy turns to crap, someone sneezes at the controls of a nuke silo, or some combination of extreme circumstances like that.

It's unlikely, sure, but that kind of decision is easier to make with a few people with a lot of power rather than with a country like ours where a lot of people have power. I wouldn't rule out something like that as just complete paranoia.


That's why I think a simple gesture of general human respect is so important, in this case. It really gives me a bad omen to see that as too much to ask for.

[quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar]Tibet doesn't count? In any case, here's the definition of an oligarchy... It's unlikely, sure, but that kind of decision is easier to make with a few people with a lot of power rather than with a country like ours where a lot of people have power. I wouldn't rule out something like that as just complete paranoia. That's why I think a simple gesture of general human respect is so important, in this case. It really gives me a bad omen to see that as too much to ask for.[/quote] Tibet doesn't count. Tibet is more like a secessionist issue from their perspective. Their view is if Tibet breaks off, Ughirs in the west will also want independence...and boom you have yourself a full scale rebellion. Self important prick would be like going around invading other nations for resources or spreading an ideology...which isn't anywhere near what they've done. They are at the most, supressing civil rights. Why did you just define oligarchy? I know perfectly well what an oligarchy is. As for a gesture of human rights....civil rights doesn't occur over night. We had to fight for civil rights in this country for 200 years. Give China some time...they're slowly but surely 'improving' their record. Back in the 1959 Tibetan uprising, China sent their entire millitary to quell the unrest. The fact that only 22-150 people have died in this 'violent' protest and not more does show some level of restraint.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Tibet doesn't count?
In any case, here's the definition of an oligarchy...
It's unlikely, sure, but that kind of decision is easier to make with a few people with a lot of power rather than with a country like ours where a lot of people have power. I wouldn't rule out something like that as just complete paranoia.
That's why I think a simple gesture of general human respect is so important, in this case. It really gives me a bad omen to see that as too much to ask for.

Tibet doesn't count. Tibet is more like a secessionist issue from their perspective. Their view is if Tibet breaks off, Ughirs in the west will also want independence...and boom you have yourself a full scale rebellion. Self important prick would be like going around invading other nations for resources or spreading an ideology...which isn't anywhere near what they've done. They are at the most, supressing civil rights.

Why did you just define oligarchy? I know perfectly well what an oligarchy is.

As for a gesture of human rights....civil rights doesn't occur over night. We had to fight for civil rights in this country for 200 years. Give China some time...they're slowly but surely 'improving' their record. Back in the 1959 Tibetan uprising, China sent their entire millitary to quell the unrest. The fact that only 22-150 people have died in this 'violent' protest and not more does show some level of restraint.

[i]Some[/i] restraint. Probably only because they knew they were in the international spotlight and knew they couldn't get away with the complete smack down they probably would have wanted. :lol: Yielding on a human rights issue doesn't have to mean accepting secession. Even the Dalai Lama said he doesn't think Tibet should try to secede from China. I don't see where this thought is coming from. In the US, civil rights wasn't something originally in a constant world spotlight. Plus it was a relatively "new" concept when it was being brought about. We have that much excuse at least. However, the concept of human rights nowadays isn't really anything new to anyone anymore. Plus this is China's government that's being the violator here; not simply an attitude of their people (though no doubt general nationalism as a consequence may also make that the case). As an entity in control of a [i]world power[/i], and without simple ignorance or some form of internal corruption, they don't really have an excuse for that. THAT's the part that bugs me. If someone gets to have an attitude with even a small matter of principle like that, stands to reason they'll think to have it for other things as well.

Some restraint. Probably only because they knew they were in the international spotlight and knew they couldn't get away with the complete smack down they probably would have wanted.


Yielding on a human rights issue doesn't have to mean accepting secession. Even the Dalai Lama said he doesn't think Tibet should try to secede from China. I don't see where this thought is coming from.

In the US, civil rights wasn't something originally in a constant world spotlight. Plus it was a relatively "new" concept when it was being brought about. We have that much excuse at least.



However, the concept of human rights nowadays isn't really anything new to anyone anymore. Plus this is China's government that's being the violator here; not simply an attitude of their people (though no doubt general nationalism as a consequence may also make that the case). As an entity in control of a world power, and without simple ignorance or some form of internal corruption, they don't really have an excuse for that. THAT's the part that bugs me.

If someone gets to have an attitude with even a small matter of principle like that, stands to reason they'll think to have it for other things as well.

[quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar][i]Some[/i] restraint. Probably only because they knew they were in the international spotlight and knew they couldn't get away with the complete smack down they probably would have wanted. :lol: Yielding on a human rights issue doesn't have to mean accepting secession. Even the Dalai Lama said he doesn't think Tibet should try to secede from China. I don't see where this thought is coming from.[/quote] lol, I doubt they would repeat the Tienanmen square massacre. Even that event was condemned by many of their own politicians. As for the unrest - their security forces used excessive force in dealing with the situation, but there aren't too many ways to quell a riot when rioters are going around stabbing, burning, and looting people and shops. Dalai Lama may not want a secession, but many "Free Tibet" promoters and overseas Tibetans think otherwise. [quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar] In the US, civil rights wasn't something originally in a constant world spotlight. Plus it was a relatively "new" concept when it was being brought about. We have that much excuse at least. However, the concept of human rights nowadays isn't really anything new to anyone anymore. Plus this is China's government that's being the violator here; not simply an attitude of their people (though no doubt general nationalism as a consequence may also make that the case). As an entity in control of a [i]world power[/i], and without simple ignorance or some form of internal corruption, they don't really have an excuse for that. THAT's the part that bugs me. If someone gets to have an attitude with even a small matter of principle like that, stands to reason they'll think to have it for other things as well.[/quote] Excuses are always used to justify a lack of civil rights...we may have our excuses and their excuse can be they're not even a democracy and aren't rich & industrialized...so they're not subject to the same standards. This Tibetan situation really hasn't much to do with the attitude of China's populace either...considering their ethnic majority are being oppressed as well. As for the world power argument...well they recently became a world power - they only started industrializing 20 years ago so I doubt they even know how to handle their image abroad on a world stage. As for internal corruption - yeh, they're not a democracy and they're quasi-capitalistic so corruption is rampant. What do you expect a totalitarian oligarchy to do? Simply give up their power and turn the government into a republic? Everything takes time and change doesn't happen overnight.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Some restraint. Probably only because they knew they were in the international spotlight and knew they couldn't get away with the complete smack down they probably would have wanted.
Yielding on a human rights issue doesn't have to mean accepting secession. Even the Dalai Lama said he doesn't think Tibet should try to secede from China. I don't see where this thought is coming from.

lol, I doubt they would repeat the Tienanmen square massacre. Even that event was condemned by many of their own politicians.

As for the unrest - their security forces used excessive force in dealing with the situation, but there aren't too many ways to quell a riot when rioters are going around stabbing, burning, and looting people and shops. Dalai Lama may not want a secession, but many "Free Tibet" promoters and overseas Tibetans think otherwise.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

In the US, civil rights wasn't something originally in a constant world spotlight. Plus it was a relatively "new" concept when it was being brought about. We have that much excuse at least.
However, the concept of human rights nowadays isn't really anything new to anyone anymore. Plus this is China's government that's being the violator here; not simply an attitude of their people (though no doubt general nationalism as a consequence may also make that the case). As an entity in control of a world power, and without simple ignorance or some form of internal corruption, they don't really have an excuse for that. THAT's the part that bugs me.
If someone gets to have an attitude with even a small matter of principle like that, stands to reason they'll think to have it for other things as well.

Excuses are always used to justify a lack of civil rights...we may have our excuses and their excuse can be they're not even a democracy and aren't rich & industrialized...so they're not subject to the same standards.

This Tibetan situation really hasn't much to do with the attitude of China's populace either...considering their ethnic majority are being oppressed as well. As for the world power argument...well they recently became a world power - they only started industrializing 20 years ago so I doubt they even know how to handle their image abroad on a world stage.

As for internal corruption - yeh, they're not a democracy and they're quasi-capitalistic so corruption is rampant. What do you expect a totalitarian oligarchy to do? Simply give up their power and turn the government into a republic? Everything takes time and change doesn't happen overnight.

[quote=name:Intranetusa]lol, I doubt they would repeat the Tienanmen square massacre. Even that event was condemned by many of their own politicians. As for the unrest - their security forces used excessive force in dealing with the situation, but there aren't too many ways to quell a riot when rioters are going around stabbing, burning, and looting people and shops. Dalai Lama may not want a secession, but many "Free Tibet" promoters and overseas Tibetans think otherwise.[/quote]Except China continues to directly condemn and dismiss the Dalai Lama; not simply the "Free Tibet"ers. That's only part of the "attitude" that I'm referring to. [quote]Excuses are always used to justify a lack of civil rights...we may have our excuses and their excuse can be they're not even a democracy and aren't rich & industrialized...so they're not subject to the same standards.[/quote]Hmm. I'm gonna do more research on this. I just heard on the news that they're now one of the top carbon polluters of the world, though, so I'm pretty sure they've got [i]something [/i]going on over there. Can't think they completely don't know what they're doing... [quote]As for internal corruption - yeh, they're not a democracy and they're quasi-capitalistic so corruption is rampant. What do you expect a totalitarian oligarchy to do? Simply give up their power and turn the government into a republic? Everything takes time and change doesn't happen overnight.[/quote] This I'll need to do more research on too. But even still, I get the impression they're in a pretty solid agreement over the issue of Tibet, at least. In order to expect meaningful change to take place in the long run, though, one has to have a certain amount of respect for others. I'm just having a hard time seeing China showing that they have that. That leads me to the belief that they're not [i]really[/i] wanting to change, which is almost certainly going to cause problems down the road.

Quote from Intranetusa

lol, I doubt they would repeat the Tienanmen square massacre. Even that event was condemned by many of their own politicians.

As for the unrest - their security forces used excessive force in dealing with the situation, but there aren't too many ways to quell a riot when rioters are going around stabbing, burning, and looting people and shops. Dalai Lama may not want a secession, but many "Free Tibet" promoters and overseas Tibetans think otherwise.

Except China continues to directly condemn and dismiss the Dalai Lama; not simply the "Free Tibet"ers. That's only part of the "attitude" that I'm referring to.

Quote

Excuses are always used to justify a lack of civil rights...we may have our excuses and their excuse can be they're not even a democracy and aren't rich & industrialized...so they're not subject to the same standards.

Hmm. I'm gonna do more research on this. I just heard on the news that they're now one of the top carbon polluters of the world, though, so I'm pretty sure they've got something going on over there.

Can't think they completely don't know what they're doing...

Quote

As for internal corruption - yeh, they're not a democracy and they're quasi-capitalistic so corruption is rampant. What do you expect a totalitarian oligarchy to do? Simply give up their power and turn the government into a republic? Everything takes time and change doesn't happen overnight.

This I'll need to do more research on too. But even still, I get the impression they're in a pretty solid agreement over the issue of Tibet, at least. In order to expect meaningful change to take place in the long run, though, one has to have a certain amount of respect for others. I'm just having a hard time seeing China showing that they have that. That leads me to the belief that they're not really wanting to change, which is almost certainly going to cause problems down the road.

[quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar]Except China continues to directly condemn and dismiss the Dalai Lama; not simply the "Free Tibet"ers. That's only part of the "attitude" that I'm referring to. Hmm. I'm gonna do more research on this. I just heard on the news that they're now one of the top carbon polluters of the world, though, so I'm pretty sure they've got [i]something [/i]going on over there..[/quote] Well yeh, and so is India...but that's overall. If you look at them population wise, China and India has 4x the population of say the US. So that means western nations still pollute more than 4x more per person than these developing countries. And remember, they're "developing countries" - China and India only started polluting in the last 20 years in order to improve living standards for their people. Countries like Australia actually pollutes the most if you look at the per person basis. [quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar] Can't think they completely don't know what they're doing... But even still, I get the impression they're in a pretty solid agreement over the issue of Tibet, at least. In order to expect meaningful change to take place in the long run, though, one has to have a certain amount of respect for others. [/quote] Eh, they have a media blackout actually. Most of the people over there probably don't know what's going on. Just like we don't know in the west how many people actually died. The figure the CCP government gives - 22, is unsupported. And the figure the Tibetan exiles give - 150, is also unsupported. As for respect, like I said...everything takes time. And they're really not "disrespecting Tibetans" because they're Tibetan...they just crack down and oppress anyone who challenges the government. They respect everyone equally in the sense they oppress people equally. [quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar] I'm just having a hard time seeing China showing that they have that. That leads me to the belief that they're not [i]really[/i] wanting to change, which is almost certainly going to cause problems down the road.[/quote] Obviously a totalitarian government wants to keep its power. They're not going to change by themselves...change comes from the people. As people grow wealthier, they will start to challenge the power of the government. Change isn't a matter of whether they want to change or not - it comes with wealth accumulated from capitalism...change is coming whether their government wants it or not. And I read in a recent news article that their government has started to experiment with private property laws......and if you look at history, property laws is a major steps.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Except China continues to directly condemn and dismiss the Dalai Lama; not simply the "Free Tibet"ers. That's only part of the "attitude" that I'm referring to.

Hmm. I'm gonna do more research on this. I just heard on the news that they're now one of the top carbon polluters of the world, though, so I'm pretty sure they've got something going on over there..

Well yeh, and so is India...but that's overall. If you look at them population wise, China and India has 4x the population of say the US. So that means western nations still pollute more than 4x more per person than these developing countries. And remember, they're "developing countries"
- China and India only started polluting in the last 20 years in order to improve living standards for their people.

Countries like Australia actually pollutes the most if you look at the per person basis.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Can't think they completely don't know what they're doing... But even still, I get the impression they're in a pretty solid agreement over the issue of Tibet, at least. In order to expect meaningful change to take place in the long run, though, one has to have a certain amount of respect for others.

Eh, they have a media blackout actually. Most of the people over there probably don't know what's going on. Just like we don't know in the west how many people actually died. The figure the CCP government gives - 22, is unsupported. And the figure the Tibetan exiles give - 150, is also unsupported.

As for respect, like I said...everything takes time. And they're really not "disrespecting Tibetans" because they're Tibetan...they just crack down and oppress anyone who challenges the government. They respect everyone equally in the sense they oppress people equally.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

I'm just having a hard time seeing China showing that they have that. That leads me to the belief that they're not really wanting to change, which is almost certainly going to cause problems down the road.

Obviously a totalitarian government wants to keep its power. They're not going to change by themselves...change comes from the people. As people grow wealthier, they will start to challenge the power of the government. Change isn't a matter of whether they want to change or not - it comes with wealth accumulated from capitalism...change is coming whether their government wants it or not.

And I read in a recent news article that their government has started to experiment with private property laws......and if you look at history, property laws is a major steps.

But if they are in direct control of their people like they are in control of things like Tibet, then even if their people had power, they'd probably never get to have it in such a way to get to affect their government much with. Especially if said government remains as focused on keeping their power intact as they've shown to be. In other words, they'll allow "changes", but it'll only be stuff within the extent of the leash their government provides for it. They'll still get to keep whatever attitudes they like outside of the range of that leash, I'll suspect. And that might just be enough room for a serious world problem to manifest down the road. Those "changes" would later then just have amounted to a way for that government to become even powerful and, therefore, more of a problem, really. Theoretically, at least.

But if they are in direct control of their people like they are in control of things like Tibet, then even if their people had power, they'd probably never get to have it in such a way to get to affect their government much with. Especially if said government remains as focused on keeping their power intact as they've shown to be.

In other words, they'll allow "changes", but it'll only be stuff within the extent of the leash their government provides for it. They'll still get to keep whatever attitudes they like outside of the range of that leash, I'll suspect. And that might just be enough room for a serious world problem to manifest down the road. Those "changes" would later then just have amounted to a way for that government to become even powerful and, therefore, more of a problem, really.


Theoretically, at least.

[quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar]But if they are in direct control of their people like they are in control of things like Tibet, then even if their people had power, they'd probably never get to have it in such a way to get to affect their government much with. Especially if said government remains as focused on keeping their power intact as they've shown to be..[/quote] They're not in direct control of their people. They're oppressive, but their people actually have a suprising amount of freedoms considering they're a totalitarian government. Also, when you say people have power but still can't change the government...that's not actually power. When I say power, I mean the power to change the government. And yes, the people there are slowly but surely gainning that power. [quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar] In other words, they'll allow "changes", but it'll only be stuff within the extent of the leash their government provides for it. They'll still get to keep whatever attitudes they like outside of the range of that leash, I'll suspect. And that might just be enough room for a serious world problem to manifest down the road. Those "changes" would later then just have amounted to a way for that government to become even powerful and, therefore, more of a problem, really. Theoretically, at least.[/quote] As for the leash analogy, that's true for any government actually...even democracies. Governments give the people enough of what they want just so they won't rebel/vote them out of office. Soviet Russia was far more controlling of their people. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia turned to democracy and is 'relatively' more democratic today. Note that the people who will assume power will no longer the 'old guard' of the communist revolution and the cold war era. And if you look at their history, their government is not getting more powerful. Their totalitarian government peaked in the 70's and 80's during the cold war and cultural revolution era. Since then, their government has been liberalizing and people have been gaining more freedoms.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

But if they are in direct control of their people like they are in control of things like Tibet, then even if their people had power, they'd probably never get to have it in such a way to get to affect their government much with. Especially if said government remains as focused on keeping their power intact as they've shown to be..

They're not in direct control of their people. They're oppressive, but their people actually have a suprising amount of freedoms considering they're a totalitarian government.

Also, when you say people have power but still can't change the government...that's not actually power. When I say power, I mean the power to change the government. And yes, the people there are slowly but surely gainning that power.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

In other words, they'll allow "changes", but it'll only be stuff within the extent of the leash their government provides for it. They'll still get to keep whatever attitudes they like outside of the range of that leash, I'll suspect. And that might just be enough room for a serious world problem to manifest down the road. Those "changes" would later then just have amounted to a way for that government to become even powerful and, therefore, more of a problem, really.
Theoretically, at least.

As for the leash analogy, that's true for any government actually...even democracies. Governments give the people enough of what they want just so they won't rebel/vote them out of office.

Soviet Russia was far more controlling of their people. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia turned to democracy and is 'relatively' more democratic today. Note that the people who will assume power will no longer the 'old guard' of the communist revolution and the cold war era.

And if you look at their history, their government is not getting more powerful. Their totalitarian government peaked in the 70's and 80's during the cold war and cultural revolution era. Since then, their government has been liberalizing and people have been gaining more freedoms.

Whatever "freedoms" they have, if simple stuff like religion and such is too much to allow their people to have, then just how much freedom are we really talking about here? If the government gets to dictate what their people can believe in to that level... bah what do I know. I just see China simply adapting to being a world power that is not looking to repeat Russia's mistakes. Accepting the Olympics, attempting to improve their image, opening up in general, etc. The logical things to attempt to do, really. But that doesn't say a darn thing about what their real intent is. I'm definitely going to do more reading on what kinds of "powers" people have that you refer to, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing that the government couldn't override if they decided they wanted to (that is, control it rather than let it control them directly). That just doesn't sound consistent with what I've seen of their overall attitude...

Whatever "freedoms" they have, if simple stuff like religion and such is too much to allow their people to have, then just how much freedom are we really talking about here? If the government gets to dictate what their people can believe in to that level... bah what do I know.

I just see China simply adapting to being a world power that is not looking to repeat Russia's mistakes. Accepting the Olympics, attempting to improve their image, opening up in general, etc. The logical things to attempt to do, really. But that doesn't say a darn thing about what their real intent is. I'm definitely going to do more reading on what kinds of "powers" people have that you refer to, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing that the government couldn't override if they decided they wanted to (that is, control it rather than let it control them directly). That just doesn't sound consistent with what I've seen of their overall attitude...

[quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar]Whatever "freedoms" they have, if simple stuff like religion and such is too much to allow their people to have, then just how much freedom are we really talking about here? If the government gets to dictate what their people can believe in to that level... bah what do I know.[/quote] They're free to practice whatever religion they want as long as it doesn't challenge the government's power. There are hundreds of millions Zen/Mahayana Buddhists (ie Shaolin, Rizu Soto, etc monks) who have no trouble from the government. And at least 3/4 of the population practice religion in the form of Daoism-Confucianism and native beliefs. So no, the government really doesn't dictate what people believes in in terms of religion...only politics. The government official stance is basically: "You can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't challenge governmental power." [quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar] I just see China simply adapting to being a world power that is not looking to repeat Russia's mistakes. Accepting the Olympics, attempting to improve their image, opening up in general, etc. The logical things to attempt to do, really. But that doesn't say a darn thing about what their real intent is. I'm definitely going to do more reading on what kinds of "powers" people have that you refer to, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing that the government couldn't override if they decided they wanted to (that is, control it rather than let it control them directly). That just doesn't sound consistent with what I've seen of their overall attitude...[/quote] Are you saying Russia becoming a democracy was a mistake...or are you referring to something else? As for their real intent - do you think they're hell bent on world domination or something? I doubt it...in today's society, economies are too intertwined for major powers to go to war. Considering they hold several hundred billion in US dollar reserves, I doubt they would attack their "business partners." As for powers, I said people are slowly "gaining" powers. I never said they have the power to overthrow the government today...but in the future, it is a possibility with the way they're heading. Look at it from a historical perspective - China is becoming less totalitarian when compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Whatever "freedoms" they have, if simple stuff like religion and such is too much to allow their people to have, then just how much freedom are we really talking about here? If the government gets to dictate what their people can believe in to that level... bah what do I know.

They're free to practice whatever religion they want as long as it doesn't challenge the government's power. There are hundreds of millions Zen/Mahayana Buddhists (ie Shaolin, Rizu Soto, etc monks) who have no trouble from the government. And at least 3/4 of the population practice religion in the form of Daoism-Confucianism and native beliefs.

So no, the government really doesn't dictate what people believes in in terms of religion...only politics. The government official stance is basically: "You can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't challenge governmental power."

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

I just see China simply adapting to being a world power that is not looking to repeat Russia's mistakes. Accepting the Olympics, attempting to improve their image, opening up in general, etc. The logical things to attempt to do, really. But that doesn't say a darn thing about what their real intent is. I'm definitely going to do more reading on what kinds of "powers" people have that you refer to, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing that the government couldn't override if they decided they wanted to (that is, control it rather than let it control them directly). That just doesn't sound consistent with what I've seen of their overall attitude...

Are you saying Russia becoming a democracy was a mistake...or are you referring to something else?
As for their real intent - do you think they're hell bent on world domination or something? I doubt it...in today's society, economies are too intertwined for major powers to go to war. Considering they hold several hundred billion in US dollar reserves, I doubt they would attack their "business partners."
As for powers, I said people are slowly "gaining" powers. I never said they have the power to overthrow the government today...but in the future, it is a possibility with the way they're heading. Look at it from a historical perspective - China is becoming less totalitarian when compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

My poli sci professor said China's economy is the only one making any sort of progress at the moment, but I've little doubt that America's recession is at the very least slowing down China's economy. However, you can't really compare politics with economies. South America is adopting, generally speaking, a more liberal economy, but that doesn't result in liberal democratic governments. Same with Saudi Arabia, and I'd have to say the same thing with China. We're seeing liberalization economically in China, but politically, I don't really think that any great strides have been taken, at least not on the levels that you guys might hope for. It's taken the advanced democracies hundreds of years to develop their systems, so I don't think that we should really expect any different from any other country. Rapid democratization fails. Look no further than Russia, Iraq, and a lot of the former European colonies in Africa.

My poli sci professor said China's economy is the only one making any sort of progress at the moment, but I've little doubt that America's recession is at the very least slowing down China's economy. However, you can't really compare politics with economies. South America is adopting, generally speaking, a more liberal economy, but that doesn't result in liberal democratic governments. Same with Saudi Arabia, and I'd have to say the same thing with China. We're seeing liberalization economically in China, but politically, I don't really think that any great strides have been taken, at least not on the levels that you guys might hope for. It's taken the advanced democracies hundreds of years to develop their systems, so I don't think that we should really expect any different from any other country. Rapid democratization fails. Look no further than Russia, Iraq, and a lot of the former European colonies in Africa.

[quote=name:Intranetusa][quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar]Whatever "freedoms" they have, if simple stuff like religion and such is too much to allow their people to have, then just how much freedom are we really talking about here? If the government gets to dictate what their people can believe in to that level... bah what do I know.[/quote] They're free to practice whatever religion they want as long as it doesn't challenge the government's power. There are hundreds of millions Zen/Mahayana Buddhists (ie Shaolin, Rizu Soto, etc monks) who have no trouble from the government. And at least 3/4 of the population practice religion in the form of Daoism-Confucianism and native beliefs. So no, the government really doesn't dictate what people believes in in terms of religion...only politics. The government official stance is basically: "You can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't challenge governmental power." [quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar] I just see China simply adapting to being a world power that is not looking to repeat Russia's mistakes. Accepting the Olympics, attempting to improve their image, opening up in general, etc. The logical things to attempt to do, really. But that doesn't say a darn thing about what their real intent is. I'm definitely going to do more reading on what kinds of "powers" people have that you refer to, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing that the government couldn't override if they decided they wanted to (that is, control it rather than let it control them directly). That just doesn't sound consistent with what I've seen of their overall attitude...[/quote] Are you saying Russia becoming a democracy was a mistake...or are you referring to something else? As for their real intent - do you think they're hell bent on world domination or something? I doubt it...in today's society, economies are too intertwined for major powers to go to war. Considering they hold several hundred billion in US dollar reserves, I doubt they would attack their "business partners." As for powers, I said people are slowly "gaining" powers. I never said they have the power to overthrow the government today...but in the future, it is a possibility with the way they're heading. Look at it from a historical perspective - China is becoming less totalitarian when compared to 20 or 30 years ago.[/quote] If China allows religious freedom, why does Tibet have a problem then? I was referring to Russia's strategy during the cold war before. Obviously that didn't work out. If the goal of China is greater world control (which a stubborn attitude seems to me as a solid indicator), clearly the best route to doing that at this point would be to put a smile on their face and make themselves look good for the time being. The key would be to not let whatever changes and compromises they make in doing that affect their core values. Adapt to modern times, but remaining true to their original intentions, in other words. Even if they formed close business ties, it wouldn't be impossible to conceive that the relatively small group of power holders of their oligarchy could simply push with their might to either ignore or break those ties to make a lunge for even greater power if the opportunity presented itself (or if they arranged for it to do so). If they believe that their methods of ruling are ultimately the right strategy (as I seem to get the impression of by watching events unfold with Tibet, for example), stands to reason their goal would be to find the best way to make that strategy ultimately work, right? Attitude [i]is[/i] important any way you look at it. But I will admit I don't have enough information on this topic yet to support my theory (kinda the reason I started the topic for it, though). I'll report back after I've done a bit more reading.

Quote from Intranetusa

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Whatever "freedoms" they have, if simple stuff like religion and such is too much to allow their people to have, then just how much freedom are we really talking about here? If the government gets to dictate what their people can believe in to that level... bah what do I know.

They're free to practice whatever religion they want as long as it doesn't challenge the government's power. There are hundreds of millions Zen/Mahayana Buddhists (ie Shaolin, Rizu Soto, etc monks) who have no trouble from the government. And at least 3/4 of the population practice religion in the form of Daoism-Confucianism and native beliefs.

So no, the government really doesn't dictate what people believes in in terms of religion...only politics. The government official stance is basically: "You can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't challenge governmental power."

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

I just see China simply adapting to being a world power that is not looking to repeat Russia's mistakes. Accepting the Olympics, attempting to improve their image, opening up in general, etc. The logical things to attempt to do, really. But that doesn't say a darn thing about what their real intent is. I'm definitely going to do more reading on what kinds of "powers" people have that you refer to, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing that the government couldn't override if they decided they wanted to (that is, control it rather than let it control them directly). That just doesn't sound consistent with what I've seen of their overall attitude...

Are you saying Russia becoming a democracy was a mistake...or are you referring to something else?
As for their real intent - do you think they're hell bent on world domination or something? I doubt it...in today's society, economies are too intertwined for major powers to go to war. Considering they hold several hundred billion in US dollar reserves, I doubt they would attack their "business partners."
As for powers, I said people are slowly "gaining" powers. I never said they have the power to overthrow the government today...but in the future, it is a possibility with the way they're heading. Look at it from a historical perspective - China is becoming less totalitarian when compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

If China allows religious freedom, why does Tibet have a problem then?

I was referring to Russia's strategy during the cold war before. Obviously that didn't work out. If the goal of China is greater world control (which a stubborn attitude seems to me as a solid indicator), clearly the best route to doing that at this point would be to put a smile on their face and make themselves look good for the time being. The key would be to not let whatever changes and compromises they make in doing that affect their core values. Adapt to modern times, but remaining true to their original intentions, in other words.


Even if they formed close business ties, it wouldn't be impossible to conceive that the relatively small group of power holders of their oligarchy could simply push with their might to either ignore or break those ties to make a lunge for even greater power if the opportunity presented itself (or if they arranged for it to do so). If they believe that their methods of ruling are ultimately the right strategy (as I seem to get the impression of by watching events unfold with Tibet, for example), stands to reason their goal would be to find the best way to make that strategy ultimately work, right?


Attitude is important any way you look at it. But I will admit I don't have enough information on this topic yet to support my theory (kinda the reason I started the topic for it, though). I'll report back after I've done a bit more reading.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward]The Great Leap Forward[/url] is interesting to read. Not to say the wiki is always a valid source for citation, but it sounds kinda like I'm not completely off on my remarks about attitudes, going by some of the stuff that happened then. Still reading...

The Great Leap Forward is interesting to read. Not to say the wiki is always a valid source for citation, but it sounds kinda like I'm not completely off on my remarks about attitudes, going by some of the stuff that happened then.

Still reading...

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping]Deng Xiaoping[/url]'s article is also interesting. Makes things more complex than I originally thought. The only problem is the information in it doesn't address the future well. That is, it's clear China's emphasis has been economy, but now that they're coming into being a formal world power, the dictatorial overtones from Deng's presidency and the more recent Tibet nonsense certainly don't dispel my theory. I'm reading now on what's going on with the government at present. This is where the important information is.

Deng Xiaoping's article is also interesting. Makes things more complex than I originally thought.

The only problem is the information in it doesn't address the future well. That is, it's clear China's emphasis has been economy, but now that they're coming into being a formal world power, the dictatorial overtones from Deng's presidency and the more recent Tibet nonsense certainly don't dispel my theory.

I'm reading now on what's going on with the government at present. This is where the important information is.

Hmm. The key issue I think that might shoot down my theory is that, unlike the Soviet Union (which I was comparing with, initially), the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China]CPC[/url] does [i]not[/i] carry extra-legal powers over the state. Though they still effectively control it, it looks like it's somewhat more balanced out than I thought. That doesn't rule out circumstances of them getting extra-legal powers, or simply bending the state itself, but it seems unlikely now that I think about it that way... [b]Edit:[/b] Except when [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRC_United_Front_strategy]shit like this[/url] happens...

Hmm. The key issue I think that might shoot down my theory is that, unlike the Soviet Union (which I was comparing with, initially), the CPC does not carry extra-legal powers over the state. Though they still effectively control it, it looks like it's somewhat more balanced out than I thought.

That doesn't rule out circumstances of them getting extra-legal powers, or simply bending the state itself, but it seems unlikely now that I think about it that way...



Edit: Except when shit like this happens...

[quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar] If China allows religious freedom, why does Tibet have a problem then?[/quote] China has a problem with Tibet because the Dalai Lama serves as both a religious and a political figurehead who is a severe critic of the Chinese government. Also, he was responsible for an uprising in 1959 that resulted in his exile. That's why the CCP government loathes him. [quote=name:T