7 ms·

I'm still wondering why there should be an economic, political or commercial conflict between China and the rest of the world esp. US. Such conflicts are wastef

by mtw 8y ago

I'm still wondering why there should be an economic, political or commercial conflict between China and the rest of the world esp. US. Such conflicts are wasteful with when we all should work together on common goals - space exploration, fighting against diseases, climate change etc.

madengr 8y ago
Maybe communism vs freedom?
- robbiep 8y ago
  That’s a false dichotomy. China is ostensibly commmunist but free market is alive and well (with heavy doses of state directed influence, but so as in other western countries, witness the military industrial complex) A truer dichotomy would be between a rigid semi-dictatorship and quasi-democracy... given that even China has token democracy at some levels despite now essentially having a rubber stamped dictator, and many western states are a long way from true democracy - the voting system in the US hardly allows representative democracy and special interest groups are adept at manipulating voting blocs very effectively, and is 2 party democracy really democracy? Other countries do better jobs (ie Australia’s preferential voting, germany’s Proportional representation) but you can argue that till the cows come home
  - madengr 8y ago
    The USA, with all it’s faults, is still based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. China is based on communism with democide of 10’s of millions. Can I buy a porn magazine, a bag of weed, and assault rifle in China? Hell, the party chairman is now chairman for life.
    - robbiep 8y ago
      You can certainly buy the first 2, and is the third really a benefit to any civilised society? I say this as a gun owner
      - madengr 8y ago
        It’s a benefit to a free society.
        robbiep 8y ago
        Because all of those (western) countries where you can’t buy an assault rifle are such despotic hell holes? It’s a benefit to no one except the manufacturers, the merchants and the people who patch the injured up. And as someone who patches the injured up, I’d prefer not to
        madengr 8y ago
        WWII Europe had plenty of dictators, and will probably be a caliphate by the end of this century. I’ll keep my freedom and guns.
        tryme78 8y ago
        log off, idiot
        dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account.
        dang 8y ago
        We've asked you numerous times to stop breaking the site guidelines, such as with national or religious flamebait. If you can't or won't stop, we're going to end up banning you, so please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this going forward.
      - 089723645897236 8y ago
        Unequivocally yes.
    - throwaway7312 8y ago
      >> China is based on communism China is no longer about communism any more than the U.S. is about the Enlightenment. China today is about Gilded Age-type capitalism with a strain of collectivism running through it. Every Chinese today is caught up in a mad scramble for personal enrichment, often at the expense of his fellow man. Most American Marxists would shrink back in horror at the capitalist fever that grips the average Chinese. Even most of those on America's political right do not have the stomach for the level of Gordon Gecko-ness that animates many Chinese. While many on the American right prefer to retreat to dens, family, and countryside, Chinese capitalists are busily trying to get rich any way they can (ethically or otherwise). The Chinese Communist Party functions the same way Chinese government has functioned for thousands of years. Anyone can join, if he can pass the necessary tests. Passing tests to gain a coveted spot in the government has been a national priority since before Confucius's day, 2.5 millennia ago, and continues to be today. China does not have legally enshrined freedom of speech. But at a societal level, the 'real' freedom of speech is greater than what I've experienced in America. In America, you must very carefully watch your words, lest you offend any of a number of easily offended groups. You won't go to jail for it (unlike certain parts of Western Europe - Germany and Britain, for instance), but you will lose friends and you may lose your job. The result is that while speech may be legal in America, it ends up stifled nevertheless. Large chunks of American society no longer value free speech, and there is actual debate in many corners of the country about whether certain speech ('hate speech') should be outlawed. In China, so long as you do not loudly criticize or subvert the Chinese government, you are free to speak your mind - and won't be harassed by the government OR be James Damore'd / Donglegate'd out of a job. As for the "10s of millions dead", there's extremely good reason to be skeptical of these claims.[1] They become harder and harder to swallow the more older, Mao-era Chinese you talk with - most of whom, no matter where in the countryside they hail from, know of no one who died of starvation or malnutrition. The press is the propaganda arm of a nation's powerful - whether in China or America. Don't believe it just because they tell you to. [1] http://www.unz.com/article/mao-reconsidered-part-two-whose-famine/ http://www.unz.com/article/mao-reconsidered-part-two-whose-f...
      - Slansitartop 8y ago
        > China today is about Gilded Age-type capitalism with a strain of collectivism running through it. From what I gather, this is unfortunately true. > The Chinese Communist Party functions the same way Chinese government has functioned for thousands of years. Anyone can join, if he can pass the necessary tests. Passing tests to gain a coveted spot in the government has been a national priority since before Confucius's day, 2.5 millennia ago, and continues to be today. Nah. I don't think you have to pass any tests. You get into the party if you or your parents have the right connections or are willing to bribe the right people. > China does not have legally enshrined freedom of speech. But at a societal level, the 'real' freedom of speech is greater than what I've experienced in America. In America, you must very carefully watch your words, lest you offend any of a number of easily offended groups. China doesn't have "real" freedom of speech because you can voice your personal prejudices with fewer social repercussions. China is literally throwing defense lawyers in jail because they have the temerity to defend their clients against the government prosecutors! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusade-of-chinas-human-rights-lawyers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa... There is no "real" freedom of speech in China in any way. Try to organize a protest march against Xi Jinping in China and let me know if you still think that "the 'real' freedom of speech is greater in China."
  - ksec 8y ago
    You can certainly do business in China, but I will hardly call it open or free market, this is knowing full well most western countries have some form of protection. The double standard in many places, even by regulation and law. I am still hopeful they will open up more in the future, nearly 20 years since the joining of WTO.
  - Slansitartop 8y ago
    >> Maybe communism vs freedom? > That’s a false dichotomy. China is ostensibly commmunist but free market is alive and well (with heavy doses of state directed influence, but so as in other western countries, witness the military industrial complex) "Freedom" does not mean only the "free market." China is certainly against many things Westerners would consider necessary for freedom: > Communist Party cadres have filled meeting halls around China to hear a somber, secretive warning issued by senior leaders. Power could escape their grip, they have been told, unless the party eradicates seven subversive currents coursing through Chinese society. > These seven perils were enumerated in a memo, referred to as Document No. 9, that bears the unmistakable imprimatur of Xi Jinping, China’s new top leader. The first was “Western constitutional democracy”; others included promoting “universal values” of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation, ardently pro-market “neo-liberalism,” and “nihilist” criticisms of the party’s traumatic past. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea... The Chinese communist party literally opposed to constitutional democracy (meaning checks on its power), human rights and accurate, nonpartisan history.
- sametmax 8y ago
  I rather see relaxed dictatorship vs comfortable oligarchy, if i'm being honest.
- andrepd 8y ago
  Amazing, not one of those words are correct. China is an ultracapitalist oligarchy, communist in nothing but name. The USA has been responsible for so many atrocities against self-determination of peoples, in the name of imperialism, that when someone paints them as "freedom bringers" I know not whether to laugh or cry.
  - tome 8y ago
    A couple of things that I find interesting to think about. Firstly, are the people of the USA freer than the people of China? I find that quite an easy question to answer. Secondly, a harder one. Are the people of Chile freer of less free than they would have counterfactually been if the USSR had come to dominate Latin America (and won the Cold War into the bargain)?
    - andrepd 8y ago
      To your first point: yes, quite an easy question indeed. However saying "A is ok because B does it even worse" is hardly a convincing argument. To your second point: I don't know, yet in my opinion it should be left to the people of that country to decide what they want for themselves, don't you think? -_- "Democracy!", scream the US patriots, yet meddling and overthrowing democratically elected rulers when it doesn't align with their interests, under the flimsy excuse of "they didn't make the right choice, we know better, with our dictator they will be more free than with their choice". Just doesn't sit right with me.
rando444 8y ago
Once you start going down this road, you'll find that people are of very different opinions as to who should own the means of production.
- rich-and-poor 8y ago
  I would just like to point out that Tesla was able to have China cede their demand for part ownership of Tesla's China Gigafactory in recent months. Tesla will have full ownership of their China factories.
  - qaq 8y ago
    The problem with this they can take that back as easily as they gave it.
    - lorenzorhoades 8y ago
      Can they though? China isn't some totalitarian dictatorship that some of the west seem to think they are. If they ceded this 'business as usual' measure, it was because the jobs, investment, and technology that results is worth it. China likes Tesla, and alternative energy. Their alternative energy investments have been substantial for a number of years.
      - Slansitartop 8y ago
        > China isn't some totalitarian dictatorship that some of the west seem to think they are. You do realize that they're closer to being a dictatorship now than they've been for decades? Xi has purged most of his rivals and has recently abolished term limits for his positions, so he could rule indefinitely.
      - craftyguy 8y ago
        > China isn't some totalitarian dictatorship So making their president "president for life" doesn't count as a dictatorship now?
lorenzorhoades 8y ago
In alot of industries and examples, only when competition is introduced does innovation happen. E.G. Manhattan project (hitler can't build the bomb first), Apollo (A rocket is just a bomb delivery system, Russia can't have dominance). These examples are on a governmental scale, but the same thing happens in industries where startups are fighting to compete against entrenched competitors. I truly believe having a "nationalistic" mindset when it comes to technological advancement is the best way to develop a "humanistic" world. Innovation, technological advancement, and a higher standard of living for all spring forth from competition and necessity.
- aninhumer 8y ago
  You say the Manhattan and Apollo projects are the result of "competition", but I think, on an organisational level, they are the exact opposite. They are the result of the US abandoning market competition, and having the state give resources to a group of motivated people working towards a common goal. >These examples are on a governmental scale, but the same thing happens in industries where startups are fighting to compete against entrenched competitors. And if they win, they become the new entrenched competitors and abuse their market position just the same, because that's exactly what they were "competing" for in the first place. >Innovation, technological advancement, and a higher standard of living for all spring forth from competition and necessity. I think the best way to drive technological advancement and standards of living would be an economic system that actually values those things directly.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    > but I think, on an organisational level, they are the exact opposite No contradiction there, the competition comes from the other country. It's the same in companies competing domestically too. Within the company, resources are shared and divided in a top-down approach, everyone working to a common goal, using the company's funds to do so. Externally, companies compete with other companies. I once heard the saying that companies are communistic internally and capitalistic externally. This pattern seems to stem or be consistent with how humans cooperate and compete, according to Realistic Conflict Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory --- That said, companies competing have overall done a lot less harm than nations competing. At least companies can't declare war on each other, collect taxes, or execute/incarcerate people.
Slansitartop 8y ago
> I'm still wondering why there should be an economic, political or commercial conflict between China and the rest of the world esp. US. Such conflicts are wasteful with when we all should work together on common goals - space exploration, fighting against diseases, climate change etc. I know! The US should just resign itself to being a provider or raw materials to the Chinese party-state, so we can focus on China achieving those glorious common goals! China is rising to fight common perils such as "'Western constitutional democracy'; others included promoting 'universal values' of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation." (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...) More seriously now: your perspective is embarrassingly naive, and forgets, many, many significant areas of difference between the US and China. China's leadership, now, is committed to am authoritarian, autocratic path. No amount of progress in "space exploration" is worth throwing support behind that kind of government.

by mtw 8y ago

madengr 8y ago

Maybe communism vs freedom?

robbiep 8y ago
That’s a false dichotomy. China is ostensibly commmunist but free market is alive and well (with heavy doses of state directed influence, but so as in other western countries, witness the military industrial complex) A truer dichotomy would be between a rigid semi-dictatorship and quasi-democracy... given that even China has token democracy at some levels despite now essentially having a rubber stamped dictator, and many western states are a long way from true democracy - the voting system in the US hardly allows representative democracy and special interest groups are adept at manipulating voting blocs very effectively, and is 2 party democracy really democracy? Other countries do better jobs (ie Australia’s preferential voting, germany’s Proportional representation) but you can argue that till the cows come home
- madengr 8y ago
  The USA, with all it’s faults, is still based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. China is based on communism with democide of 10’s of millions. Can I buy a porn magazine, a bag of weed, and assault rifle in China? Hell, the party chairman is now chairman for life.
  - robbiep 8y ago
    You can certainly buy the first 2, and is the third really a benefit to any civilised society? I say this as a gun owner
    - madengr 8y ago
      It’s a benefit to a free society.
      - robbiep 8y ago
        Because all of those (western) countries where you can’t buy an assault rifle are such despotic hell holes? It’s a benefit to no one except the manufacturers, the merchants and the people who patch the injured up. And as someone who patches the injured up, I’d prefer not to
        madengr 8y ago
        WWII Europe had plenty of dictators, and will probably be a caliphate by the end of this century. I’ll keep my freedom and guns.
        tryme78 8y ago
        log off, idiot
        dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account.
        dang 8y ago
        We've asked you numerous times to stop breaking the site guidelines, such as with national or religious flamebait. If you can't or won't stop, we're going to end up banning you, so please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this going forward.
    - 089723645897236 8y ago
      Unequivocally yes.
  - throwaway7312 8y ago
    >> China is based on communism China is no longer about communism any more than the U.S. is about the Enlightenment. China today is about Gilded Age-type capitalism with a strain of collectivism running through it. Every Chinese today is caught up in a mad scramble for personal enrichment, often at the expense of his fellow man. Most American Marxists would shrink back in horror at the capitalist fever that grips the average Chinese. Even most of those on America's political right do not have the stomach for the level of Gordon Gecko-ness that animates many Chinese. While many on the American right prefer to retreat to dens, family, and countryside, Chinese capitalists are busily trying to get rich any way they can (ethically or otherwise). The Chinese Communist Party functions the same way Chinese government has functioned for thousands of years. Anyone can join, if he can pass the necessary tests. Passing tests to gain a coveted spot in the government has been a national priority since before Confucius's day, 2.5 millennia ago, and continues to be today. China does not have legally enshrined freedom of speech. But at a societal level, the 'real' freedom of speech is greater than what I've experienced in America. In America, you must very carefully watch your words, lest you offend any of a number of easily offended groups. You won't go to jail for it (unlike certain parts of Western Europe - Germany and Britain, for instance), but you will lose friends and you may lose your job. The result is that while speech may be legal in America, it ends up stifled nevertheless. Large chunks of American society no longer value free speech, and there is actual debate in many corners of the country about whether certain speech ('hate speech') should be outlawed. In China, so long as you do not loudly criticize or subvert the Chinese government, you are free to speak your mind - and won't be harassed by the government OR be James Damore'd / Donglegate'd out of a job. As for the "10s of millions dead", there's extremely good reason to be skeptical of these claims.[1] They become harder and harder to swallow the more older, Mao-era Chinese you talk with - most of whom, no matter where in the countryside they hail from, know of no one who died of starvation or malnutrition. The press is the propaganda arm of a nation's powerful - whether in China or America. Don't believe it just because they tell you to. [1] http://www.unz.com/article/mao-reconsidered-part-two-whose-famine/ http://www.unz.com/article/mao-reconsidered-part-two-whose-f...
    - Slansitartop 8y ago
      > China today is about Gilded Age-type capitalism with a strain of collectivism running through it. From what I gather, this is unfortunately true. > The Chinese Communist Party functions the same way Chinese government has functioned for thousands of years. Anyone can join, if he can pass the necessary tests. Passing tests to gain a coveted spot in the government has been a national priority since before Confucius's day, 2.5 millennia ago, and continues to be today. Nah. I don't think you have to pass any tests. You get into the party if you or your parents have the right connections or are willing to bribe the right people. > China does not have legally enshrined freedom of speech. But at a societal level, the 'real' freedom of speech is greater than what I've experienced in America. In America, you must very carefully watch your words, lest you offend any of a number of easily offended groups. China doesn't have "real" freedom of speech because you can voice your personal prejudices with fewer social repercussions. China is literally throwing defense lawyers in jail because they have the temerity to defend their clients against the government prosecutors! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusade-of-chinas-human-rights-lawyers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa... There is no "real" freedom of speech in China in any way. Try to organize a protest march against Xi Jinping in China and let me know if you still think that "the 'real' freedom of speech is greater in China."
- ksec 8y ago
  You can certainly do business in China, but I will hardly call it open or free market, this is knowing full well most western countries have some form of protection. The double standard in many places, even by regulation and law. I am still hopeful they will open up more in the future, nearly 20 years since the joining of WTO.
- Slansitartop 8y ago
  >> Maybe communism vs freedom? > That’s a false dichotomy. China is ostensibly commmunist but free market is alive and well (with heavy doses of state directed influence, but so as in other western countries, witness the military industrial complex) "Freedom" does not mean only the "free market." China is certainly against many things Westerners would consider necessary for freedom: > Communist Party cadres have filled meeting halls around China to hear a somber, secretive warning issued by senior leaders. Power could escape their grip, they have been told, unless the party eradicates seven subversive currents coursing through Chinese society. > These seven perils were enumerated in a memo, referred to as Document No. 9, that bears the unmistakable imprimatur of Xi Jinping, China’s new top leader. The first was “Western constitutional democracy”; others included promoting “universal values” of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation, ardently pro-market “neo-liberalism,” and “nihilist” criticisms of the party’s traumatic past. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea... The Chinese communist party literally opposed to constitutional democracy (meaning checks on its power), human rights and accurate, nonpartisan history.
sametmax 8y ago
I rather see relaxed dictatorship vs comfortable oligarchy, if i'm being honest.
andrepd 8y ago
Amazing, not one of those words are correct. China is an ultracapitalist oligarchy, communist in nothing but name. The USA has been responsible for so many atrocities against self-determination of peoples, in the name of imperialism, that when someone paints them as "freedom bringers" I know not whether to laugh or cry.
- tome 8y ago
  A couple of things that I find interesting to think about. Firstly, are the people of the USA freer than the people of China? I find that quite an easy question to answer. Secondly, a harder one. Are the people of Chile freer of less free than they would have counterfactually been if the USSR had come to dominate Latin America (and won the Cold War into the bargain)?
  - andrepd 8y ago
    To your first point: yes, quite an easy question indeed. However saying "A is ok because B does it even worse" is hardly a convincing argument. To your second point: I don't know, yet in my opinion it should be left to the people of that country to decide what they want for themselves, don't you think? -_- "Democracy!", scream the US patriots, yet meddling and overthrowing democratically elected rulers when it doesn't align with their interests, under the flimsy excuse of "they didn't make the right choice, we know better, with our dictator they will be more free than with their choice". Just doesn't sit right with me.

rando444 8y ago

Once you start going down this road, you'll find that people are of very different opinions as to who should own the means of production.

rich-and-poor 8y ago
I would just like to point out that Tesla was able to have China cede their demand for part ownership of Tesla's China Gigafactory in recent months. Tesla will have full ownership of their China factories.
- qaq 8y ago
  The problem with this they can take that back as easily as they gave it.
  - lorenzorhoades 8y ago
    Can they though? China isn't some totalitarian dictatorship that some of the west seem to think they are. If they ceded this 'business as usual' measure, it was because the jobs, investment, and technology that results is worth it. China likes Tesla, and alternative energy. Their alternative energy investments have been substantial for a number of years.
    - Slansitartop 8y ago
      > China isn't some totalitarian dictatorship that some of the west seem to think they are. You do realize that they're closer to being a dictatorship now than they've been for decades? Xi has purged most of his rivals and has recently abolished term limits for his positions, so he could rule indefinitely.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      > China isn't some totalitarian dictatorship So making their president "president for life" doesn't count as a dictatorship now?

lorenzorhoades 8y ago

In alot of industries and examples, only when competition is introduced does innovation happen. E.G. Manhattan project (hitler can't build the bomb first), Apollo (A rocket is just a bomb delivery system, Russia can't have dominance). These examples are on a governmental scale, but the same thing happens in industries where startups are fighting to compete against entrenched competitors. I truly believe having a "nationalistic" mindset when it comes to technological advancement is the best way to develop a "humanistic" world. Innovation, technological advancement, and a higher standard of living for all spring forth from competition and necessity.

aninhumer 8y ago
You say the Manhattan and Apollo projects are the result of "competition", but I think, on an organisational level, they are the exact opposite. They are the result of the US abandoning market competition, and having the state give resources to a group of motivated people working towards a common goal. >These examples are on a governmental scale, but the same thing happens in industries where startups are fighting to compete against entrenched competitors. And if they win, they become the new entrenched competitors and abuse their market position just the same, because that's exactly what they were "competing" for in the first place. >Innovation, technological advancement, and a higher standard of living for all spring forth from competition and necessity. I think the best way to drive technological advancement and standards of living would be an economic system that actually values those things directly.
- chillacy 8y ago
  > but I think, on an organisational level, they are the exact opposite No contradiction there, the competition comes from the other country. It's the same in companies competing domestically too. Within the company, resources are shared and divided in a top-down approach, everyone working to a common goal, using the company's funds to do so. Externally, companies compete with other companies. I once heard the saying that companies are communistic internally and capitalistic externally. This pattern seems to stem or be consistent with how humans cooperate and compete, according to Realistic Conflict Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory --- That said, companies competing have overall done a lot less harm than nations competing. At least companies can't declare war on each other, collect taxes, or execute/incarcerate people.

Slansitartop 8y ago

> I'm still wondering why there should be an economic, political or commercial conflict between China and the rest of the world esp. US. Such conflicts are wasteful with when we all should work together on common goals - space exploration, fighting against diseases, climate change etc. I know! The US should just resign itself to being a provider or raw materials to the Chinese party-state, so we can focus on China achieving those glorious common goals! China is rising to fight common perils such as "'Western constitutional democracy'; others included promoting 'universal values' of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation." (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...) More seriously now: your perspective is embarrassingly naive, and forgets, many, many significant areas of difference between the US and China. China's leadership, now, is committed to am authoritarian, autocratic path. No amount of progress in "space exploration" is worth throwing support behind that kind of government.