4 ms·

> This was the thinking in the 1980s when the US invited China into their global trade network. The US didn't invite china to anything. The US begged, threaten

> This was the thinking in the 1980s when the US invited China into their global trade network. The US didn't invite china to anything. The US begged, threatened and cajoled china to open their immense and cheap labor force. China had what the US wanted. It was nixon that went to china, not mao that came to the US. > The thinking was they would move away from communism and Russia and towards an open Democracy. That's as stupid as saying we helped saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar, etc develop their oil and gas field so that they will become christian. If your assertion was true, we'd be trading with cuba and north korea today. If your assertion was true, we would have been top trading partners with the soviet union. Instead we isolated the soviet union and sanctioned them. Did we only want china to be a democracy? Not the north koreans, cubans and soviets? > Such as the Democracy movements in the 80s that were ultimately crushed in Tiananmen square. 'Democracy' movement. Right. And look where china is today? I think china made the right decision to crush the 'democracy' movement. Don't you? It's the same debunked propaganda I've been hearing from the likes of gordon chang since the early 2000s. Morons actually believed we invaded iraq to bring freedom and democracy. So it shouldn't be surprising that morons believe we exploited their cheap labor to bring democracy to china. It's cringe level propaganda.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
No, I don’t think China was right to crush democracy. It doesn’t flow that their economic success was tied exclusively to authoritarianism. One might argue they would have a stronger domestic consumer economy if they hadn’t.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  > No, I don’t think China was right to crush democracy. History has shown it to be right. All you have to do is look at the soviet union/russia. > It doesn’t flow that their economic success was tied exclusively to authoritarianism. No. But it is tied to the crushing of the 'democracy' rebellion. > One might argue they would have a stronger domestic consumer economy if they hadn’t. You can argue anything but you can't deny reality. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
- CapstanRoller 3y ago
  >authoritarianism This term is functionally meaningless. Authority is not a coherent ideology (an -ism), it's just the natural outcome of the state maintaining a monopoly on violence. The real question is: whose authority, and for whom?

fnordpiglet 3y ago

No, I don’t think China was right to crush democracy. It doesn’t flow that their economic success was tied exclusively to authoritarianism. One might argue they would have a stronger domestic consumer economy if they hadn’t.

goodbyesf 3y ago
> No, I don’t think China was right to crush democracy. History has shown it to be right. All you have to do is look at the soviet union/russia. > It doesn’t flow that their economic success was tied exclusively to authoritarianism. No. But it is tied to the crushing of the 'democracy' rebellion. > One might argue they would have a stronger domestic consumer economy if they hadn’t. You can argue anything but you can't deny reality. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
CapstanRoller 3y ago
>authoritarianism This term is functionally meaningless. Authority is not a coherent ideology (an -ism), it's just the natural outcome of the state maintaining a monopoly on violence. The real question is: whose authority, and for whom?