They aren't even remotely socialist, with all those luxury hotels and western fast food franchises.

They screw the workers and enable Wal-Mart.

They are the least green government on the planet.

The U.S. capitalists love them.

They're never going to allow free speech.

Is there any reason we should defend them?

With some major exceptions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
They are the least green government on the planet.

---

quote:

---

China now boasts auto emissions standards that are comparable to the European level, fuel economy standards that exceed those in the United States, and a national renewable energy law that has proven far more effective than any similar legislation passed by the U.S. Congress to date. However imperfect some of these laws may be — and no government policies are ever perfect — it is clear that environmental policy is advancing rapidly in China and that the nation’s leaders are working hard to learn from the successes and failures of other countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Obviously, they ain't Communist anymore and won't be again.

---

I'm not an apologist for what my country's rulers do, and I never have been.

I'm talking about those of us, around the world, on the democratic radical left.

Can everybody please accept that I'm not a freakin' CIA man here?

And the U.S. capitalist elite backs the Chinese regime, let me remind everybody.

I'm trying to solicit view on how we can, looking at this particular state, take an internationalist stance that backs genuine socialism AND genuine democracy.

Sort of like the vast majority of countries in this world.

My suggestion is that you and everyone else leave China alone to deal with its own internal problems. Sort of like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Anyone who interferes should not be too surprised if they find their head separated from their shoulders (as in those other countries...).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
I know we shouldn't try to overthrow the Chinese government, but don't we have an obligation to be in solidarity now with the dissidents within China and to actively push for an end to all repression there, just as we oppose an end to repression and inequality everywhere else?

---

As between the Chinese bourgeoisie and our own, I have no reason to back the interests of one over the other. So when our own capitalist class and their political mouthpieces call for sanctions, or boycotts, or - eventually - war against China on account of their treatment of ethnic minorities, or their environmental practices, or their investment policies in Sudan, etc., I have no interest in such hypocrisy, which is really only aimed at weakening and isolating an economic rival. [I'm in favour of the emancipation of women in Afghanistan, but I won't support imperialist aggression there based on that pretext.]

And so, much as I would like to see a revolution in China, I do not support calls to boycott the Olympics, for example. I have no intention of trying to make a revolution in China without the active participation of billions of Chinese workers and farmers, and I certainly don't trust our own capitalists and politicians to do anything to advance that agenda.

Moreover, nothing I can say or do here in Canada, at least at the present time, will hasten the overthrow of the Chinese bourgeoisie. So there is no real scope for me to "actively push for an end to all represssion there." My solidarity and a toonie will get you a good cup of coffee, but not much more.

quote:

---

How can anyone take seriously, for example, US or British leaders lecturing China about Tibet, Russia about Chechnya, or Sudan about Darfur, when they have triggered and presided over such an orgy of killing, collective punishment, prisoner abuse and ethnic cleansing?

---

I think the question is equally valid when applied to "the left". How do stand in solidarity with Tibetans against China, a nation with which we have no political influence, when we have failed so miserably to stand in solidarity with Iraqis against our own governments of which we, ostensibly, hold some influence?

And I don't know why this thread has inspired so much hostility.

I'm talking about internationalism here. I'm not in league with my country's leaders. Can people please put aside the fact that, by accident of birth, I'm a Yank?

If I've somehow offended everybody here, I'm sorry, I guess. I guess I don't understand why this very topic is so utterly beyond the pale.
It is not possible to be opposed to this regime and still oppose all the other repressive states on the planet and still at the same hold my own country's leaders accountable for their imperial arrogance?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the response I'm getting, but it sounds like you're all basically saying "You're from the U.S., so you're automatically a contemptible hypocrite".

Well, sorry, but I don't accept that. I'm a Yank but I'm also a citizen of the planet and I'm also a leftist. I have as much right to raise these issues as anybody else.

And expressing solidarity with Chinese dissidents is not the equivalent for demanding that the Marines be sent into Beijing.

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
I'm not an apologist for what my country's rulers do, and I never have been. ...

Can everybody please accept that I'm not a freakin' CIA man here? ...

You'd think people on this thread would trust me by now, fer chrissakes....

I'm not in league with my country's leaders. Can people please put aside the fact that, by accident of birth, I'm a Yank? ...

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the response I'm getting, but it sounds like you're all basically saying "You're from the U.S., so you're automatically a contemptible hypocrite".

---

That makes FIVE TIMES you've accused "people" of treating you as a Yankee hypocrite.

Would you mind quoting a single time that anyone did that?

If you can't (and I know you can't, because I've just read the friggin thread twice), would you kindly shut up about it and respond to our views about the question you raised?

Nobody came right out and SAID "Burch, you're a Yank hypocrite" but what other interpretation could there possibly be for the unjustified hostility I've received in this thread?

It has also been implied that I'm speaking out about China to the exclusion of all other situations in which people are living under oppression. That's bullshit and everyone knows it.

As to the other views expressed, well, I thought I had responded to them, but I will again

1)Yes, other countries including the U.S. have serious issues with repression and various levels of hypocrisy. I've said this as much as anybody.

2)Showing solidarity with Chinese dissidents is not the same as outside military intervention. It is, instead, comparable to solidarity with the victims of apartheid or the persecuted members of the First Nations of the U.S and Canada., both of which groups received support from progressives around the world. Why should we be any more hands off with China then with those groups? Solidarity is solidarity is solidarity. And calling for democratic socialist change is not the same thing as calling for a U.S. invasion of China, which I'd oppose just as much as you all would(and which isn't ever going to happen, because the right wing in the U.S. LOVES the Chinese regime).

3)The U.S. does have serious pollution problems. However, in the U.S., it is possible to be an environmentalist without being thrown in prison for it.

4)Supporting dissidents in China is not an attack against "socialism". The Chinese regime is no more deserving of hands-off treatment than South Africa or Chile were when they were trapped under free-market fascism as China now is.

And I support some of what Spector said, but I oppose the idea that we're obligated to say nothing about what happens in China. And, at the moment, people all over China are rising against the regime. So it's not at all a question of saying that only fussy Western intellectuals are at all interested in change there.

There needs to be much more solidarity for those fighting against oppression everywhere. What I am talking about here is just part of that.

Does that dissipate the anger I've somehow inspired in this discussion to any degree?

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And I support some of what Spector said, but I oppose the idea that we're obligated to say nothing about what happens in China.

---

quote:

---

And, at the moment, people all over China are rising against the regime.

---

Solidarity is more than just verbal expressions of support. It's not like prayer, and it's not like rooting for your favourite sports team, neither of which activities will have one iota of effect on the outcome. Solidarity means taking meaningful action to support the cause or, conversely, to thwart the opponents of the cause.

Generally, the most effective form of solidarity is to build the revolution in one's own country.

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Obviously, they ain't Communist anymore and won't be again.

They aren't even remotely socialist, with all those luxury hotels and western fast food franchises.

They screw the workers and enable Wal-Mart.

They are the least green government on the planet.

The U.S. capitalists love them.

They're never going to allow free speech.

---

Ken, if you would please stop being so defensive, read the above points from your opening post.

My response was:

quote:

---

You've just described the United States of America.

With some major exceptions.

Like, China doesn't send invasionary forces all over the world.

---

TRANSLATION:

Stop complaining about China, when its crimes, and the danger it represents to the world, pale into insignificance beside those of the monster on our doorstep.

I'd have said the same thing if you lived in Trois Pistoles. You seem to feel guilty about living in the U.S. (which I wouldn't know if you hadn't told us). Don't take it out on us.

ETA: I feel no particular solidarity with "dissidents" in China - no more than I do with "dissidents" in France. You have to first tell me what exactly these "dissidents" are fighting for. Without knowing that, it is really a stretch to compare them with the victims of apartheid in South Africa or the Indigenous peoples of the Americas.

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
I believe your first instincts are right Ken, communist China is no more, if it ever really was,

---

I don't believe it was possible to take a fourth world country in 1949 and create a socialist paradise by 1976.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
How do stand in solidarity with Tibetans against China, a nation with which we have no political influence, when we have failed so miserably to stand in solidarity with Iraqis against our own governments of which we, ostensibly, hold some influence?

---

The NDP has been steadfastly opposed to the Iraq war from day 1, and can be rightly proud of its stand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I don't believe it was possible to take a fourth world country in 1949 and create a socialist paradise by 1976.

What did happen in that span of time was that China's infant mortality rates were better than capitalist India's rates today by the time of Mao's death, and average lifespans were doubled. That's something that no capitalist society has achieved and why Maoists are still revered around the world.

---

I've made no secret of my nationality on this board.
I assumed you knew. If you didn't, my apologies for taking your response as Yank-baiting.

Still, why can't a person be critical of the Chinese regime AND even more critical of the U.S. one? You seem to see it as some sort of zero-sum game, that if a person is critical of repression in China that that person is automatically letting the U.S. off the hook.

A true internationalist can be a dissident against BOTH of those systems. Why can't you accept that?

As for the dissidents in China, they are fighting for, variously(and I'm not familiar with all of the groups involved).

1) An end to the persecution of ethnic minorities, such as Tibetans(it should've been enough to just annex Tibet. They never had to flood it with Han Chinese and launch an obssessive campaign to destroy all of Tibetan culture).

2) Free speech, an independent media(which would NOT be a tool of outside imperialists, since, as you know, all the capitalist SUPPORT the Chinese fascist state) and an end to state control of what can be said on the Internet(I assume you'd have no objection to this last goal).

3) The ability to be an activist for green causes, gay rights, nuclear disarmament or independent labor unions without risking arrest. Again, I assume you'd have no reason to object to this. Remember, the students at Tienenman Square were basically leftists.

Part of the reason I'm bringing all of this up is that I want the left to avoid being seen, as it (somewhat unfairly)was in the Warsaw Pact and old Soviet Union situations, as indifferent to the causes these people are fighting for. This perceived indifference had at least something to do with the rightward direction those countries took after 1989.

Oh, and Fidel, the Chinese government DID ask and receive controlling interest in some of the foreign concerns that opened up in China, but they've done nothing progressive or pro-worker with the proceeds from this interest.

Did they ask that WalMart establish workers' self-management of its factories?

Did they even require that Chinese workers at WalMart be paid a living wage?

And, even if you argue that this model has a later socialist potential(which is hard to believe given its completely anti-socialist application in the present) the establishment of this model, again, did not and does not justify the insane repressiveness of this state, a repressiveness that is always imposed to the benefit of foreign capitalism.

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

The policies of the U.S. have been repeatedly thrown in my face in this thread, as if I am personally responsible for them.

---

And it isn't a fact that applies only to Americans. Romeo Dallaire, a Canadian Senator, well known for his role in Rwanda, recently stated Canada should be in Sudan as it is hypocritical to be in Afghanistan while ignoring Sudan. And yet it is not hypocritical for Canada to ignore Iraq which is a worse humanitarian disaster than Sudan?

That is the same hypocrisy at work that removed the US and Israel from Canada's torture list. Because white nations within the Imperial circle can do no wrong. Not even for Romeo Dallaire who allegedly shook hands with the Devil but apparently still can't recognize him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
It wasn't possible to create a socialist paradise, but the achievements the PRC did have to its credit could all have been done without repression, without censorship, and certainly without the Cultural Revolution.

---

But history rarely produces a succession of progressive events. Compared to centuries of imperial rule in China, Mao was significant break with the past as were Lenin and Bolshevism in Russia. The world lurches forward in progression, like a series of birth pangs produces new life. Revolution, like birth, can be a painful and bloody experience when political compromise is not offered to the people. And there were no compromises offered to Chinese or Russian peasants, just more of the same-old hunger, war, and brutal repression century after relentless century. I think the world is pregnant with revolution once again. And a U.S. shadow government is now telling their EU counterparts in crime that the world's cop have done all they can to abort the fetus of socialism with war and aggression.

China wasn't supposed to compete with the west for resources. They were supposed to remain a divided and backward colonial outpost. The Brits, Japanese and U.S. were supposed to hack off pieces of China for their industrialist interests before and during WWII. It didn't happen, and Chiang Kai-shek and his gangsters were chased out of the country by Maoists. And now there's this situation with competing for global resources.

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I also assumed that you were aware of my nationality and were using it to question my right to raise these issues. If you weren't I apologize.

I join you in condemning all hypocrisy.

I agree that we need a Free All Humanity movement.

My own feeling is that the issues I've raised are a crucial factor in starting this.

After all, the triumph of a Free All Humanity movement will be impossible as long as China remains a right-wing police state, given China's size and it's global economic power.

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

I'm saying condemn BOTH. Be vigilant and outspoken about both. Is THAT asking too much?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And I agree with avoiding that double standard. But I've never glossed over local crimes and everyone here knows it. And I condemn all those who do.

I'm saying condemn BOTH. Be vigilant and outspoken about both. Is THAT asking too much?

.

---

quote:

---

My suggestion is that you and everyone else leave China alone to deal with its own internal problems. Sort of like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

---

Good, I guess that means we can also leave Israel alone to "deal" with it's "internal problems" as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Good, I guess that means we can also leave Israel alone to "deal" with it's "internal problems" as well.

---

When Israel retreats from illegally occupied lands; stops committing aggression against other countries; and implements U.N. Resolution 194 to allow all expelled Palestinians to return; yes, I think there's a good argument that the people should deal with their own problems. Until then, Israel is an outlaw state violating international law and must be brought to heel by the international community.

No such situation, of course, exists with respect to China.

quote:

---

Does that mean that we all should have adopted a hands-off policy towards South Africa in the 80s and let it "deal" with its "internal problems" however it saw fit?

---

Certainly not. South Africa not only committed aggression against its neighbours on a regular basis, but it was a colonial minority rule country. The world community, by voluntary and non-aggressive measures, applied pressure on the regime - but the motor for change came from the masses of the South African people themselves and their uprising against minority apartheid rule.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Oh, and Fidel, the Chinese government DID ask and receive controlling interest in some of the foreign concerns that opened up in China, but they've done nothing progressive or pro-worker with the proceeds from this interest

---

Ah but now the IMF and World Banking system are not the only sources of funding for third world developement in Africa and South America. U.S. investment is no longer the largest source of capital in South America. In the 1980's, the U.S. was the single most powerful economic and military power in the world.

The truth is, by and large, we don't give a fuck. Our interest, or lack thereof, is driven more by ideology and politics than any sense of justice or concern.

Thus, people who can look away from, or even worse defend, the atrocities of Israel are suddenly whaling and gnashing their teeth over Darfur or Tibet.

People who won't criticize the war crimes of the US in Iraq, and in many other places, want to boycott the Olympics in China.

It is all phony. It is all cynical politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
People here will forget Tibet over a bag of chips and an episode of American Idol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
China is committing genocide against Tibetans and other minorities and they have a history of propping up murderous inhumane regimes like Pol Pot and the pigs that have run Burma into the ground.

---

The topic of China and socialism/the left is an interesting one. Chinese and Russian Communism was often used as a reason to abandon socialism, but that was just a tactical ploy of the 'ultra-capitalists' who wanted government to not regulate corporate activity. Obviously, those capitalists, like Joseph McCarthy, were off base. Obviously, with global warming and the recent economic problems, capitalists have shown that they are not responsible enough to not need regulation.

Socialism is as simple as a group of people getting together to accomplish a task, or uniting consumers to get something like electricity instead of each individual setting it up for themselves. It makes sense. Every society uses socialism, they just don't want to admit it.

China used that kind of socialism, to great advantage. They kept a huge number of people from starving for decades in the early 20th C... but then in 1959-1962 they got it all wrong, and have been wrong in so many ways since then.

quote:

---

What time should we nuke 'em? -unionist

---

How about articulating a few arguments instead of this knee-jerk reaction to an opinion ? Did Stockholm say we should nuke them ? You are putting words in his mouth? Taunting is not a constructive way to debate.

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

D’après des témoins occidentaux présents sur place, e.a. James Miles, journaliste pour « The Economist » , les violences commises à Lhassa durant cette semaine – date de commémoration de la « Rébellion nationale de mars 59 » - ont été inaugurées par des Tibétains, dont des lamas qui encourageaient des groupes de jeunes à commettre des actes destructeurs.
Les manifestations de violence étaient organisées : les Tibétains portaient des sacs à dos remplis de pierres, de couteaux et de cocktails molotov. Les morts causés par ce drame sont tous des Chinois. Les dégâts matériels, destruction de commerces, incendie de véhicules, étaient clairement tournés contre les Chinois. Les manifestants tibétains s’en sont également pris à des écoles primaires, des hôpitaux et des hôtels.
De sorte que les Occidentaux présents sur place, pour la plupart des touristes, se demandaient quand la police allait intervenir. Rejointe par l’armée chinoise, elle est intervenue suite à deux jours de violence. Les autorités chinoises craignaient-elles la réaction des pays occidentaux ? … pays qui, en réalité, n’attendaient que cette intervention pour parler de « répression sauvage par l’armée chinoise et de chasse aux manifestants ». Comment lire ces faits ?
Y a-t-il lieu de parler d’un « génocide culturel » au Tibet ?(...)

---

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
FM: "People here will forget Tibet over a bag of chips and an episode of American Idol."

Sure, and they'll forget about the hungry and homeless too when the next show comes on, but does that mean the left should ignore them as well? And as Babblers have asked about others before, do nations have to be perfect everywhere before we can criticise nations anywhere? Or is there a particular pecking order of nation states we on the left must confine out critiques to, regardless of their actual actions? Because I still don't see anyone here saying we should invade. All I see is people saying we should boycott a frankly over-bloated and oppressive sporting event. And yes, I intend on boycotting the 2010 Olympics too.

---

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Oh, I'll be boycotting the Olympics, too. I've already not bought my tickets.

---

Then we agree, good. And this one deserves another...

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
I agree Re Israel, but everyone of those points can be just as easily made about China.

---

No they can't. What U.N. resolution states that China illegally occupies Tibet, or has committed aggression against Tibet?

From 1950 to 1971, the People's Republic of China didn't even have a seat in the U.N.. What prevented the U.N. from adopting resolutions against China reflecting your theory that China is like Israel?? Which Tibetans have been expelled from Tibet as the Palestinians were and are being denied the right to return? The Dalai Lama? I don't think so. There is no comparison whatsoever.

quote:

---

You do know that Tibet has many exiles too, including the Dalai Lama, and they were only reinvaded by the Han in 52? (the earlier "Manchus" being the only "Han" dynasty to ever hold it effectively) Are the borders drawn up by Western colonials after the second WW the only ones we should recognise?

---

No, I wasn't aware that the Dalai Lama was expelled from Tibet. News to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
So unionist, are you saying that China's occupation of Tibet is LESS unjust than Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? If so, why?

---

Tibet is part of China. The West Bank and Gaza and Golan are not part of Israel. I'm talking about the U.N. and international law. What similarity do you see between the two situations??

quote:

---

And is your view that the repression occurring in China would only be our business if China was engaged in military adventurism in other countries?

---

We have had this discussion before, Ken, first about Iraq, then other countries. I have suggested that foreigners should keep their noses out of the internal affairs of countries, otherwise they end up justifying the atrocities of the U.S. and its "allies" in bringing about regime change everywhere. Do you want me to point you to those discussions of ours, going back two years? As North Americans, our prime duty is to stop our countries from committing murder, aggression and genocide. After that, we can start lecturing other countries about how they conduct themselves internally. Long, long, long after that.

quote:

---

What, then, is your view of China's role in Sudan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No, I wasn't aware that the Dalai Lama was expelled from Tibet. News to me.

---

I wasn't sure given your insistence there's so little similarity.

quote:

---

As for borders, I don't like those things to be up for debate. I prefer international law and the United Nations as the arbiter of those things. If someone thinks the borders have been wrongly drawn, they can approach the International Court of Justice (via some state) or the Security Council and plead their case.

---

And no, having an opinion on the situations in other countries is NOT the same as calling for western military intervention.

From 1950 to 1971, the People's Republic of China didn't even have a seat in the U.N.. What prevented the U.N. from adopting resolutions against China reflecting your theory that China is like Israel?? Which Tibetans have been expelled from Tibet as the Palestinians were and are being denied the right to return? The Dalai Lama? I don't think so. There is no comparison whatsoever."

I think you're getting a bit legalistic here. Taking nothing away from Palestine, I'm not at all sure that every UN nation at the time recognised the invasion either, but alas what could even they do back then? And yes there are many thousands of Tibetan refugees in Nepal, India and elsewhere, and, although I'm sure Beijing would say they'd all be welcomed back with open arms, how long do you really think any of their former leaders (as flawed as they were) would remain outside prison after they arrived?

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

The Left has a duty to be on the side of all who are oppressed

---

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Oh I just want to boldface that instant classic. I can assure you FM that my Red Star membership was stripped when I refused my first loyalty test. Some lefties burned them with their bras.

---

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Elizabeth Martens questions whether there really is a "genocide" going on in Tibet or the CIA just wants us to think so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
China invaded Tibet by brute force. Israel took the West Bank and Gaza by brute force. There's no moral difference between the two situations.

---

And Iraq invaded Kuwait by brute force, and Saddam Hussein brutalized his own people, and two Bushes used that as an excuse to invade Iraq, install a puppet regime and murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Your "moral" equations are recipes for imperialist intervention and world war.

Same response to Erik, who thinks that the difference is "legalistic".

If the Tibetan people want independence, they have a right to it and they will enjoy my sympathy.

If someone says we have to support the Dalai Lama, or some riots whose aims we do not even know, my answer is, no way.

I agree that we should be critical of China when the situation merits it, but not in a way that supports an NED/CIA campaign for a Tibet ruled by a would-be bourgeoisie and return to theocratic feudalism as a result.

It should be possible to create a movement against repression throughout the planet that avoids that trap.

Such a movement would be in the tradition of the best phrase that the Fourth International ever contributed to the radical tradition: The phrase "Neither Washington nor Moscow"(Which today would end up being amended to something like "Neither Washington, Moscow, Beijing or Bogota, but possibly Caracas and La Paz").

And of course we do need to push for radical transformation at home as part of this. I would never have said otherwise.

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

People who won't criticize the war crimes of the US in Iraq, and in many other places, want to boycott the Olympics in China.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Well guess what??!! I hereby criticize and condemn the war crimes of the US in Iraq AND I want Canada to boycott the Olympics in China. So there!

---

That's a pretty odd comment, Stockholm, because you don't call for or support boycotting sports events in the U.S.

Why not stop trading with China?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The US isn't hosting the Olympics. China is. Its obvious that the leaders of China want the Beijing Olympics to be a propaganda fiesta akin to Berlin in 1936 - why not foil them and make their billions of dollars to be spent on putting on a show for the world all go right down the drain!

---

I think the Jesse Owens story asserts pretty much the idea that the athletes can prove their point without the need for a lot of ideological bullshit.

The difference in the coverage of Tibet and Kurdistan this weekend says it all. The CBC was denigrating the Chinese government in one clip and then denigrating the protesters in the Turkey in the next.

quote:

---

If China had intended to exterminate the Tibetan population it would have done so long ago. The hyperbole about Tibetan "genocide" only trivializes the word.

---

I think that it is important to remember that genocide takes many forms. It doesn't always look like gas chambers, machetes and mass graves. It sometimes looks like re-education, criminalizing spirituality and displacement.

IMO, the best way to be in solidarity with all of the people in the world who suffer under the injustice that is the State is to start with yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
I think that it is important to remember that genocide takes many forms. It doesn't always look like gas chambers, machetes and mass graves. It sometimes looks like re-education, criminalizing spirituality and displacement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

I think that it is important to remember that genocide takes many forms. It doesn't always look like gas chambers, machetes and mass graves. It sometimes looks like re-education, criminalizing spirituality and displacement

---

This is a good post, and I agree. Canada is world renowned for its apartheid-like treatment of First Nations people over the course of -European-Canadian history in North America.

Past Canadian governments are responsible for the deaths of an estimated 50, 000 native children in residential schools and unspeakable abuse of many more who survived.

A Liberal government sent woodlands Cree to live as human flagpoles in the barren North under inhospitable living conditions according to Inuit people who knew how harsh the environment can be at Grise Fiord.

According to AI, Canadian governments are guilty of an ongoing genocide of Crees at Buffalo Lake Alberta. And the abject poverty that exists across much of our North has been compared with conditions in developing countries.

Past governments have stolen land from native people and given it to European settlers, and today they are given more forms to fill out and more bullshit bureaucracy than most Canadians will ever be exposed to in their lifetimes. It's time Canadian voters cleaned the rot and decay from Ottawa as an exercise in democracy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So let me get this straight. You're saying that until Canada 100% makes amends...

---

Did I mention federal foot-dragging on First Nations' land claims decade after decade? If our stoogeocrats moved any slower on these issues, they'd be in reverse gear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
People who use "genocide" to describe any form of national oppression that they really, really, don't like are abusing and trivializing the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
That's a bit extreme. I'd say Canada can start mildly criticizing other countries once its withdrawn its murderous contingent from Afghanistan. Is that a bit more feasible?

---

I'd say that we can speak against both Canada, as many of us already do, as well as against others. Especially when we know Canada won't in all probability do dick all except score a few cheap points, and cannot in fact do much if it wanted to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

I think that it is important to remember that genocide takes many forms. It doesn't always look like gas chambers, machetes and mass graves. It sometimes looks like re-education, criminalizing spirituality and displacement.

IMO, the best way to be in solidarity with all of the people in the world who suffer under the injustice that is the State is to start with yourself. If you live in Canada or the US you most likely living on land that doesn't belong to you and you are (un)supported by an economic system that thrives on death and theft.

---

I was with you up to here:

quote:

---

Start with taking apart Canada - supporter of war, genocide and destruction both home and abroad. If we can destroy Canada and rebuild we would be doing the world a favour and we might even stumble upon our own freedom in the process.

---

Destroying something you don't personally believe in doesn't necessarily mean that what will inevitably fill the vaccuum is an improvement.

[ 23 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Insert "Ottawa" in between Warshington and Moscow, and we're in agreement, Ken.

---

If someone says we have to support the Dalai Lama, or some riots whose aims we do not even know, my answer is, no way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Did I mention federal foot-dragging on First Nations' land claims decade after decade? If our stoogeocrats moved any slower on these issues, they'd be in reverse gear.

And recognizing Kosovo's drug-dealing mafia government would seem to coincide with Ottawa's "aye-aye" to U.S.-backed narco-administrations in Kabul and Bogota.

---

But no one cares about Canada's support for narco governments in these countries, apparently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
So...what stand SHOULD the Left take about China's regime?

---

The Left has no reason to support the CCP if it supports democracy, unions, good social services, and small military budgets. The only support that can be offered to dissidents, of which they are relatively few, is moral support unless you're prepared to put your life in danger by going to China, becoming a citizen and working with them. If you're arrested, you may be accused of spying, among other things, and executed.

If the pressure for political reform must come from outside the CCP, it must be done by persons who will, and are willing, to live with the positive or negative consequences of their actions.

[ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: Liang Jiajie ]

An interesting attempt but there can be no unified stance as the "Left" is not monolithic or of unanimous opinion on everything. For example in this thread Erik Redburn and Ken Burch have degraded Communism and bemoaned the Cultural Revolution and promoted, in Erik's words,

quote:

---

Scandinavian style perfection

---

As an ardent "leftist" I completely disagree with these two posters and their "left" outlook; and the idolatry of the Scandinavian nationalist/petty-bourgeoisie states. I am not being presumptuous and playing a game of who is really "left"; I'll believe Erik and Ken when they say that they consider themselves "left" and hopefully they'll do the same for me. That is just the point here, we are all "left" and yet have very different outlooks on China and on what socialism should look like and how we should get there.

I certainly agree more strongly with the positions of M. Spector, unionist, and Fidel though with each there are of course some differences in perspective.

I suppose the simple way to see who is (for me) more worthy of "left" criticism, China or the USA/Canada is to answer the question: Which government is more "left", the CPC Government of China or the Republican/Conservative Government(s) of North America (taking the economic contexts into account of course)? I do subscribe to the view espoused by some posters that when the "left" makes an effort criticize China it does so because it accepts the wrongs of North American white capitalists as more permissible than those of non-whites in developing nations; an equation which to me seems morally backwards.

Le Téléspectateur:

quote:

---

I think that it is important to remember that genocide takes many forms.

---

I think that it is important to remember that Genocide takes one form: the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Genocide is not forcing people to accept neighbours of different ethnicities. It is not genocide to provide free education to the illiterate masses. It is not genocide to free the people from the grip of a tyrannical religious hierarchy. If what China has done/is doing in Tibet is genocide then I guess I support genocide.

[ 30 April 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

Well, ok, although at that point it looks less like a slogan and more like a Greyhound route.

---

Of course that is not possible and anyone who understands global economics, socialism or capitalism ought to know better. Fact is we interfere when we buy Chinese goods to the degree we do and when we sell raw materials to them. Unfortunate second fact is we would also interfere if we refused to buy Chinese goods. It is impossible and irresponsible to suggest that we are in a position to not influence and naturally allow the Chinese to come to a resolution of their national challenges. It is equally ignorant to assume that the same is not true in reverse. We are, whether we like it or not, and whether other countries like it or not, deeply affected by what other nations do.

So the question ought to be, recognizing our roles as both buyers and sellers (and I would like to think there is more to the world community than that) how should we behave?

Sometimes it is impossible not to take sides. It has been argued by some that by trading on one hand and loudly voicing opinions on the other that we are attempting to find that balance because silence, connected to trade is a message as well.

Western history in China is delicate given the history of western imperialism there. To suggest that people should not criticize if they have their own deficiencies makes for a nice biblical reference but it is only possible in a context where non-involvement is possible. There are also limits to that as a moral rule- so if you have ever done something wrong, you should not comment on another's abuse?

On the other hand I get the idea that the revolution should begin at home while admitting that it will have and should have some influence -- over there -- wherever "there" is.

So I would like to answer the thread's question in the light of these beliefs.

We believe that people should be paid a minimum wage (even if we can't agree on the amount) we also agree that the environment needs protecting-- among many other beliefs. We know China wants to sell stuff to us and that they will sell more or less what we want if we will pay for it.

Our response to China could be a response to our own people. We allow on our market certain standards- we do not worry about what standards China allows on its market. We do not differentiate between sources.

So we could say- we will buy those products from you made by people who are earning at least the same an hour as our national lowest minimum wage. We require the same environmental footprint for products sold elsewhere as here. In part we readjust our standards from being standards of behaviour to attributes of the product or service sold. Yes on the one hand we would take away the unfair disadvantage better standards here create but these are not barriers. We freely buy from anywhere willing to pay a fair wage and respect the environment. This is difficult to establish because currencies are not measured fairly- but we could look at relative purchasing power to come up with a formula.

This approach allows us to limit our pressure to be one based on our own behaviour and allow us to be a positive influence. Even if most Chinese are paid lower wages- I am sure if they get to sell something here for that, they would pay more to those people working on the product we will buy in order to make the sale. Naturally, for this less hypocritical approach, we would have to accept a significant increase in the price of consumer goods sold from China but at least then we could have a meaningful silence on other issues without proping up the abuse of people with our cash. If we did this then perhaps we can look to this role and say we are making a positive difference here and not feel the need to swagger and complain on the world stage about other affairs that the country would say are internal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
So we could say- we will buy those products from you made by people who are earning at least the same an hour as our national lowest minimum wage. We require the same environmental footprint for products sold elsewhere as here.

---

While we're at it, why don't we also refuse to import Chinese products until they improve their human rights record to match our own sterling record?

Effectively what this means is that we might as well not buy anything from China at all, because we could produce it ourselves for the same labour cost and with the same or smaller environmental cost (which, by the way would be significantly higher than what we are paying now for Chinese products).

And why would we take this position only with China? Why not the whole world? We tell the United States, Thailand, Japan, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, etc etc that we won't buy your products until your economy, your human rights, and your environment meet our own equisitely high standards.

So we become isolationist, producing our own products, and selling our products to nobody, because they won't buy from us if we won't buy from them. We can forget about ever eating things like bananas, fish, pineapples, oranges, and get used to having lettuce and tomatoes available only two months of the year.

I might add that minimum wage is an odd criterion to apply to trade. How about: No trading with any country that maintains troops in other countries? That maintains prisons for foreign nationals which ignore Geneva Conventions? That refuse to provide universal free health care to their residents? That discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

So we become isolationist, producing our own products, and selling our products to nobody, because they won't buy from us if we won't buy from them. We can forget about ever eating things like bananas, fish, pineapples, oranges, and get used to having lettuce and tomatoes available only two months of the year.

---

Our Conservative and Liberal stoogeocrats broke the rules for free markets and free trade in 1989 and 1994. We guaranteed massive amounts of fossil fuels and hydro-electric power to Yanqui imperialists regardless of our own future "market needs" at home - and regardless of our Kyoto obligations to the rest of the world - and regardless of the fact that the U.S. government itself is guilty of war crimes in Iraq, Afghannistan, former Yugoslavia, VietNam, Korea etc etc ad nauseum.