China

[lomiller]

You keep missing the part where I'm talking about a hypothetical Marxist state. Regardless of the overall productivity of the jobs a society offers, a Marxist society should be able to provide laborers who do that job at a lower cost. Because Marxist laborers aren't hung up on capitalist things like personal wealth, conspicuous consumption, class warfare, etc.

The subject of the thread is China, not "a hypothetical Marxist state".

Even hypothetically, Marxism values independence so a reliance on trade doesn't fit well. Hypothetical or not, if you have most of your population in low productivity occupations your standard of living will be low.

Not only that, they are harmful to the consumers and to the planet. China's rising standard of living is the biggest threat to the World since Western nations did it.

Mass producing consumer goods isn't conducive to a high standard of living. Higher value products are generally more Eco-friendly in terms of their value vs CO2 footprint over their lifespan than cheap disposable consumer goods.

 

[theprestige]

Fiat communism pretty much requires a totalitarian state. It's hard not to look like fascism, at that point.

 

[theprestige]

The subject of the thread is China, not "a hypothetical Marxist state".

The argument was put forward that China could not trade with capitalist nations and remain* a Marxist state. I was addressing that argument. If that particular line of inquiry doesn't interest you, move on.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

China's (and Russia's) current system of crony capitalism and expansionist nationalism resembles Fascism far more than it does Communism or Socialism.

very true.

 

[arthwollipot]

As I may have said previously, I don't think China has any expansionist ambitions beyond Hong Kong, Tibet and Taiwan. Which it maintains are part of China and always have been. Hong Kong and Tibet it basically already has. Taiwan is next. I see no territorial claims beyond that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Also, this:

Government minister again raises Cheng Lei with Chinese officials

The assistant trade minister, Tim Ayres, has told the ABC he raised the detainment of Australian journalist Cheng Lei with Chinese counterparts in India.

The former business anchor for the state-owned China Global Television Network (CGTN) has been detained for more than three years over national security-related accusations, which she and the Australian government reject.

To mark the three year anniversary earlier this month, Lei wrote a “love letter” to Australia, saying she longs for the sunlight, the outdoors and her family. She said shemisses “the black humour of Melbourne weather, the tropical theatrics of Queensland and the never-ending blue skies of Western Australia”.

What we saw just a few weeks ago in terms of the position that the Australian Cheng Lei is in, is heartbreaking. This Australian should be reunited with her children. It’s one of a number of consular cases that are raised regularly and directly.

Ayres was not willing to say how his advocacy was received.

It is not, I think, helpful to go into detail about the response.

source

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

As I may have said previously, I don't think China has any expansionist ambitions beyond Hong Kong, Tibet and Taiwan. Which it maintains are part of China and always have been. Hong Kong and Tibet it basically already has. Taiwan is next. I see no territorial claims beyond that.

China also maintains claims of sovreignty over most of Vietnam & chunks of Laos from as far back as the Chin and Tang dynasties. It also considers most of the Russian far east to be Chinese lands. Furthermore it considers the whole of east and south east Asia, along with the Silk Road 'Stans to be its natural vassals.

Trust me, China has large territorial ambitions.

 

[arthwollipot]

China also maintains claims of sovreignty over most of Vietnam & chunks of Laos from as far back as the Chin and Tang dynasties. It also considers most of the Russian far east to be Chinese lands. Furthermore it considers the whole of east and south east Asia, along with the Silk Road 'Stans to be its natural vassals.

Trust me, China has large territorial ambitions.

If China has territorial ambitions over these regions, they're being awfully quiet about it, especially given how not quiet they are about Tibet and Taiwan.

 

[Ziggurat]

As I may have said previously, I don't think China has any expansionist ambitions beyond Hong Kong, Tibet and Taiwan. Which it maintains are part of China and always have been. Hong Kong and Tibet it basically already has. Taiwan is next. I see no territorial claims beyond that.

You forgot the South China Sea, as well as their border dispute with India.

 

[The Atheist]

As I may have said previously, I don't think China has any expansionist ambitions beyond Hong Kong, Tibet and Taiwan. Which it maintains are part of China and always have been. Hong Kong and Tibet it basically already has. Taiwan is next. I see no territorial claims beyond that.

Hmm. Not sure I buy that.

They're not investing in Africa for altruistic reasons and it sounds very much like they're going to build the Saudis a nuclear reactor.

If their expansionist ambitions stop at Taiwan, why are they building aircraft carriers and ICBM silos? They've already turned multiple islands in the SC Sea into impenetrable bases, so aircraft carriers are redundant unless you use them for things outside that sea.

 

[dudalb]

As I may have said previously, I don't think China has any expansionist ambitions beyond Hong Kong, Tibet and Taiwan. Which it maintains are part of China and always have been. Hong Kong and Tibet it basically already has. Taiwan is next. I see no territorial claims beyond that.

Ask the Vietnamese about that.

 

[dudalb]

China also maintains claims of sovreignty over most of Vietnam & chunks of Laos from as far back as the Chin and Tang dynasties. It also considers most of the Russian far east to be Chinese lands. Furthermore it considers the whole of east and south east Asia, along with the Silk Road 'Stans to be its natural vassals.

Trust me, China has large territorial ambitions.

They also have claims on a good deal of what is now the Maritime provicnes of Russia...Siberia east of the Lake Biakal basically.
Beleiving China has no territorial claims outside of Taiwan (and an attackon Taiwan would be as much as act of aggression as Russia's attack on Ukraine) makes you like the people in Euripe who, after Munich in 1938, beleived that Hitler had no more territorial claims in Europe.
And never trust a rughless dictatorship. Never.

 

[dudalb]

If China has territorial ambitions over these regions, they're being awfully quiet about it, especially given how not quiet they are about Tibet and Taiwan.

Of course they are going to keep quiet about it.
And in 1979, which is really not that long ago China provoked a war with Vietnam. It did not turn out so well for them (The Vietnames troops had a LOT more expereince after fghting Americans for nearly a decade).

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

If China has territorial ambitions over these regions, they're being awfully quiet about it, especially given how not quiet they are about Tibet and Taiwan.

Part of their whole nine dash line strategy is to have sufficient power projection to be able to attack any nation in South East Asia and in the archipelagos. And they already invaded Vietnam once in the last 50 years, in 1979. Plus the numerous border skirmishes they engaged in with the USSR and, more recently, India.

 

[Ziggurat]

And never trust a rughless dictatorship. Never.

If we give Xi a rugh, will he become more trustworthy?

 

[lomiller]

They also have claims on a good deal of what is now the Maritime provicnes of Russia...Siberia east of the Lake Biakal basically.
Beleiving China has no territorial claims outside of Taiwan (and an attackon Taiwan would be as much as act of aggression as Russia's attack on Ukraine) makes you like the people in Euripe who, after Munich in 1938, beleived that Hitler had no more territorial claims in Europe.
And never trust a rughless dictatorship. Never.

IMO dictators are generally fairly predictable, which makes them much easier to deal with then religiously motivated leaders. You usually need to be willing to exercise power to keep a dictator in check, but nothing you can do will keep a religious zealot or even extreme nationalist in check.

 

[Ziggurat]

IMO dictators are generally fairly predictable

Only to a point. There are basically two related problems that can make that assumption break down. The first is that dictatorships always try to make themselves opaque, so it's hard to know with any certainty what's going on internally within the power structures of a dictatorship. Power struggles within a dictatorship can produce incentives for action that aren't visible from outside. The second problem is that the dictator's own information stream inevitably gets polluted. The need to manage and suppress information unfavorable to the regime ends up crippling the dictator's own ability to see what's actually happening.

What this means in practice is that dictators can act on the basis of both good and bad information that we don't see. And if the information that the dictator is acting upon is sufficiently different from the information we're acting upon, then they can end up doing very unpredictable things indeed.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Chinese Leadership has a long, long list of things they want to do, which includes the destruction of Russia, Japan, India and the US.
It will do what it thinks it can to further its aims, and in the meantime pretend that they only want peace.

 

[theprestige]

I'm less interested in China's territorial claims, and more interested in their territorial ambitions. Which certainly extend far beyond any reasonable or historical claim China might make.

China didn't build new islands in the South China sea, and equip them with airfields and missile complexes, because they're looking no farther than Tibet and Taiwan. China's looking at the Philippines, at the shipping routes to the Indian ocean, etc.

They're not talking about it, because - get this - they're not claims. Moscow is making all kinds of territorial claims, because Moscow is in a deranged headspace where it actually thinks appealing to historical maps actually legitimizes their aggressive expansion.

China knows better. China has territorial ambitions around the perimeter of the South China Sea, and it will be asking forgiveness, not permission, when it makes its moves in those territories. Their territorial expansion will be legitimized by fait accompli and molon labe.

 

[lomiller]

Only to a point. There are basically two related problems that can make that assumption break down. The first is that dictatorships always try to make themselves opaque, so it's hard to know with any certainty what's going on internally within the power structures of a dictatorship. Power struggles within a dictatorship can produce incentives for action that aren't visible from outside. The second problem is that the dictator's own information stream inevitably gets polluted. The need to manage and suppress information unfavorable to the regime ends up crippling the dictator's own ability to see what's actually happening.

What this means in practice is that dictators can act on the basis of both good and bad information that we don't see. And if the information that the dictator is acting upon is sufficiently different from the information we're acting upon, then they can end up doing very unpredictable things indeed.

Not necessarily. Dictators tend to get the answers they are looking for. In the absence of religion or nationalism they want to know how to hang onto their own personal power, and can very often get good advice to that end.

Religion and nationalism change the dynamics because such leaders have things they want to believe are true so they surround themselves with people who will tell them those things are true.

This isn't unique to dictators either, even democratically elected leaders heavily influenced by religion or nationalism will make major policy blunders because they hear what they want to hear instead of what's actually true. Brexit in the UK is a good example of how nationalism can lead democracies into making horrendously bad decisions.

Dictators who simply want to hold on to power are much easier to deal with, all you need to do is let them know that power could be jeopardized if they cross certain lines. You won't have much luck getting them to surrender power they already have but you can generally keep them from trying to grab more.