Reply #10: And next on the hit parade... [View All]

[thegreatwildebeest]

I note that the lower status of women derives from the long illustrious cultural history of China and is not the official policy of the modern government. It is tradition that values men above women, specifically the tradition that male children have the responsibility for caring for parents. China provides free access to contraception services, something that Zimbabwe and Ireland and the United States do not do. Abortion rights are not threatened in China as they are in the United States. The only right that Chinese women do NOT have, is the right to have more than one child. Many chinese women in practice violate this restriction, but many also support it. I know this from direct contact with Chinese citizens, many of whom I have had the pleasure of knowing personally quite well. It is true that females are often abandoned in China, but again, this is from cultural tradition, and not from official government policy.

It is defacto government policy when the government knows exactly what will happen with the one child policy. They can't just throw their hands up and say "We did not know this would occur". They knew quite well, and proceeded ahead full bore anyways. If thats not complicity I don't know what is then.

Now let's turn to literary criticism. To state that "Orwell was a socialist" is to express a rather naive and formulaic view of the writer. He was, in fact, inscrutable, and he may have actually did what thinking people often do, changed his opinion based on his experience. He did write Animal Farm and he did write 1984, both of which were rather scathing criticisms of the grand socialist experiment that prevails in China today and prevailed in many other places during Orwell's lifetime. In Spain he may have learned something about Stalinism that he did not know in 1935. Orwell is at best an enigma and to assert that he supported socialism throughout his life depends both on your definition of socialism and on privy knowledge of Orwell's thinking and his malleability.

He was not "inscrutable", unless you consider Homage to Catalonia "inscrutable", where he makes his political affiliations plainly known (socialism), his opinion on Stalinism, as well as his opinion on the anarchists who he fought with on the battlefield (whom, though he did not share their political ideology, he resolutely thumbed up for their zeal and their ability more than anyone else, to put into practice what they preach). Obviously Orwells opinions, like anyone elses, were ripe for change, nuance, and exceptions. But the catch all phrase of "socialist" does apply.


Irrespective of who Orwell was, I merely note that people are always talking about socialism but most often when they attempt to put this ideology into actual practice, they end up with a Stalinist government. My own personal opinion is that the reason for this is that socialism does not derive from experience so much as it derives from dogma and ideological statements that were inherently flawed. Capitalism evolved. Socialism on the other hand needed to be "built," which in practice meant "enforced." I am a liberal and so I hold the idea of all state centralized systems in contempt. Socialism is simply a centralized monolithic mechanism for corruption in most places. It affords little room for creativity, flexibility, or innovation, which is why it mostly doesn't work. I don't trust socialists anywhere, because they have seldom proved worthy of trust. I really can't think of any country where socialism has been met with spectacular success, irrespective of Orwell's leanings. China has been providing better standards of living for its people since moving away from strict socialist dogma. Modern China, while it is communist, is far less Stalinist than many historical People's Socialist Worker's states have been.

Capitalism was just as forced and as pushed upon people as any other political or economic ideology. The idea that it arose out of some free(white man's) association of people(landowners) is ridiculous, and ignores either the bajillion attempts by states and private individuals to enforce capitalism or to foist it upon others. There is nothing natural or evolved about it.


Nobody is denying that China has an illustrious history. It is merely worth noting that power and wealth has always belonged to a privileged and exceptionally brutal elite, which is not particularly unique to China, but neither has China been a huge exception to this historic transcultural experience. The existence of liberal democracies with profound respect for human rights is a relatively recent development - and it is a Western notion that frankly would have been regarded as absurd through most of the "illustrious" history of China, a barbarian concept beneath contempt. (Some interesting commentary on this notion has been advanced by the religious scholar Elaine Pagels, who notes that most cultures in history would have regarded Jefferson's famous dictum that "All men are created equal" as ridiculous.)

Jefferson himself thought it ridiculous, if you mean what he actually meant as opposed to what revisionists attempt to pin on it. It was for men of the landowning class, white, and no women allowed. That idea sounds very much in line with the rest of the world. And what do you know, its still defacto that way, even if its no longer written in law.


Now let's turn to Chinese Imperialism: The invasion of Tibet is a fait accompli, much as the US invasion of Mexico in 1846 is also a fait accompli. I don't necessarily approve of it, but it is now a historical fact, much like the US invasion of Mexico and for that matter Hawaii is a fact. The invasion of Tibet occurred in 1959 and all of the citizens of Tibet who lived before then are at least 45 years old. China has not invaded any country since then, except the brief foray into Vietnam which is not to say that they won't do so at a future date. I am not arguing however that the Chinese government is heroic or worthy of applause. I am certainly not thrilled to contemplate Tienanmen Square. I am simply remarking that China's government is not particularly worse than other governments that hold themselves up as exemplars to which the Chinese should aspire. Excuse me if I laugh when the Chinese say "Go fuck yourself."

It is nice to know what you consider it a dead fact, and brush off the nasty bits so neatly off the desk. Some people there may not be willing to do so as easily. In fact, last I checked, a similar "fait accompli" is still raging right now in the Middle East, despite a similar time span. So no, one poster is America, coveniently brushing off history, does not a fait accompli make.


I live in the United States and am a citizen of that country. Before I make grand statements about China, I think it is incumbent upon me to get my own house in order. My country is committing murder in a foreign country based on now overt fraud and deceit. My country is despoiling the earth's atmosphere at an alarming rate, much higher than the rate exercised by China, even though its population is fractional compared to the Chinese population. My country has officially refused to even acknowledge that fact. That my country oppresses foreigners and not its domestic citizens - that my country commits atrocity out of sight and thus largely out of mind - does not absolve me of my own responsibility for that atrocity, nor does it give me the right to pontificate about the governments of foreign nations and their shortcomings. I think the citizens of Finland (where by the way the population is falling) are in a much better ethical position to cast aspersions on China or for that matter on Burma than are the citizens of the United States. In fact the citizens of Finland are probably as much appalled by the US as they are by China. The citizens of Finland for instance might note that the United States is nearly alone among nations in openly asserting a right to torture people in foreign countries with impunity and special exemptions from international justice, a right that China does not assert legally - irrespective of whether their actual practice is matched by their legal posture.

The idea that one can't as an individual criticize other countries whilst at the same time criticizing your own country is ridiculous, particuarly for someone as myself who is no fan of ANY states or any of their functionary organs. So no, I don't feel I should be any less harsh on anyone else when the American government, whom I owe shit none allegiance to in anyway and work actively against, is just as bad or worse. I make no distinctions in the marks of my criticism, and I am certainly not sparing anyone or anything just becuase I am nominally an American (an ex-pat at that currently floating between Japan and America). So yes, I will criticize whoever I damn well please thank you.



If you'll tell me about your ethical plans for the United States, I might better credit your pronouncements about the failings of China. Again, it is simply a matter of glass houses. I would rather leave Chinese affairs to be solved by Chinese, and would prefer if Americans worked to get American affairs - which are by the way a huge disaster - in order.

So wait, if you approve of Chinese policy, thats considered hands off and not making "pronouncements" but if I criticize, it is? How so?