Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Tibet Under Siege
The Chinese Govt ?
tibet should have there own keanu reeves 
"The Chinese Govt ?"
no the leprechaun one.. Of course silly. 
there isnt and hasnt been a communist state in the world.
There have been. The first settler societies can be viewed as communist 
do you have proof?
it all depends on your definition of communism, just like it depends on your definition of capitalism whether capitalism has ever existed
Religious fanatics are the same everywhere, whether it's Tibet, Yugoslavia or the Middle East.
It only takes the right conditions, a relaxation in support for secularism before the thin veneer of tolerance and civility comes off.
Ah great. Let's have another platonic discussion on the ideal form of Communism vs. Communism as it exists in the world. When will we stop these elitist (both sides) bickering over semantics?
What happened to /panda thinks?
There's no such thing as ideal Communism. Any theory that "should have worked" but doesn't work because of the human factor isn't a real theory worth considering to begin with.
China has been a police state for the last 3000 years or so.
"What happened to /panda thinks?"
/panda is too pissed off to think
If I remember correctly, you were in Beijing for a while. What are your views on this matter having been in China?
it is very true that pre-annexed tibet wasn't this magical fairy tail land it is sometimes made out to be; however just because it wasn't a particularly democratic place in the past doesn't mean that china should have annexed it
"do you have proof?"
Archaeology provides proof indeed. With the first settler groups (being in the Levant area and mesopotamia) they have found burial areas with no extraordinary graves. People were burried the same, in the same clothes, with the same attributes, in the same position. Antropology has proved that such a think only happens in groups where everyone's equal. These first settler societies also worked together to keep their farmland in the best condition possible.
Thus they knew equality and owned the farmland (in this case the production) together.
I think it's quite safe to label those societies as "communist" avant la lettre.
OK, China is not Communist.
Fill us in, what is it ?
No one is communist. After all, the Leftists need to grasp their Utopian state theory as the perfect Communist state would be the perfect state.
Yea....Human nature is flawed. Greed and Sloth permeate the Human race. That is why Capitalism thrives.
So, as the titans of business watch out for themselves and their little click, the rest suffer.
The Leftist Elitist will do their best to subvert the power of the Corporate Elite, and save as much of the little man as possible.
Yea. We all get it. 
"
Archaeology provides proof indeed. With the first settler groups (being in the Levant area and mesopotamia) they have found burial areas with no extraordinary graves. People were burried the same, in the same clothes, with the same attributes, in the same position. Antropology has proved that such a think only happens in groups where everyone's equal. These first settler societies also worked together to keep their farmland in the best condition possible.
Thus they knew equality and owned the farmland (in this case the production) together.
I think it's quite safe to label those societies as "communist" avant la lettre."
sounds more like anarchist
> Simon wrote:
> "I'm not talking about internal struggles"
What do you mean?
Flower is saying he is not talking about the various arguments between different sects of Buddhism, he is referring to the monks representation of the whole campaign for Tibetan independence. Besides, Buddhism is about trying to eliminate suffering from the world, which is the opposite of what the Chinese police are doing...
"sounds more like anarchist"
Well, bakunist anarchy is indeed very much like communism. The only difference lies in the fact that a bakunist anarchy wouldn't have any form of gouvernment. In this case it's hard to determine wether social pressure can be considered as a form of government (the policing social pressure). Anyhoo, I think in this case ca can consider them "communist".
"OK, China is not Communist.
Fill us in, what is it ?
No one is communist. After all, the Leftists need to grasp their Utopian state theory as the perfect Communist state would be the perfect state"
No need to so negative about leftist ideas BW. And you're right that a Communist state in it's utopian form is the best government possible. But to answer your question, I think oligarchy sounds more like it..
We should boycott the olympics.
"Well, bakunist anarchy is indeed very much like communism. The only difference lies in the fact that a bakunist anarchy wouldn't have any form of gouvernment. In this case it's hard to determine wether social pressure can be considered as a form of government (the policing social pressure). Anyhoo, I think in this case ca can consider them "communist"."
social pressure is definitely not a government. a government rules OVER the people, it has authority over the people; while social pressure doesnt.
it isnt communist because there wasnt government. people shared land, but so do people nowadays. without a form of government that ensures the stability of the laws that create equality, it isnt communism. and clearly there was no stability.
"No need to so negative about leftist ideas BW. And you're right that a Communist state in it's utopian form is the best government possible. But to answer your question, I think oligarchy sounds more like it.."
bs, communist state in its utopian form is the worst form of government possible, capitalism, socialism, and anarchism all have it beat.
in a utopia, there is no need for a government, so having a massive controlling government that is communism, is not ideal. having no government would be ideal.
your perception of utopia is so [] up its sad. you perceive equality as perfection. equality is not perfection, its an illusion. not only is the entire world being an equal class, where everyone is poor is worse then if 50% werent poor, but if everyone was what would fit into a single class nowadays, new classes would be formed to separate people, its impossible to form a classless state because classes aren't finite and they are made to separate people.
"social pressure is definitely not a government. a government rules OVER the people, it has authority over the people; while social pressure doesnt."
I meant that social pressure would mean a form to police the group. Anarchy wouldn't need such a function, but would require interiorised social obligation.
"in a utopia, there is no need for a government, so having a massive controlling government that is communism, is not ideal. having no government would be ideal."
My idea exactly avogadro. That would be Bakunist Anarchy 
And that last bit there. That doesn't make any sense. I'm not talking about implementing or striving for a communist state. Indeed communism would bring poverty, but it's a nice idea. I think your idea of utopia is screwed up, not mine, as I seem to realise it's nothing more then just that. You seem to be relating it to our world
"My idea exactly avogadro. That would be Bakunist Anarchy smile"
but you said communism, not anarchy
"And that last bit there. That doesn't make any sense. I'm not talking about implementing or striving for a communist state. Indeed communism would bring poverty, but it's a nice idea. I think your idea of utopia is screwed up, not mine, as I seem to realise it's nothing more then just that. You seem to be relating it to our world wink"
you said a communist state in its utopian form is the best government possible. its not, its the worst government possible. communism is a struggle for equality; its a struggle for an impossibility that has no benefits when approaching it.
Yes, I was wrong about that, communist utopia is good, but bakunist utopia is best. Happy?
The latter was developped in the Marxist communism anyway. With a different end-state, namely anarchist freedom. In the end, it's not that different. Instead of a moral obligation, there's a state regulating what needs to be done.
"you said a communist state in its utopian form is the best government possible. its not, its the worst government possible. communism is a struggle for equality; its a struggle for an impossibility that has no benefits when approaching it."
You're wrong. An utopian communist state can only be established when people are already equal, not when they're fighting for it. And again, in it's utopian setting, equality would be reachable, as it would involve people with a better morality, namely utopian selfless people. In that case it would be worth approaching it. You need to make a full abstraction when you're discussing utopias..
BTW: you'd need the same kind of people to establish the bakunist utopia too though..
Imperial Forum → Politics → Tibet Under Siege
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.