World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Chinas already fully capitalistic.
I'm aware...but it's still not the reason they are attempting to expand their territorial waters...
Why are they attempting to expand their territorial waters?
It's about expanding their ability to project naval power in general, but more specifically, trying to to build effective defensive counters against potential future naval blockades and maritime containment e.g. Island Chain Strategy
That's oversimplified, and there are other aspects to it, including domestic political cultural ones, but naval power and national security is the most significant.
I am not taking any position on justification, legal standing, or strategic prudence for this strategy.
There are any number of white papers, from both Chinese and American security organizations/think-tanks, that will cover the subject in much greater depth if you're interested.
I've been saying for over a year that a much easier, and less politically suicidal, way for Xi to beat the island chain defense is to take back the Vladivostok oblast. It was part of China not even 150 years ago, there is a significant percentage, possibly even a plurality, of Han descended people, and it's not like Russia is gonna have the army to stop a special military operation, or any allies to get upset about it.
Given Putin's theory that nations comprise a set of territory they've historically held--Ukraine and Alaska being "rightfully" Russia's--he surely wouldn't object to China taking this part, right? And Kaliningrad goes back to Germany? He'll be good with all that, right?
This does fail to mention the huge oil and gas reserves in the area that China is trying to capitalise on.
Resources are a bigger driver than military showmanship.
That sounds like a lot of words to say capitalism.
Are you saying that national security strategies, and war in general, didn't appear in this world until capitalism emerged?
They're probably saying war was only invented after there were enough resources in one place that the risk of going to war made sense.
Money is akin to resources, so yes..
And they're right about it.
I'm saying that those stratigies are being executed to support their capitalist ambitions. You need freedom of the seas to ensure trade and they're enhancing their power projection capabilities to ensure they'll be free to continue trading in the event of forgein interfere.
It's the exact same reason the United States enacts similar "national security strategies".
That statement is so incredibly wrong in this particular context that it's actually impressive.
Well, maybe not impressive, but it does show off your ability to speak authoritatively on a topic that you know absolutely nothing about, except of course for your firm conviction that capitalism is clearly the only thing motivating it all.
People understand the importance of the Malacca straight, Taiwan, and the various islands in that region. It's the same reason Japan rapidly expanded into that region during WW2, bringing unimaginable suffering to the people in that region.
Maybe you aren't making this point, and sorry if you aren't, but that strategic interest does not give China the right to illegally sieze territory to suit itself. That is imperaliam. That is what Russia is doing in Ukraine and it is absolutely wrong.
Why does China not try to make allies in the region
The modern context of Japanese and Chinese expansionism in this particular area is similar in some ways, but very different in other ways.
Regardless, I agree that China doesn't have the legal right to seize territory, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't understand their perspective.
It also doesn't make the idiotic reductionist take that this is all "capitalism", any less idiotic.
All that said, I also understand that great powers tend to only talk about international law when they are applying it to countries they view as beneath them, or inferior.
In this case, China is coming into its own as a regional hegemon, assuming their relatively new status as an outright dictatorship doesn't fuck that up. To do that, it has to push out American naval power, there's no alternative for them.
So, if Xi's one man politburo figures out how to walk and chew gum, while also driving a successful regional expansion, I don't think yours, or my, quibbles about international law will make much difference.
Luckily, whether he's capable of juggling all that successfully, is still an open question with a lot of doubt.
China has been an outright dictatorship for a while now, it's just the lifetime leader that was recent.
Words have meanings, and the word you're looking for is authoritarian, but that doesn't mean it was a dictatorship.
They were a one party system, that had regularly transitioned power at scheduled intervals for decades. Which means they were not a dictatorship, until Xi stopped those transitions of power.
You're right, words do have meaning. Just because there is a transition from one dictator to another without bloodshed or death doesn't mean it isn't a dictatorship. Just because the dictator of the week is chosen by a committee doesn't mean it isn't a dictatorship. One-party systems are commonly accepted to be dictatorships because of the lack of ability by the people to choose their leader, rather it is chosen by the party (usually the party elites).
I know it's cliche, but I really think you need to go look up the the definition of dictator.
Or, crack a political science 101 book and skip right to the section on political systems.
Or maybe your misunderstanding is just a lack of knowledge of how China's government structure functioned post-Mao, pre-Xi.
Whatever the reason, I think you need to do a little bit of reading, but it's not like you're alone in this misconception so I don't mean this as an insult.
Do you mean like the summary in Wikipedia? Or how about the Democracy-Dictatorship Index? It seems a lot of people in political circles have been calling China a civilian dictatorship for at least 36 years, just based on the cute little pictures.
Feel free to read a definition that's more than one sentence long if you want an explanation for something as nuanced as political systems.
Your first link shows exactly why the CCP wasn't a dictatorship in the era the preceded Xi, and your second link has nothing to do with that era at all.
I have an academic background in this field, so the idea that my understanding is based on reading a single sentence, or a few Wikipedia entries, is amusing.
Here's a nice simple infographic article that would be a good starting point before jumping into any dry academic readings.
My first link has the following quote:
China has been a one-party state for the last 75 years, so the only question is whether or not it was also a dictatorship.
My second link has an infographic labeling China as a civilian dictatorship in 1988, which is prior to Xi putting himself in absolute authority, so how does it have nothing to do with the era prior to Xi taking absolute authority?
As for the handy little link you provided, that only talks about Xi, and we're agreed that he is a dictator running a dictatorship, so, while it's interesting, I'm not sure of the relevance unless your proposal is the the only thing that qualifies as a dictatorship is if it's run by a single individual. In which case, it seems there are a number of people in your purported field who disagree with that stance.
So....you couldn't even be bothered to read more than a few paragraphs?
Dictatorships don't have legal and systemic checks against the autocratic rule, which is why Xi removed them.
You're using a lot of words, but they're based on your lack of understanding post-Mao CCP goverence that Xi upended when he seized power.
But I'm done going back and forth on this. You should feel free to go on believing that I am wrong, and that you are right, because I have no confidence that you would read any dry academic writings on the topic that I respond with, as you couldn't even make it through a few hundred words of a NYT article.
Meanwhile, any question I ask that has a simple answer is ignored. Why was it commonly believed that China was a civilian dictatorship in 1988, more than a few years after Mao and Dengs time? Why is the one-party state of China not considered a dictatorship when one-party states are?
This entire conversation has been moving goalposts, and every time I defined the goalposts clearly enough to not be moved, you simply ran in another direction. I may not have gotten a university degree, but you've still done an amazingly poor job of defending your thesis.
I will give you points on the checks and balances applied after Mao reducing the risks of harm from the dictatorship of China, but the definition of a dictatorship doesn't rely on the benevolence of the leadership, merely the lack of power of the people to change it, which was not negated by dividing the powers of government between different levels.
I imagine that doing research on the fly for a back and forth on CCP governance, forced you to rapidly consume a bunch of half-assed Wikipedia articles, and that flood of new information felt similar to a moving goal post of sorts, but that's in your head.
Regardless, I started, and ended, at the same position... It's the same one that I will lay out one final time: post-Mao, pre-Xi China was not a dictatorship.
From your source:
Now, you saw the word uniparty on the Wikipedia entry for dictatorships, and assumed that applied to all uniparty government's, but it does not.
Other metrics have to be met before it can be considered a dictatorship, for example the USSR under Stalin was a dictatorship, but not under Gorbachev. The USSR was still a repressive authoritarian one-party state, but Gorbachev was not an unaccountable autocrat without systemic checks or limits on his power.
So, back to China:
Here's a list of Chinese presidents, but you can probably skip down to the 4th Constitution, which is the start of the era you keep bringing up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_China
Notice that these leaders come from competing factions and groups within the CCP, some more conservative, some more liberal, but more importantly, they transition power at regular intervals, well, until Xi.
So you can call them totalitarian technocrats, or authoritarian capitalists, but you can't call them communists, and you definitely cannot call them dictators.
All that aside, I don't know why some factual inaccuracies become commonly believed, but I guess the simple answer would be a lack of education, or interest.
Maybe a better question would be why it is you put so much faith in the average layperson's understanding of subjects such as the history of CCP governance, or the political economies of post-Mao China...?
Edit: this isn't a thesis I'm defending, it's a non-controversial fact, that I resent spending so much effort to reiterate, but that's my fault for engaging.
Imagine that your position is that the Earth is flat, and no matter what I say, you respond by telling me that my thesis regarding a theory of a round earth hasn't been sufficiently argued.
Because that's what's been going on here, you're a flat earther of post-Mao Chinese political theory.