Quote: (01-29-2019 11:20 AM)Fortis Wrote:
Classic LibertySeapulling random things I said out of context to try and point out supposed logical inconsistencies.
Nah, bro, I'm here to learn and ask questions, not to pick a fight with you or trying to win an argument or something. It's not like I was misreprenting your positions to someone else. I was discussing directly with you in order to understand your point more clearly.
1. So, by "their traditional conservative system is crumbling", you simply mean that they are becoming materialistic? Or am I misinterpreting you? I do agree that they're very materialistic and pointed that out before. However my position is that, economic materialism is not a turn away from traditional Chinese culture, but simply an extension of it. Traditional Chinese culture has always been materialistic - as compared to other, religious civilizations. The mainstream values that ordinary people worshiped have always been 福禄寿, and 财神 is a major folk god. They go to temples and "bribe the gods" in exchange for wealth, fertility and status, not for spiritual strength. And in new year events they traditionally say to each other 新年发财, banding around artsy 招财进宝 calligraphy and so on, lol.
Saving money is not an expression of spiritualism, but of long-term materialism, as opposed to the short-term materialism of lavishness. They traditionally save money to prepare for old age and emergency, not because they think consumerism corrupts the soul. Frugality and lavishness are two sides of the same materialistic coin, and in their long history have taken turn to dominate, depending on economic and political circumstances. The 西晋 dynasty for example was infamously lavish, and the elies loved to showcase material wealth.
Most Chinese were peasants, and peasants are not idealistic. Peasants, craftsmen, and merchants (农, 工, 商) are traditionally seen as materialistic classes (務利), and rightly so. An old travel journal that Suits recommended - A Journey through the Chinese Empire by Evariste Huc, a Christian missionary in China - show details on this. The merchants boasted about their tricks as points of pride, and Chinese filial piety was in constant need of the stimulus of the bamboo.
On the other hand, the Shi 士 class - the politico-cultural elite - is traditionally seen as the upholder of lofty ideals like dutiful righteousness (義). And this class did in fact produce some very idealistic, principaled individuals. But they were a minority even among their class, while the class as a whole based their existence on the incentives of wealth and worldly status (富贵,
功名). This class came to existence as a separate class distinct from pre-Qin aristocracy after the Emperor Wu of Han established the 察举 system, which used expertise on Confucian classics as a criteria for recruiting officials, and this served as a mean to bypass the military nobilities, thereby increasing the power of the emperor and limiting the power of the hereditary aristocracy. After a period of disruption this evolved into the imperial examination system (科举制) in the Sui and Tang dynasties, against as a mean to bypass the quasi-hereditary aristocracy (士族).
Because expertise on Confucian classics was a path to wealth, fame, and power (宦途) traditional Chinese families have invested in Confucian education as a mean to improve and secure their social status. But when the imperial examination was abandoned as the Qing dynasty crumbled before the force of Western modernization, the Shi class simply extinguished. Even before the communist rule and Cultural Revolution, this class was already dying, although one could say the CR dealt the finishing blow. When expertise on Confucian classics is no longer a path to power and upward social mobility, i.e. when the material basis for it varnished, the Shi class varnished along with it, not only in China but also in other Confucian cultures like Vietnam and Korea -- which terrified its underlying materialistic nature.
2. Certainly one could say that some elements of traditional Chinese social structures have been corroded, but economic materialism is not an expression of it. One of its basic structures, patriarchy, more or less survives. China remains a male-dominated society, and I fully agree with this. But my contention is that, this is not simply a function of the lack of the right to vote, or of government policy (although that played a part too). The early USSR was authoritarian, but it was also anti-traditional, empowered women, demolished the traditional family, promoted free marriage, and legalized gay marriage. The Chinese government was never like that, as they came from a different background. And the male dominance we see in China is not merely a function of top-down policy, but also a continuity of traditional culture, especially in the North with their 大男子主义.
3. Regarding the building backdoor stuff, I am not knowledgeable on this subject. A quick Google search led me to some sources that seek to refute the claims about Chinese backdoors. I don't know how true they are and I will seek the opinion of those who have expertise here:
https://www.quora.com/How-valid-are-the-...rman?ch=10
https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/
Does anyone here have solid evidence that China did build malicious backdoors into our computer systems, and that this is not just globalist infowarfare? I completely believe that the Chicom is not beyond backdoor tactics, and that we should be as cautious as possible against them, but as with everything else I need evidence.
And my suspicion is that the reason why Globalists are waging wars against Chinese tech is because they can't spy on you if you use Chinese tech. Not that I recommend you use Chinese tech, because it's up to you. Nor do I think the Chicom is trustworthy. My point here is that this backdoor allegation is not yet certain enough to base conclusions about the Chicom's ability to play the long game. Which is why in my earlier post I focused on the buying up property thing. The question is: does the move to buy property abroad part of a long-term strategy, and what does it say about the Chicom's ability to play the long game?
4. Anyway, countries spy each others and the US also spies on its allies. Snowden revealed that Obama bugged Merkel phone, and yet US - Germany relationship is where it's at under Obama. Back in the days the US stole the UK's intellectual properties, and Japan stole Western intellectual properties. And now they stay allies. In the long term that doesn't matter much. Countries are bound to each other by mutual interest, when the interests stay mutual they stay allies and maintain diplomatic relations.
Everyone hates China and yet still do business with them. Because there is benefits to be gained from doing so. Certainly China will benefit from building greater international reputation and trust, but as of now it has different priorities. Which is boost its technological capacities and economic productivity. The US stole intellectual property when it still lagged behind Europe, and then champion intellectual property right when it's ahead of everyone else. Great strategy. The West also polluted the environment heavily in the process of industrialization, with burning rivers and uninhabitable zones and heavy smog and all, but now it fixed the environment and champions environmental cause. Also great strategy. Different stage of development require different sets of priorities.
This is not to say that the Chicom is trustworthy or particularly competent and far-sighted. My point is that, when you look from a broad world-historical perspective, you see that its moves so far are compatible with its stage of development, and it can play the long game too. All the more reason to be cautious - a conclusion that I fully agree with Fortis.