China launches man into space

[Dissident Dan]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/976744.asp?0cv=CA00

GOBI DESERT, China, Oct. 15 — China launched its first human space mission on Wednesday, becoming the third country to send people into orbit. The flight repeats a feat that the Soviet Union and the United States first achieved four decades ago.

 

[Zero]

Go China!

 

[Jonathan]

Yeah Zero, that's what we want, an evil communist dictatorship with access to outer space. And i don't want to hear that they're democratic. If I'm Hitler, but tell you all I'm jaques charaque (don't know how to spell french names, I'm referring to the pres of france), that don't make it true, I'd still be Hitler.

 

[Adam]

Jonathan

... evil...

Care to explain this little chunk of pure ignorance?

... communist...

It's not communist.

... dictatorship...

It's not a dictatorship.

 

[Zero]

Who cares about the politics? Space travel is always cool, baby!

 

[Njorl]

Adam,

China is ruled by the Chinese communist party. It has outlawed all other political parties. Despite well publicised capitalist experiments, the vast majority of all industry is state owned and controlled. In what way, shape or form is China not communist?

While China is not a traditional one-man dictatorship, it is certainly a dictatorship of the communist party elite.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

BTW, 'evil' is a term often used in place of rational thinking, and I dislike its use in most political situations...unless someone has voted for incestuous infant canibalism or something!

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Njorl
Adam,

China is ruled by the Chinese communist party. It has outlawed all other political parties. Despite well publicised capitalist experiments, the vast majority of all industry is state owned and controlled. In what way, shape or form is China not communist?

While China is not a traditional one-man dictatorship, it is certainly a dictatorship of the communist party elite.

Njorl

Despite propaganda over the past few decades, it is not communism when the government owns and runs the state assets. The word "communism" comes from "communis". Communism is when the people own and control the state assets. When the government controls state assets, it is socialism. China is a socialist state.

 

[Njorl]

...and "gay" means light-hearted and happy!

Sorry Adam, that definition of communism has not been current for about 150 years. What you describe is 'Utopian Socialism'. Interestingly, those known as utopian socialists in the 19th century did call it communism. In the middle of the 19th century, those known as communists were divided into those who believed in social determinism (utopian socialists) and economic determinism (Marxists). As the struggle between working class and ruling class became violent, the utopians, not wanting to be persecuted, stopped referring to themselves as communists. The successful revolution in Russia forced a further change in the meaning of communism. The Russian situation was inconsistant with Marx's predictions. Lenin's success gave him the authority to rewrite the communist philosophy as he saw fit.

Maybe your use of 'communism' is more logical, and is the original meaning of the word, but the point of language is communication.

Njorl

 

[Adam]

Sure, language evolves. But "Gimme mo money ho" is not English. Sometimes words have meanings. Communism, commune, communal, community... See a common thread? I'll stick with the real meaning.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Yeah Zero, that's what we want, an evil communist dictatorship with access to outer space. And i don't want to hear that they're democratic. If I'm Hitler, but tell you all I'm jaques charaque (don't know how to spell french names, I'm referring to the pres of france), that don't make it true, I'd still be Hitler.

I hope your Ivory Tower isn't in the United States. Because those with glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Nereid]

Njorl: Despite well publicised capitalist experiments, the vast majority of all industry is state owned and controlled.

If 'industry' is defined in the narrow sense of 'heavy industry and oil & gas', you may be right. However, from the economic (as in 'economics') perspective, state ownership in China is modest and declining, certainly well below 50% of all economic activity. 'Control' is a more slippery concept; with some notable exceptions, the state exercises no more control in China than it does in most developing economies.

 

[GENIERE]

BTW, 'evil' is a term often used in place of rational thinking, and I dislike its use in most political situations...unless someone has voted for incestuous infant cannibalism or something!

Well Zero you can certainly call China “Evil” as even today infant cannibalism is practiced. Do a Google for “China cannibalism” and find many entries, including some with price lists for body parts.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Nereid
If 'industry' is defined in the narrow sense of 'heavy industry and oil & gas', you may be right. However, from the economic (as in 'economics') perspective, state ownership in China is modest and declining, certainly well below 50% of all economic activity. 'Control' is a more slippery concept; with some notable exceptions, the state exercises no more control in China than it does in most developing economies.

State owned and controlled production is 34%
State owned collectively controlled production is 10%
Local government controlled production is 30%
Individually owned pruduction is 11%
Publicly traded production 1s 14%

Njorl

 

[Nereid]

Source?

 

[Njorl]

I'll see if I can find it online somewhere. I had read it a few days ago.

Njorl

Edited to add -> This site has info up to 1993 on table 5, but it looks like they lumped together state and local collectives.
http://www.pitt.edu/~ibcmod/journal/articles/huang.html [Broken]

Edited again ->This site looks like it drew from the same source that I recall, the China statistical yearbook. It also has interesting points to make about the Chinese economy. While technically communist (or socialist if you insist) because much industry is state owned, they are letting market forces set prices.
http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/ert/e19/putter.htm [Broken]

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by GENIERE
Well Zero you can certainly call China “Evil” as even today infant cannibalism is practiced. Do a Google for “China cannibalism” and find many entries, including some with price lists for body parts.

Well that's absolutely horrible! And since I read it on the internet it must be true! Did you hear about the Guatemalans? They like to rape nuns and drink puppy blood.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
BTW, 'evil' is a term often used in place of rational thinking, and I dislike its use in most political situations...unless someone has voted for incestuous infant canibalism or something!

Hang on while I run a search for the words "bush" and "evil" appearing in the same post...

 

[RageSk8]

China has a horrible civil rights record - I have no problem with hoping "democracy" replaces the current political system.

 

[Njorl]

Calling nations evil is silly and pointless. Nations evolve according to geopolitical and cultural pressures. The Chinese government is ruthless, oppressive and fervently nationalistic. Have they ever had any contact with other nations that would have influenced them to be any other way? The treatment of Chinese people by the western powers, Japan and Russia is one of the most disgraceful episodes of human history. They will bear a grudge for a very long time. Yes, they are brutal, but can we lecture them about brutality after British opium wars, or the German ambassador decided to use Chinese peasants for target practice, or the Rape of Nanking.

Njorl

 

[recon]

Well, I still think that them being able to send astronauts up to space was a big accomplishment, considering that they did it mostly without any outside help (at least that's what the October Issue of the Scientific American said). My country still has a long time to go before it even starts to think about sending a SATELLITE or UNMANNED spacecraft into space.

Go taikonaut!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Hang on while I run a search for the words "bush" and "evil" appearing in the same post...

Do you mind staying on topic?

 

[RageSk8]

They will bear a grudge for a very long time. Yes, they are brutal, but can we lecture them about brutality after British opium wars, or the German ambassador decided to use Chinese peasants for target practice, or the Rape of Nanking.

Of course we can lecture them! The history of Western civilization is full of horrible things, this is important to recognize, but quite frankly it is irrelevant to moral judgments about China today. Suicide bombers are created by political and religious realities, it is important to understand this, but that should not stop us from speaking out against and attempting to stop suicide bombings. Likewise with China, the history of China is important to understand, it is important to recognize the West's role in bringing about China's current political reality, but that should not stop us from condemning and working to change that political reality.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by recon
Well, I still think that them being able to send astronauts up to space was a big accomplishment, considering that they did it mostly without any outside help (at least that's what the October Issue of the Scientific American said). My country still has a long time to go before it even starts to think about sending a SATELLITE or UNMANNED spacecraft into space.

Go taikonaut!

 

[Jonathan]

I find you all to be less extreme to my comment than I was expecting. I'm sorry I didn't show up sooner, I didn't expect this much activity. I think I generally agree with RageSk8 and Njorl. Now as to Zero and Russ, think you both have a good point. We do need to be careful how we throw around the word evil, but we must admit the the Chinese Gov't doesn't treat its people well. Russ also has a good point bringing up what might be a bit of hypocracy there. I do believe that no matter the topic, if hypocracy in someone's argument can be pointed out, it serves the debate of the original topic. Yes, my use of the words communist and dictatorship were a little vague, but as I think Njorl (was it?) pointed out, though it's not accurate, it's pretty much correct. I do disagree with Njorl in that one's national past of being mistreated is no excuse to misbehave now, though it will give you a disposition towards that in the case of the Chinese.

 

[Njorl]

Of course we can lecture them!

I probably should have said should we lecture them.

I believe that any discourse delivered from a stance of moral superiority will fall flat. I don't claim that China's past is an excuse for their excesses, I claim it is a reason for them. Any attempts to dictate internal policies to China will be seen in the light of this history, and so will be counterproductive. I believe that it is a good thing to try to change China's behavior, but confrontation, even restricted to diplomatic and economic confrontation, will not be effective until they gain a greater understanding of the west, and have less suspicion of our motives.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I find you all to be less extreme to my comment than I was expecting. I'm sorry I didn't show up sooner, I didn't expect this much activity. I think I generally agree with RageSk8 and Njorl. Now as to Zero and Russ, think you both have a good point. We do need to be careful how we throw around the word evil, but we must admit the the Chinese Gov't doesn't treat its people well. Russ also has a good point bringing up what might be a bit of hypocracy there. I do believe that no matter the topic, if hypocracy in someone's argument can be pointed out, it serves the debate of the original topic. Yes, my use of the words communist and dictatorship were a little vague, but as I think Njorl (was it?) pointed out, though it's not accurate, it's pretty much correct. I do disagree with Njorl in that one's national past of being mistreated is no excuse to misbehave now, though it will give you a disposition towards that in the case of the Chinese.

I think we've established in another threat that no country truly occupies some sort of moral high ground. China certainly has its flaws, but that hasn't stopped American companies from spending huge amounts of money there, and moving lots of jobs there. If are really anyi-China, boycott WalMart.

 

[Zero]

Now, let's talk about the Chinese in space already! It could certainly mean a huge advance in some forms of science, especially with the fresh perspective of a new space program. This could be an exciting time!

 

[FZ+]

From the political perspective, I just hope the folks in power - particularly with the US see the chinese space programme as an opportunity to encourage greater openness and cooperation, as NASA did during the later years of the Soviet union. Reacting to it all as a threat (OMG, evil godless communists in space! Maybe they are building nukes up there!), as some neo-cons do, isn't going to help anyone.

 

[Jonathan]

Zero: I do prefer not to buy things made in China.
FZ+:They are evil, if I may use such a broad and vague term, and we don't know that they aren't planning to put nukes up there.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Zero: I do prefer not to buy things made in China.
FZ+:They are evil, if I may use such a broad and vague term, and we don't know that they aren't planning to put nukes up there.

Of course they are...after all, America plans on taking over the world, so why wouldn't some other country want to take a shot at it?

 

[Jonathan]

I sense a hint of sarcasm...but in all truth a capitalist economy will eventually die if it does not get the expansion it craves. But we shouldn't take over the world. We should take over the uninhabited areas of outer space. Now Zero, just in case you meant that literally, since one man can only control (to some extent) the US for 8 years, and that's not enough to take over the world, esp. if the people don't want to (because then they will impeach him), then the US cannot possibly be planning to take over the world. Unless of course there is a massive conspiracy, in which case I better shut up before 'they' read this.
Now, back to the Chinese and outer space. First, what new perspectives might they bring? What new technologies? Actually, if Clinton did, as some alledge, sell military secrets to the Chinese for campaign money, then how much of this is really their accomplishment? If it is true, can they really bring much of anything to the table, since they would probably have only incomplete information, and not everything we know?

 

[Zero]

Wow...weird Clinton lies and a lack of understanding of how government works...cool! Dude, no lie, the plan to take over the world is currently under way, right out in the open, disguised in mildly complicated language. And, the folks in charge of it belong to no one administration, but exist in the think tanks which advise political parties. Do a little reading on PNAC, and read their views with my frame of mind as a guide.
And, even if China starts with the technology from other countries, they are liable to do something different, simply because their needs, resources, and goals will be different.

 

[russ_watters]

Ahh yes, the old excruciatingly slow (or depending on your timeframe, backwards) plan to take over the world.

I'll be ok though because I'm a Stonecutter and a Skull.

In any case, this is a new conspiracy theory to me. Does this one parallel some of the dozen or so others or just take over where they left off (faded away)? Every American president has one, then there are the ones that are more general (the slow-moving, multi-century conspiracies).

Edit:
Ok, after reading the WEBSITE, I'd say this can be categorized as a trans-Reagan era conspiracy theory. Medium timeframe.

edit:
Or did you mean http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~ryanm6/webring.htm [Broken] PNAC?

 

[Nereid]

China - size of the private sector

Njorl, quoting some 1993 data on the state/private composition of the Chinese economy:
State owned and controlled production is 34%
State owned collectively controlled production is 10%
Local government controlled production is 30%
Individually owned pruduction is 11%
Publicly traded production is 14%

I found the following from an article in The Economist, dated 6 April, 2000:

So just how well has the private sector done since its first, tentative and often disguised reappearance? Splendidly, by all accounts; but measuring its size is tricky. In the absence of hard data, estimates have depended largely on analysts’ views about China’s prospects at any particular moment. At the height of the euphoria about China in the early 1990s, some observers—including The Economist—thought the private sector might already account for as much as 75% of the economy. That was far too optimistic, and the mood may have swung too violently in the opposite direction: some people now put the private sector at only 25% of total output. More considered work by the China Economic Quarterly (CEQ), an independent publication, puts the private sector somewhere between those two extremes, at a little over half of the economy. If true, that would still be a considerable accomplishment for a form of ownership that two decades ago did not exist.

The article goes on to examine each sector in some detail - farming, industry and construction, and services; each has its own characteristics, and the article concludes that the private sector will continue to expand, with the state likely to reserve certain industries for itself.