State your reason why Epoch Times has more creditbility than chinese media?

How about learning english and trying to debate? How do you translate english in Chinese? You use the Chinese simple or Chinese Traditional to understand english?

Come on chicko,

Why dont we have a real debate on this. My english is better than yours, Dont you hate indian call centers?

How do you translate owned in 62 in indian? :confused:

Chinese failed to make a engine.

Whats this then?

With engines its all about testing and making sure its reliable. Something indians should know about *cough* LCA . How long now, nearly 3 decades to see if it can fly using a indian engine. When was it meant to enter service? 80s?

I read the post you told me to read and you didn’t make it so clear. What i interrupted it as was
“When any empire beguns to fight against devolpment and progress of human evolution, they are going wrong”

Is that your point?

what do you mean by this? In my understanding there isent any short cuts to communism…

It didn’t mean any short cuts but two different ways to achieve communism.

And my stance is that only one is really a scientifical ideology, another is mere an impulse of political climate and opportunism

I have to disagree. red october was a impluse the russian revolution was a impluse, The collectiztions in russia were a impluse. Like i said before the chinese communist already established their own little commune system in yunnan and wanted to impement it on a larger scale. One of the main factors that made it not work was the sheer scale of the project. Farmers were told to grow wheat in the snow. farmers were told to use twice as much wheat seeds in one paddock. China was diverting as much man power to steel and industrial production as had been allocated to arigculture. Plus the natural disaters that also wreaked havoc. If those policies were worked out for local conditions and less centralized planning it would have functioned a lot better

Marxism key thesis is that economy is a sosial phenemmenon.

It was not a way of economic planning but a way to produce and service differently. A classes society where people would control production but a way of shared production. Whats funny to me is, people are meant to work and then get things shared out

But that particular acpect isent saying that “all nomand of cavlands rise and tomorrow we shall take big leap over centureys of devolpment”

Not nomad as in moving around by leaderless industries were production was not controlled

:rolleyes:

Well two days ago i thought to myself.

ummm…. I got school in 5 more days and i got five essays to write(i had planned this at the start of the holidays). should i continue this right now or should i finish my VCE homework. logical choice to me since i already have had 2 months off

Well just read the last one i wrote, I sum the things there pretty well

I’ll read it tommorrow. your new type of writing is hard to understand and it takes a while to figure out

Well thats only due the falls of english as language, Not me…it would be lot easyer if i could use my native language…do remember that i have only studied english in schools and I werent exactly a school boy in nature…

Neither am i a school boy. I failed maths for god sake. Asians are suppose to be good at maths.

The problem i am having is your trying to use more complicated words mixed with other complicated words. When we were in the thread in about the russian army you used a easier type of writing. change of heart?

Communism isent/wasent any next step, it’s an ultimate step

That was according to marxism. But there must have been a higher steep than pratically nomad type industries

Yes, so whats your point, I was only refering that Maoism isent true scientical ideology as Marxism-Lenins was, there is no point of continue if you aknowlidge that yourself…

Of course i acknowledge it. I have been stating the difference between the two. My point is(which i have stated many times alread) is Maoism was a completly different form than Marxism-Leninsim. But both principles were communism. Each system had different ways of reaching communism

Commune system works in principle but then again when its taken out of its reach and put on use of much wider scope,

Commusim wassn’t about economic development it was about social development. Marx did not factor that the starting force of communism was in a barren land like russia but the ndustriallized nations like germany and western europe where the conditiosn during his time were extremly bad for the proletariat which would cause revolution since they would seek production and the wealth instead of creating it

What Marxism-Leninsim is was change that theory because some pridictions of Marx did not happen like the overthrow of the bourgeoisie elite, which did not happen owning to the explotation of the imperialist powers. which vis a vis lead to russias rise as a power. Lenin changed that theory and theroized that when the exploited people rose up the imperialist countries would have general overthrow because they had no prosperity

Hi there Chinawhite, havent seen you lately…

Yes im been doing my holiday homework. 😀

Anyway, about the topic, nice that you finally dig into it

I just posted my post that i already wrote. Just give me the point in simple form because im not going to read all your post because i wouldn’t have a clue what your talking about.

Seeing as how i put my replies in a simple to read format could you use more normal words because the way you assemble your sentences is difficult to understand

But the main idea of Marxism was that historical devolpments are nessecity, not just preferable conditions. achieving highest form of capitalism doesent mean that you are victim of imperialism, but that you are conducting it, which china didnt do..

Im generalising the main form of communism. I am not refer to imperislm as country to country oriented aggression but people to people like in chinas case. And i stated that commuisn was the next step in human evolution.

Again, I know what the Maoism states but again I have to tell you that it doesent work that way, thats why all the horrible mistakes made by Mao, thats why the China had to conduct its own Glanost and arent any longer a sosialistic workers state. The key proximate reason of all sosialistic states troples was the acts that first promised sherfs free land of their own and then took it away to form collectives, way too early. It needs generations to install the ideas of ‘sosialistic people’ into the education and pedagocics, not just mere years.

Maosim the ideology is different from the economic policy. The commune system is not maoism. What really failed was communism itself. It did not fail in china alone it failed all across the world. Because the conditions of its evolution was completely the opposite direction. Communism was a eventual step alone the lines of human revolution and the eventual goal was communism the “classes society”. No country was ever communist it was a socialist country. The means of production was still in government controlled hands. But Mao was preaching Communes as another step to communism to be self suffiecent in production while the russians wanted to create the wealth and then work on their princles which is what Leninism-marxism was about. But the one step was missing was world revolution. There was meant to be a central government which co-ordinates the first moves then eventually lead to the great classless society

The logic of the communes are simple. Self reliance. The koreans are practising their own type of socialism more or less based on Maoism called juche. If china did not have to deal with outside problems more or less her commune system would have worked and would have and still is the closet thing to communism we’ve ever seen.

Communism was based on the fall of government and no need to sustain a armed force and life would more or less stayed the same but it was a eventual progess. In reality communism was dead to begin with.

orginal immigrants and susbequent qonquers of australia came from west not from China

In writings before hand i already sated my writings about this matter. Someone even linked us to a very good informative article. I’ll re-post it. I answered and gave my opinion but i haven’t seen your response like a reason

But to think about it, The west spread out because of religion. Western missionaries converting people to god like the muslims and saladin, Thinking more about this it was god which told them to exploer and convert pagans. While china had buddism which was more pacifistic and taoism which had teaching of buddism. Thinking about when the europeans powers went missionaris came alone also. Africa, Dutch east indies Hong Kong. Most of the colonies which the europeans powers colonized also got religionzed also. Region a major factor in western explainsion. yes

But in the case of china, They were the dominant power. China had the largest ego out of any country ever, China had already defeated many regional powers and had very early on established a massive empire every country in asia paid tribute to the chinese empire and if you didn’t pay tribute you were a vassel state. China didn’t need to have firearms because her armies(manchu Banner system) were overwhelmingly superior to any regional power. Now that being said china forced stagnated herself on many occasions. The Ming closed off all exports and stopped the voyages to other countries. The Chinese fleet in the 15th century was much much more advanced than the boat columbus used to discover america. Some theories even say that china discovered america before columbus

In the chinese mind, We were the centre of the earth while the outside borders where the barbarians. China did not want their land because china already has a enormous empire and didn’t need want nor throught about going to live in barbarian lands. If china wanted to south east asia could have become part of china. The chinese in the 15th and early 16th century were ahead of the west in artillery be it on land and on sea. Its only after the peace of china that development of new weaponary stopped. China had a army of some 6million conscripts in 1800 with no enemy to fight, China became fat and lazy. Also the conditions china was faced with had been detrioted by a large amount. in 200 or so years china population tripled and quadtripled.

Now because of this lack of development and the ego china didn’t developed and fell behind other countries. It took losing to the british the japanese and a lot of other countries to snap her out of her dream land. China did a lot of soul searching during the early 20th century and we are rising fast very fast. for almost the whole of civillation china had been the pinicle of development only the last few centuries has she fallen behind. Not to mention which country in europe can be compared to china in size the amount of people and a few more years wealth as a whole. We manage to stay as a peopel and still have the majority of the land we always had. The Hare will always win the race

“The question is ferociously debated by economic historians: there is no consensus on the factor that played the single most important role. But there is pretty wide agreement that three broad and overlapping things, between them, made the difference: values, politics and economic institutions.The bases of progressEconomic growth is a process of economic change. So an appetite for change, or at least a willingness to live with it, is essential if a society is to get richer (except by conquest). This helps to account for China�s falling behind. Its elite valued stability above all. New ideas, especially foreign ones, were suspect. Until the 15th century, the social order could accommodate technological progress reasonably well. The faster and deeper changes required in the early stages of industrialisation were another matter. China�s rulers often blocked change: in the 15th century they ended long-sea trade ventures, choking off commerce and shipbuilding alike.

A readiness for change is only one of the values required. Acquisitiveness is another�an interest in worldly goods, a regard for the material as well as the spiritual, a will to exploit nature for man�s benefit. Yet naked greed is no use. Growth requires investment�and investment is gratification deferred. The enlightened self-interest praised by Adam Smith combines the desire for wealth with prudence and patience. “
http://people.brandeis.edu/~cerbil/RoadtoRiches.html

“The motives of the Western sea explorers and the Eastern treasure fleets were very different. The Chinese were essentially on a dignified tour of the civilized world, initially perhaps in a search for the deposed emperor, but ultimately for the rich gifts of tribute and for the prestige. The Europeans, on the other hand, were engaged in their bitter war with Islam and working for profit. De Zurara, chronicler of Prince Henry the Navigator, lists these motives for Prince Henry in priority order: (1) Cosmographical knowledge, (2) Profit of traffic, (3) Commerce, (4) War versus Islam, (5) Missionary zeal, and (6) the Prince’s famous horoscope.42 There were great economic considerations for the Europeans. In China, the economic considerations were reserved for the inland activities; overseas activities were wanton expenses without sufficient return demonstrated to warrant continuation. The Europeans were in competition with Islam and with each other; the Chinese acknowledged no competitors. In summary, the precipitous fall of Chinese seapower in the 15th century is not surprising. It was fragile even in its time of greatest glory during the treasure ship expeditions of the early Ming dynasty. As Ming China settled down into the more typical Chinese isolationist philosophy, increased efficiency of inland transport (notably an all weather capable Grand Canal) enabled a turning away from the sea and the coast line, and a reliance on a semi-static coastal militia vice a mobile sea-striking arm. This was to prove painfully inadequate against the 16th century large scale piratical activities of the Wo-k’ou (Chinese and Japanese sea mauraders who occupied large sections of coastal China for years).43 A balanced approach, in the twenty-twenty vision of hindsight, of a smaller but still capable Chinese navy with large seagoing warships, focused to developing and protecting Chinese overseas trade that generated prosperity for the country and generated more than enough tax revenue to pay for itself, would have been more effective and perhaps would have survived. The reasons for the dramatic fall of the 15th century Ming navy were political centralization argument in the country that consistently dominated the region, the struggle in the Imperial court between the Confucian courtiers and the palace eunuchs, the internal policy struggle of ideologies between foreign trade and isolationism. Isolationism won. Also, the navy had become dependent in the 15th century on just a few missions; large scale diplomacy to exact tribute, defense of the coast from sea pirates, and protection of coastal grain transport. The solidification of the new regime, and the completion of the Grand Canal summit water supply, removed two of the three missions by the mid 15th century. Finally, maritime threats were considered secondary in China to continental threats, and thus when Mongol border wars and limited resources pressed the Ming dynasty, the navy lost resources to the army. It was not a lack of nautical technology, but rather a combination of the above political and strategic factors that caused a Chinese rejection of sea trade and seapower in the mid-15th century. Ocean-going technology was subsequently lost in China due to official hostility and neglect.”
The rise and fall of 15th century chinese sea power

Im really certain that Mao didnt have enough philosophical sophistication never the less sosiological expertice to conduct his own thougths of Marxism simply basis of cultural differences between china and europe.

Seriously?. What you basing this on?. Have you ever read Maos work?. If not then there is no point arguing this subject because you seriously underesitmate chinese. Look into the Jiangxi Soviet than his time living in Yunnan and compare both purposes. He established Peoples war during that time because more conventional warfare. He formulted the military theory according to chinese requirment from comparing the situation. here is a famous quote

The enemy advances, we retreat. The enemy camps, we harass. The enemy tires, we attack. The enemy retreats, we pursue

Even the economic progress was different from european communism. China at the start where using Stalinism as the model of economic porgess but proved ineffective because china lacked the economic power or the resources so china moblized her people and did things by hand. Anyway research it up

Most revisionist ideas like Maoism tryes to deny this and make too hars changes eg moving from feodalistic agrar sosiety into industrial sosialism, totally siding capitalism and market economy phase and imperialism. These changes, thougth higly generalizing are natural, but consius change of the opressed class becoming the ruling one by force, if nessesery (aka revolution) comes only in the phase of moving from capitalism to sosialism. And even then the change to capitalism is more of natural, invisible change, rather than concious planned one.

Not actually. Maxism preached that imperialism was the ultimate form of capitalism. China had already estiablished one of the most complex forms of imperialism where the hierarchy had already been the esitablished power for a few milleniums. Comunisum is not about industrial strength. You are getting confused with stalinism. Yes Marx did preach that revolution would happen in the industrial nations but also said that communism will eventually come to the poor. Communism wasn’t about limiting to a country sized state but the replacment of a system. eg captialism >> Communism. It was the next stage in human development.

Marxism was based on european conditions where the proletariat would eventually overpower the bourgeoisie through revolution and strike. While Mao Zedongs maoism was about peoples war where armed struggle would follow revolution. If you read both of these theories the only connection is the communsim part.

So again, talking of these things whit real communist souldnt be taken too ligthly as i can sink you whit never ending chapters of propaganda…but if you are intressed… 😉

Yes im interested

Feel free to disregard everything as BS, though. We are’nt out on a mission to convince 16 year olds.

harrison,

I never once said i believed his claim as the average indian airforce hours nor did i refer to the Su-30.

Dont change the topic of the actual topic we were discussing

[i]Deny Ignorance[/i]