China

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Sven wrote:

Even if one-party-rule eventually ends in China, I suspect China will be less susceptible to the "peer pressure" of the "community of nations" than even America is.

And what leads you to believe that?

Fidel

Sven wrote:
Do you think the Chinese will be more altruistic and benevolent and more of a "team player" with other nations than America is once China is the world power?  Or, do you think China will largely act according to its own interests, much like America does today?

I think that America may be slightly less the brutal colonizers that the British were. In Iran, for instance, the British didn't even want to share any of Iran's oil wealth with Iran. US oil companies signed some very crooked oil contracts with Iran, and in 1990's Russia, and tried to in Iraq with similar production sharing agreements. In Iraq, the Chinese seem to be willing to develop the oil(and that's a laff as the oil there is in the ground and not too far down, like Alberta's vast crude oil reserves used to be).

The Chinese will be ruthless when it comes to doing business. They will undercut competitors for development contracts in various thirdworld countries as they have been doing for the last numder of years. Our corporate jackals here in the west aren't motivated to do anything unless profit margins are at least, what, Sven, 7 or 8 percent? I think 12% would be considered a supreme insult to their bloated egos. Japanese companies used to do similar with accepting lower profit margins than Wall St would ever consider. British Leyland and big three car companies are good examples of western arrogance which gained them nothing in the end. I think this is something that western corporations never expected in a million years back in the '30's and 40's when they were trying to hack off pieces of Asia for themselves.

Sven wrote:
Even if one-party-rule eventually ends in China, I suspect China will be less susceptible to the "peer pressure" of the "community of nations" than even America is.

Come on! We basically have one party rule in your country and this one as the end result of an obsolete electoral system. And they are as unaccountable to us as what our own propaganda machinery claims the CPC have been for Chinese. I think it will be a multi-polar world for a number of years to come, and that we well be looking at democratizing our own backyards in leading the way. If that does become true, then democracy could be a game-changer for the Brzezinski view of things. With democracy we could go far right here in this hemisphere. We could be world beaters and without the military might end of things. Big changes and lots of suprises in store over the next ten years or so, imo. Your country needs another Roosevelt and more democracy, and Canada needs more democracy, too. We could transform North America into a true cultural gathering place for the world's poor and oppressed, and democratic social democracies held in high regard by billions of people.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

You're the best Fidel.  I love reading your work.  Kiss

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Sven wrote:

Even if one-party-rule eventually ends in China, I suspect China will be less susceptible to the "peer pressure" of the "community of nations" than even America is.

And what leads you to believe that?

Let's concede, for the sake of discussion, that China will be no worse that America.  I think there is little evidence that China will be a more collaborative member of the world community than America has been.  In other words, the fact that "evil America" will no longer be the leading power in the world will not necessarily mean that we will therefore have a "better" or more collaborative community of nations once America has declined because there is little evidence that China, once it is the main world power, will act more benevolently than America has.

That, in turn, will undercut the leftist mantra that America is evil because it is lead by white male Europeans.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Again, I ask, what makes you believe that?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Links?

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Again, I ask, what makes you believe that?

I'm not saying that China will or won't be more benevolent than America has been.  Instead, I'm saying that I don't see any evidence that China will be more benevolent than America has been.

If someone thinks that China will be more benevolent than America has been, then the burden would be on that person to point to evidence supporting that belief.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Sven wrote:

I'm not saying that China will or won't be more benevolent than America has been.  Instead, I'm saying that I don't see any evidence that China will be more benevolent than America has been.

If someone thinks that China will be more benevolent than America has been, then the burden would be on that person to point to evidence supporting that belief.

 

No, the burden's on you, give chiina a chance.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Given your savage history.

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Sven wrote:

I'm not saying that China will or won't be more benevolent than America has been.  Instead, I'm saying that I don't see any evidence that China will be more benevolent than America has been.

If someone thinks that China will be more benevolent than America has been, then the burden would be on that person to point to evidence supporting that belief.

No, the burden's on you, give chiina a chance.

I suggest you study some basic logic.  If I'm not concluding that China will (or won't) be more (or less) benevolent than America has been, what "burden of proof" could I possily have???  If, on the other hand, someone is making an affirmative statement that China will be more benevolent than America has been, then the burden would be on that person to provide evidence to support that statement.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Well, you need some more base logic because you were the one that suggested the burden of proof in the first place. 

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Well, you need some more base logic because you were the one that suggested the burden of proof in the first place. 

And that, of course, makes sense: If someone believes that China will be more benevolent than America has been, then that person does, indeed, have the burden of providing evidence to support that claim.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

And I asked you for it to support your statement and you couldn't.

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

And I asked you for it to support your statement and you couldn't.

Be specific: What statement of mine are you asking me to support?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Sven wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Well, you need some more base logic because you were the one that suggested the burden of proof in the first place. 

And that, of course, makes sense: If someone believes that China will be more benevolent than America has been, then that person does, indeed, have the burden of providing evidence to support that claim.

 

Have you become that nationalistic?  That narrow?  Weak, Sven...

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Have you become that nationalistic?  That narrow?  Weak, Sven...

Huh?

Again: What conclusion or "statement" are you asking me to support?  Be specific.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

You're the one that's being specifiic.

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

You're the one that's being specifiic.

What does that even mean?

Obviously, you are unable to point to the specific conclusion or "statement" of mine which you are asking me to support. How can I provide you with support for a statement when you can't even tell me what statement you want me to support?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Sven wrote:

Do you think the Chinese will be more altruistic and benevolent and more of a "team player" with other nations than America is once China is the world power?  Or, do you think China will largely act according to its own interests, much like America does today?

Even if one-party-rule eventually ends in China, I suspect China will be less susceptible to the "peer pressure" of the "community of nations" than even America is.

 

Here's post #x, burden of proof.

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Sven wrote:

Do you think the Chinese will be more altruistic and benevolent and more of a "team player" with other nations than America is once China is the world power?  Or, do you think China will largely act according to its own interests, much like America does today?

Even if one-party-rule eventually ends in China, I suspect China will be less susceptible to the "peer pressure" of the "community of nations" than even America is.

Here's post #x, burden of proof.

Obviously, you have blithely (and conveniently) ignored post #54 (and every post after that), haven't you?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Sven wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Sven wrote:

Do you think the Chinese will be more altruistic and benevolent and more of a "team player" with other nations than America is once China is the world power?  Or, do you think China will largely act according to its own interests, much like America does today?

Even if one-party-rule eventually ends in China, I suspect China will be less susceptible to the "peer pressure" of the "community of nations" than even America is.

Here's post #x, burden of proof.

Obviously, you have blithely (and conveniently) ignored post #54 (and every post after that), haven't you?

And you've left out any hint of integrity.  The reaches people will make to fool themselves.

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

And you've left out any hint of integrity.  The reaches people will make to fool themselves.

You appear incapable of pointing out which statement I made in or after post #54 for which you want me to provide "support".

So, how about this very simple request: You either concede that there is no such statement or you quote the statement of mine for which you want "support".

Is that fair?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Um, Sven, I just did?  Are you thick?

Sven Sven's picture

You quoted post #50, right?

Did you even read post #54?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Ya, I read it, what the fuck does the post # have to do with your ridonculous argument?

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Ya, I read it, what the fuck does the post # have to do with your ridonculous argument?

Do you know what the word "concede" means?  I retracted my post #50 statement (see post #54).  Yet, you appear to be insisting that I now provide "support" for a point I've already conceded!!

Now, that is "thick".

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

You haven't even provided a link, it's all sven'think.  yay....not

Sven Sven's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

You haven't even provided a link...

I "haven't even provided a link" to support what statement???

Just do something very, very simple for me, okay?  Tell me what statement you want me to support (and not a statement that I've conceded on, either).

Are you able to do that?  If not, then quit asking me to support (or provide a link to support) a statement that you won't even tell me you want me to support!!

George Victor

And a petty, meaningless exchange between 2 egos uses up 25 posts (one third) of a valuable record of early 21st century China.

 

Fidel

I must say that I appreciate Wilf's posts about China, a country he's visited recently. I think we should try and reserve a few posts for informative commentary and semi-serious analysis on the socio-economic, or what have you, conditions in modernizing China. It's an amazing country that has the rest of the world mesrmerized still.

George Victor

Perhaps "mesmerized" a year back.  Krugman's thoughts  today (Jan. 1, 2010):

 

"China has become a major financial and trade power. But it doesn't act like other big economies. Instead, it follows a mercantilist policy, keeping its trade surplus artificially high. And in today's depressed world, that policy is, to put it bluntly, predatory.

 

"Here's how it works: Unlike the dollar, the euro or the yen, whose values fluctuate freely, China's currency is pegged by official policy at about 6.8 yuan to the dollar. At this exchange rate, Chinese manufacturing has a large cost advantage over its rivals, leading to huge trade surpluses."

 

 

Joey Ramone

 

Interesting article in New Left Review about how China's ruling elites collude with international capital to ensure the ongoing exploitation of China's working classes:

http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2809

 

Joey Ramone

By the way, although I certainly don't consider myself an expert on China, I have been there 5 times.  My wife is originally from Chinese occupied Inner Mongolia. I'm just a class conscious activist from Canada who has observed the gross exploitation of Chinese working classes by both foreign capital and China's elites.

George Victor

Add on China's tendency toward a new imperialism (needed to feed those "satanic mills") and that's the situatiion I also observe from here, JR. 

Fidel

I wonder what some of us would think of democratic capitalist India? I think we'd be shocked. [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16754]The US and China: One Side is Losing, the Other is Winning[/url] Thanks to Revolution Please posting this in another thread. Petras is right when he says that China is capitalist, But they haven't achieved what they have by following Washington consensus for neoliberal ideology. They are miles ahead of every capitalist thirdworld country following neoliberal voodoo of the IMF, 'Washington consensus', and World Bank prescriptions. In fact, China now represents an alternative to the IMF and World Bank for thirdworld capitalist countries. The US used to be be the most dominant foreign investors in South America. Not anymore,

 

Quote:
China invests in petroleum-rich countries; the US attacks them.  China sells plates and bowls for Afghan wedding feasts; US drone aircraft bomb the celebrations.  China invests in extractive industries, but, unlike European colonialists, it builds railroads, ports, airfields and provides easy credit.  China does not finance and arm ethnic wars and 'color rebellions' like the US CIA.  China self-finances its own growth, trade and transportation system; the US sinks under a multi trillion dollar debt to finance its endless wars, bail out its Wall Street banks and prop up other non-productive sectors while many millions remain without jobs. . .

 

And we should add that China doesn't do majority foreign ownership in vital sectors of its economy, like steel, energy, agriculture, and banking.

Joey Ramone

That may all be true Fidel, but the growth you talk about is based largely on the gross exploitation of the Chinese workers and peasants and brutal suppression of workers' rights activists, not to mention environmental activists and free speech activists.  The fact that the corrupt thugs who carry out the repression and benefit from the exploitation cynically call themselves the "Communist" Party of China changes nothing in my view.  Not even they pretend any longer that their policies have anything to do with "socialism".

Fidel

The CPC knew all about corruption after observing the privatization fiascos in Russia during the 90's. China's state banks had to loan billions to Putin for the renationalisations of Yukos and Siberian gas fields.

China has not followed Washington consensus prescriptions for neoliberal capitalism. And China's state banks have avoided the meltdown of financial capitalism emanating from Wall Street and High Street. And they look like geniuses for not opening up their currency to liberalization schemes that aren't working in the west. State planning and lots of communist party intervention in the economy has worked wonders for China. There will be a revolution in economic theory here in the west over the next ten years.

Joey Ramone

So they've developed a superior way to exploit workers and peasants.  Great.  Can't wait for it to be imposed here.

Fidel

Joey Ramone wrote:

So they've developed a superior way to exploit workers and peasants.  Great.  Can't wait for it to be imposed here.

But their personal savings rate is somewhere over 40%. Here it's nil next to nothing for millions of Canadians who are more indebted than ever before on credit cards, personal lines of credit, mortgages, student loan debts to the tune of somewhere more than $13 billion. They're paying cash on the barrelhead in China for new cars and apartments. They build a new city the size of San Francisco every three weeks or so. Ryerson Poly says ~650,000 first and second generation Asian emigres to Canada have returned to Asia since the late 1990's and citing a lack of opportunity in our Northern Puerto Rico. They love the wide open spaces and lack of anything happening in general here in Canada, but they can't eat scenery.

In Canada, we pile'em higher and deeper in a handful of cities along the Can-Am border where our young people search for a dwindling number of jobs. Meanwhile  whole regions of rural US and Canada are simply abandoned to their own devices by an ideology that stopped working before it got started.

Imposed here? We've lost a third of a million jobs across Canada since 2008 and economy in need of CPR. In our largest provincial economy we've got E-Health and OLG scandals as our answer to a crisis of western world neoliberal capitalism. And where are our alleged political leaders? AWOL! Steve and his Harpers are the penultimate believers in laissez-faire. Canadians would replace them if we could figure out what in heck it is they do.

Joey Ramone

Is someone in this thread defending Harper or any of his policies Fidel?  I don't understand your detours to flail against straw men.  I'm guessing you've never been to China, right?  The gap between the awful poverty of the masses and incredible wealth of the very rich is something to behold.  And yes I know all kinds of shocking exploitation and inequality exist here as well.  I spend most of my time fighting against those things, but I can still acknowledge the misery endured by the majority of Chinese to obscenely enrich a few.

Sven Sven's picture

Joey Ramone wrote:

Is someone in this thread defending Harper or any of his policies Fidel?

[snip]

The gap between the awful poverty of the masses and incredible wealth of the very rich is something to behold.  And yes I know all kinds of shocking exploitation and inequality exist here as well.  I spend most of my time fighting against those things, but I can still acknowledge the misery endured by the majority of Chinese to obscenely enrich a few.

Here's the thing: I think so many people reflexively think that the USA is the Über Devil that it is positively inconceivable to them that a capitalist China might be just as bad as (or, God forbid, worse than) the USA.  Add to that China's faux veneer of being a "collectivist" country and the problem is just compounded.

Fidel

Joey Ramone wrote:

Is someone in this thread defending Harper or any of his policies Fidel?  I don't understand your detours to flail against straw men.  I'm guessing you've never been to China, right?  The gap between the awful poverty of the masses and incredible wealth of the very rich is something to behold.  And yes I know all kinds of shocking exploitation and inequality exist here as well.  I spend most of my time fighting against those things, but I can still acknowledge the misery endured by the majority of Chinese to obscenely enrich a few.

Well I'm guessing you were never there in China when it was a fourth world ex-imperialist country as recently as 1949. China's social and economic indicators were below those of democratic capitalist India. Economist Amartya Sen says that democratic capitalist India manages to produce as many corpses prematurely every eight years as what China did in all its years of shame, from 1958 to 61. Democratic capitalist India has been the kiss of death for somewhere more than 100 million living in grinding poverty and despair between just the years 1947 and 1979. Life is cheap in democratic capitalist India as it is around the democratic capitalist thirdworld producing somewhere more than 50 million skeletons every year with about one-billion estimated to be chronically hungry today. Real capitalism according to the IMF and WTO, World Bank, BIS etc means the kiss of death for tens of millions of human beings annually. 

We have shocking levels of ginding poverty, chronic-hunger, homelessness, gross human rights violations, and general all around despair right here in the democratic capitalist western hemisphere. We don't even have to go to the opposite side of the world to see real thirdworld Darwinian dog-eat-dog capitalism at work in Uncle Sam's backyard. And most all of their client states practicing democratic thirdworld capitalism aren't worth mentioning. Unlike China and Singapore, these unmentionable thirdworld capitalist countries are still waiting for a neoliberal-capitalist economic long run to kick-in. The capitalist economic long run for people in those special countries requires an almost religious faith to be believed. But unlike Washington consensus capitalism, religion at least has an afterlife as a reward for the faithful.

Joey Ramone

Fidel, if you think that China, and the hyper-exploitation of Chinese workers, are not integral parts of global capitalism, you are very naive.  Did you read the New Left Review article I posted above?  My solidarity is with exploited workers everywhere, including China. 

Fidel

Joey Ramone wrote:

Fidel, if you think that China, and the hyper-exploitation of Chinese workers, are not integral parts of global capitalism, you are very naive.  Did you read the New Left Review article I posted above?  My solidarity is with exploited workers everywhere, including China. 

I'm a socialist and agree very little with capitalism in general. But I am at least aware of the differences between Chinese and Singaporean capitalism and the brand of capitalism exported by neoliberal-capitalist institutions based out of NYC. London, Basel etc. And I have solidarity with workers around the world, too, and especially with billions of them in the democratic capitalist thirdworld and subsisting on anywhere from dimes to two or three dollars a day and by no quirk of economics living very well on those paltry incomes. One just has to look at basic benchmarks of mortality to realize that Washington consensus capitalism is the worst form of capitalism treating billions of human beings like cattle every day around the world. 

George Victor

Jeebers, Fidel.  What are your thoughts on Chinese capitalism and its development based on exploitation, and its growing imperialism?  (Try to stay the course, old boy).

Fidel

George Victor wrote:

Jeebers, Fidel.  What are your thoughts on Chinese capitalism and its development based on exploitation, and its growing imperialism?  (Try to stay the course, old boy).

I think Chinese and Singaporean capitalism is truly vexing for rightwing ideologues here in the west. We have a repeat situation of the 1030's whereby captains of western industry and finance are investing in and helping build up another economy and this time not one ocean away but several. And as it was in the dirty 30's under a laissez-faire shifting slowly to a more leftwing Keynesian approach at home, the "new" liberal capitalism here is working about the same except propped up by public sector economy and what socialist policies still exist and haven't been gutted completely. China is not a purely capitalist economy, and neither is Singapore's.

As I was saying before, countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Haiti, Russia, and India followed neoliberal prescriptions for Washington consensus capitalism since the 1990's more closely than any other countries in the world. And where neoliberal ideology was adhered to the most over the last 20-25 years is where economic problems and deteriorating conditions in general are most severe.

The parts of Chinas's economy that are capitalist have lots of room for improvement toward expansion of trade unionism and basic worker's rights in general.  Whether we call it mixed market state-capitalism or state-socialism, there definitely needs to be improvements for the sake of China's workers who are injured by dilapidated machinery and unsafe working conditions, introduction of worker's compensation, etc. Give them time, because it looks like Chinese workers aren't behind the door when it comes to protesting openly in the streets. The CPC are afraid of workers there. Here, it's the other way around. Workers in Canada and especially the US have learned to be fearful of government and their private sector pals sticking it to us today.

George Victor

You aren't really ready to call China's political/economic situation "mixed market" or "state socialism" are you, Fidel? Amazin' spread between those and state capitalism.  "Give them time, because it looks like Chinese workers aren't behind the door when it comes to protesting openly in the streets..."? Jesus, I'd certainly stay indoors on that one, myself,  if I lived there. Life is short !

"Workers in Canada and especially the US have learned to be fearful of government...." That's more than an oranges and apples dissimilarity, Fidel. More like a carrots and bananas distinction. Define "fear".

Fidel

George Victor wrote:
You aren't really ready to call China's political/economic situation "mixed market" or "state socialism" are you, Fidel?

Put another way, there is far too much state interventionism in the economy to be labelled a neoliberal success story. China is not the free market success story that Chile was supposed to become based on deregulation and privatization. If someone in CPC was found to be responsible for a Walkerton-style incident in China, there would be real consequences. Same in Singapore. Our stooges can kill Canadians with dirty drinking water or tainted blood, rip off the taxpayers with E-health and adscandals - it makes no difference. We still cling to laissez-faire policies in general on this side of the Atlantic, and we're also mired in corruption for a long time. Canada has been dubbed a "corrupt petro-state" recently, and we've known it  to be true for a long time.

China's state-owned central bank, construction and investment banks, steel and oil industries,  offshore investment agencies are basically run by the CPC. That's not capitalism and it's not even state-capitalism as we've known it to be here in the west. I can't imagine the Gov of Canada manipulating our dollar to favour our mostly US and foreign-owned manufacturing industries going down the tubes in Canada and US today. I can't imagine the feds here ever saying, let's compete with private capital with our own construction investment bank. Not in our life times. Our stooges in Ottawa and senate enjoy job security and gold-plated pay and fringe benefits,  but they don't actually want to do any thinking on the job. Canada and the US are much more the experiments in new liberal capitalism than China. The CPC are heavy duty Keynesians and Confucianists,  whereas our duds in Ottawa and Washington are a mixed bag of mixed-up rightwing Vancouver make-believe think tankers and Freddy von Hayekians who are now trying desperately to appear to be Bob Rae Keynesians for the sake of electibility. But they don't fool us eh, George.

 

Quote:
Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory. (Lenin 1918)

 

Benito Mussolini said that state-capitalism was state-socialism turned on its head. And state-capitalism here in the far west has morphed since then into mixed-up market state whatever, and since the late 70's and 80's they've tried re-creating the laissez-faire glory years with the "new" liberal capitalism and now their economic theorists preferring the label "neo-classico" economists since they began abandoning the other. The main point I am trying to make is that leave it to the market 100% capitalism hasn't worked anywhere in the world where tried since 1929, and even before that and dating back to 14th century Italy.

George Victor

Why did you not bother responding to the piece sent by JR, Fidel? About the fate of workers over there, and this excellent summary of how capital has been put to work:

 

quote: "In what follows, I will trace the historical and social origins of the deepening dependence of China and East Asia on the consumer markets of the global North as the source of their growth, and on us financial vehicles as the store of value for their savings. I then assess the longer-term possibilities for ending this dependence, arguing that, to create a more autonomous economic order in Asia, China would have to transform an export-oriented growth model-which has mostly benefited, and been perpetuated by, vested interests in the coastal export sectors-into one driven by domestic consumption, through a large-scale redistribution of income to the rural-agricultural sector. This will not be possible, however, without breaking the coastal urban elite's grip on power."

 

Another success story for consumerism. Wow, what a glorious outcome.

 

Yep, there's no evidence of pure, laissez faire, completely market dependent capitalism at work anywhre, and never has been. And given the environmental state of our over-crowded planet, Fidel, I cannot celebrate what is happening over there as a triumph of socialism. Show me evidence that that is what Marx wanted humanity to achieve (no Lenin please), the grandkids inheriting a world where survival is the first order of the day.

 

All that I can recall from my undergraduate days four decades back, in a desperate hunt for evidence of Marxist environmental concerns, was a letter by Engels to someone saying that once the lands of the western hemisphere and eastern Europe were fully utilized by agriculture, that would be the "time to sound the alarm." Then came continued technological developments of machinery and agro science. 

 

Do you really think we will be at all concerned with re-writing the books of holy economic  script in 10 years time?

George Victor

From the book lounge thread, The Man Who Loved China, July 28, 2008:

"George: My comment of April 28 was aimed at those who believe China is a commercial threat and that the West can do without it. More important, as you pointed out, my comment is based on the assumption that Canadians (and Westerners generally) define affluence as materiel wealth and value it above all else. But some days I believe that countries like Canada can do without China's manufacturing capacity and exchange rate. After all, Canada's material affluence after the Second World War originated from the rise of the manufacturing sector in which many Canadians were factory workers who could afford a house and a car on a single income. Moreover, there was a time when Canadian businesses did not rely on Chinese factories to assemble their products at affordable prices -- that time only ended very recently. The popular definition of affluence among well-to-do Canadians and Chinese must change. The definition must include the quality of the natural environment, literacy and numeracy, spirituality, the dignity of labour, aesthetics...."

Jiajie Liang had the right idea, but neither of us advanced the foggiest notion of how to bring it off. Some means of ending invidious comparison with the lifestyle of the Joneses, perhaps?

And here's George Monbiot with some more recent thoughts on the problem:

Posted: 04 Jan 2010 01:12 PM PST

How do we break a system which now permeates every aspect of our lives?

Pages

Topic locked