babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Whither China

104 replies [Last post]

Comments

Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

ha ha Whose Canada are we talkin' aboot here? Is it some fantasy world vision of Canada where we don't have elected stooges and acting colonial administrators in Ottawa and Queens Parks? Get real!

Welcome to the real world where Liberal and Tory governments past sold us down the Mississippi River for a bit of cutter, and a bit of the old kick-back and graft! Nancy Pelosi didn't come up here recently to talk with our democratically elected leaders about beaver tails over a cup of Timmy's.

Pelosi came up here as a representative of USSA Inc. to give official imperial instructions to our corrupt stooges concerning beaver tales and discussed over the grave of Tommy! 

This isn't about "Canadian national security." Because there is no such thing. Don't be silly, and don't make us laugh so hard that we cough up our spleens. Stop with the baby talk already.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Most people here still see China through a very Western lens and see the level of control the government has in the economy as some kind of total figure that should rise or go down.

In fact I think what is happening there -- not so much through political force but a result of practical considerations -- is an experimentation over what the government should control and what it should not. So you will see in some areas the government has more control than certain countries in the rest of the world but there are also places where the government has less.

In time I hope as the Chinese government gives up more power in some areas, it will re-assert its power where ti has opted to go for the market solutions.

Another important point is that the Chinese economic and political culture is in fact so different that if you arrive at a system through practical experiment, there is no reason to presume that the Chinese system will look that much like what we have here. And we need to recognize that we will have to avoid trying to rank one as better or worse-- even if we could determine which was better for our people or theirs, we might never be able to determine which could be better overall since the contexts for the systems are so different.

I don't think that Canadian's should shut up and not criticize China but I also don't think the government needs to lead that chorus. With a somewhat free press here, we can let people say what they like and have the government be diplomatic where it needs to be. And there is value to saying things behind closed doors at times as well.

We can also look to economic arrangements that can lead to mutual benefit. The more Chinese workers are able to get paid more the better this gets and it is something the Chinese government won't oppose so policies that encourage the use of better paid Chinese labour and discourage lower paid Chinese labour when it comes to what we are trading and how are beneficial.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Liang Jiajie wrote:

Ryan1812 -- The worry about Potash Corp. is that the potential Chinese buyers are state-owned, which means they're susceptible to the whims of China's domestic politics, a few autocrats in China, and international relations that wouldn't normally affect Potash Corp.  Given that China isn't an ally of Canada and that it doesn't operate under the rule of law, national security is a legitimate concern.  But if China had acquired the company, I suppose that Saskatchewan could simply break the law of re-take its potash reserves in a time of crisis.

 

Sean: "We can also look to economic arrangements that can lead to mutual benefit. The more Chinese workers are able to get paid more the better this gets and it is something the Chinese government won't oppose so policies that encourage the use of better paid Chinese labour and discourage lower paid Chinese labour when it comes to what we are trading and how are beneficial."

 

 

Seems to me that Liang Jiajie of China understands the need to protect Canadian sovereignty whereas Canadians hereabouts do not, but refer in vague terms to the indivisibility of the two nation's interests. Omnia vincet amor.


Ryan1812
Offline
Joined: May 20 2010

George Victor wrote:

Liang Jiajie wrote:

Ryan1812 -- The worry about Potash Corp. is that the potential Chinese buyers are state-owned, which means they're susceptible to the whims of China's domestic politics, a few autocrats in China, and international relations that wouldn't normally affect Potash Corp. Given that China isn't an ally of Canada and that it doesn't operate under the rule of law, national security is a legitimate concern. But if China had acquired the company, I suppose that Saskatchewan could simply break the law of re-take its potash reserves in a time of crisis.

Sean: "We can also look to economic arrangements that can lead to mutual benefit. The more Chinese workers are able to get paid more the better this gets and it is something the Chinese government won't oppose so policies that encourage the use of better paid Chinese labour and discourage lower paid Chinese labour when it comes to what we are trading and how are beneficial."


Seems to me that Liang Jiajie of China understands the need to protect Canadian sovereignty whereas Canadians hereabouts do not, but refer in vague terms to the indivisibility of the two nation's interests. Omnia vincet amor.


Sovereignty...goodness where are we in the 1890's. This talk of sovereignty is so anachronistic. It's a globalized world and sovereignty only exists in as much as our private lives extend into the public, and even those lives are public now through technology. Let's get serious and understand that for Canada to survive, turning inward is not the answer. Canada owns large swaths of other countries in as much as other countries own Canada. It's just reality. Sovereignty isn't even an issue. Sovereignty was lost the minute transnational capital became the preferred means of economic development. States are fading away and trade barriers continue to come down. The more Canada thinks to the future, diversifies its economy and, now this might scare the likes of GV, TRADE WITH OTHER COUNTRIES,the better for Canadians as a whole. Let's work on developing industrial standards with what federal power we have, and convince our provinces to hold industries to account. I think progressivism can still exist in stateless societies and moving towards progressive leftist stability is possible if we just pull our collective heads out of old paradigms

 

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Ryan1812 wrote:
Canada owns large swaths of other countries in as much as other countries own Canada. It's just reality

Well it's not true of Canadian DFI in the USA. No Canadian billionaires own controlling interest in a single US economic sector. Not one. Their superrich citizens, OTOH, own controlling share interests in dozens of key sectors of the Canadian economy. China, for example, would never allow majority foreign ownership/control of its energy sector, its manufacturing, steel making  or banking. No rich country has allowed a third as much foreign ownership and control of its manufacturing sector as Canada has done since 1985.

 Canada's economy has been described as resembling more a developing nations economy with so much foreign ownership and control, and especially since CUSFTA and NAFTA. It can be argued that Canada's economy is not a true G8 economy in several ways.

Canada is America's gas tank. Crooks and liars and crooked-liars sold our environment and national energy policy decisions to foreign interests  many years ago, and mostly to rich Americans. A lot of so-called free trade advocates and market purists don't really care if BHP ends up monopolizing Potash and sticking it to Chinese farmers as a result. Market fundamentalists are more opportunistic than they are believers of free and fair trade between countries. Canada has not benefited by Anglo-American free trade baloney for the most part.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Sovereignty, Ryan, means being able to effect laws that maintain standards of environmental protection (now in complete disarray in the Tar Patch and in B.C.'s mining camps); that maintain standards of health care (now under pressure to give way to a private/public system based on privilege; able to effect opportunity for education, and at the other end of life's spectrum, a chance at a decent old age. Capitalism has given free rein to the forces of privatization through something called "globalization," but which is really only a blank cheque for finance capital and speculation.

You would have to show me how a declining export market for Ontario's industries, for instance (which are tanking) is better as a result of "TRADE WITH OTHER COUNTRIES," as you put it. How does the WTO requirement about openess to investment help when "sovereign funds" (look up sovereign in this case - your conception is rather dated) from China are being wielded to buy resource industries here, even while that country refuses to allow its currency to rise in value? 

Speak to L J 's points, Ryan. HE LIVES IN THE SAME COUNTRY THAT YOU DO AT THE MOMENT...was born there, I expect. And please...do not fall back on "it's just reality."  Death is just reality, but I don't promote it.

 


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

George Victor wrote:

Liang Jiajie wrote:

Ryan1812 -- The worry about Potash Corp. is that the potential Chinese buyers are state-owned, which means they're susceptible to the whims of China's domestic politics, a few autocrats in China, and international relations that wouldn't normally affect Potash Corp.  Given that China isn't an ally of Canada and that it doesn't operate under the rule of law, national security is a legitimate concern.  But if China had acquired the company, I suppose that Saskatchewan could simply break the law of re-take its potash reserves in a time of crisis.

 

Sean: "We can also look to economic arrangements that can lead to mutual benefit. The more Chinese workers are able to get paid more the better this gets and it is something the Chinese government won't oppose so policies that encourage the use of better paid Chinese labour and discourage lower paid Chinese labour when it comes to what we are trading and how are beneficial."

 

 

Seems to me that Liang Jiajie of China understands the need to protect Canadian sovereignty whereas Canadians hereabouts do not, but refer in vague terms to the indivisibility of the two nation's interests. Omnia vincet amor.

Firstly do we know LJ is of China or perhaps he is a Chinese Canadian.

In any event there is no single Canadian knowing the best for Canada -- it is not reasonable to suppose one person with a Chinese name is the only source for the best for China. I respect him but do not consider it off limits to debate or disagree.

Never mind the fact that you are putting words in to my mouth that I did not say. I never said that Canada's and China's interests are indivisible or identical. I did say common ground can be found. That is a different point.

 


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

edited-- issue fixed


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

Sorry Sean. Yep, I was really addressing Ryan.  I'll correct that.

But while we're at it...yes, L J lives in China. Teaches there, I suspect.  See the thread from two summers back on the book The Man Who Loved China (by Simon Winchester).


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

thanks


Liang Jiajie
Offline
Joined: Aug 21 2007

Sean in Ottawa -- Good point in your second paragraph, but we have to question Beijing's sincerity at political reform.  In the 1980s, Beijing transferred some responsibilities to the provinces, but it hasn't been enough.  The consequences of Beijing's insistance on unitary governance of such a large population spread out over such a large territory -- corruption at every level of government and the disregard of national laws -- aren't being resolved despite two decades of harsh punishment, including executions, directed at corrupt officials.  Underlying this is Beijing's fear of its own citizens and the citizens' mistrust of government officials and their lack of confidence in Beijing's competence in problem-solving.  Beijing has also been slow moving towards some form of democracy.  Actually, it hasn't moved at all since 1990 when Beijing approved village-level elections in a few provinces.  It was announced as an experiement and it's still considered as such 20 years later.

Paragraph four is a slippery slope.  I accept that different regions of the world face different challenges and so have different priorities, but the logic of paragraph four is often used by Chinese officials to stifle real human rights in China.

Ryan1812 -- What do you mean when you say that Canada is moving inward?  It's odd that you refer to sovereignty as a 19th century (or earlier) phenomenon since much of the world at that time was under imperial rule.  It seems that as those empires fell and their peoples increased interaction with others while establishing their nation-states, their desire to protect their cultural, economic, and territorial interests only increased.  I refer to the failure of the Leage of Nations, the Security Council, the Balkans in the 1990s, former Soviet states in eastern Europe and Central Asia, China as an emerging communist state and then as developing modern state.


NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Momentum Builds Behind Chinese Workers Protests

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyid=130078240

"Karl Marx was right. We should struggle like he said in 19th century Europe. Chinese factories now are just like factories in 19th century Europe. And just like Karl Marx said, only through struggle with the capitalists can we gain our rights,' Leu says. As a result, workers are extolling a communist struggle to a Communist Party government that has ditched its allegiance to the workers and joined forces with capitalists..."


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

I also think this business of demanding that Beijing stop manipulating Chinese currency is a hollow one. First of all, it's partly why labour costs are so low in China and enticing foreign corporations to do business in China. Remember, what's good for corporate America is good for all Americans at the same time, or at least this is the American capitalist mantra as shared by European and other globalizing capitalists.

The other thing is that the Chinese are observing how the US has manipulated its own currency for a long time with the plunge protection team's extremely visible hand interventionist policies with buying stocks and bonds to prop-up Ponzi capitalism on Wall Street, national socialism for Wall Street bankers, GM etc.  The Chinese must be laughing their heads off whenever the west reminds them to please commit economic suicide as they did with Japan and the Plaza Accord by the latter half of the 1980s.

The third thing about it is that the US has stymied China from buying into key sectors of the US economy and stating the reasons for this US protectionism to be issues of "national security." They've effectively done the same thing with Canada. What's ours is theirs and what's theirs belongs to corporate America. So this whole British-American free trade theory is baloney, and the CPC in Beijing probably won't be committing economic suicide the same as Japan offered to do by 1985 or 87 or whatever in order to bail out the stagnant American economy. Neoliberal ideology was showing signs of trouble then in the Reagan era long before coming to a head by 2008.

The fourth thing is that China and the rest of the BRIC countries now see the US and Britain as criminal regimes with a likely false flag op on 9/11 ultimately and intimately tied to to fascist attacks on Yugoslavia by 1999, and fascist military attacks and military occupations Afghanistan and Iraq and marauding over the borders into other countries. China and other countries are realizing that they have been financing US military buildups all around their countries. They see the west as lawless and corrupt and are now re-thinking the central plan in general.


Maysie
Online
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Closing for length.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments