China releases human rights report on USA for 2009

[Sendo]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/12/c_13208219.htm

How can the US justify such racist and sexist statistics and prisons that hold more than China's?
I see homelessness as an immense crime on human rights (especially when so many houses and apartments sit empty.
And as far as free speech goes, we have the media swallowing Pentagon fictions about liberating make-believe cities like Marjah.

[Drace]

Couldn't the number of prisoners be due to the efficiency of the legal force?

[LeftSideDown]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/12/c_13208219.htm

How can the US justify such racist and sexist statistics and prisons that hold more than China's?
I see homelessness as an immense crime on human rights (especially when so many houses and apartments sit empty.
And as far as free speech goes, we have the media swallowing Pentagon fictions about liberating make-believe cities like Marjah.

Because the Chinese government would never lie. Right?

[#FF0000]

Because the Chinese government would never lie. Right?

I'm sure everything anybody ever says against the United States is always complete and total falsehood.

[danyboy27]

both the us and china human right are scandalous in their own way.

2 wrong dont make 1 right.

[RGacky3]

both the us and china human right are scandalous in their own way.

2 wrong dont make 1 right.


What? No one is saying China is mother teresa.


Because the Chinese government would never lie. Right?

Its pretty hard to lie about sourced statistics which are not from the Chinese government, dumb ass, look at the article first.



Couldn't the number of prisoners be due to the efficiency of the legal force?


No, the rest of the worlds police force arn't THAT terrible. Thats like saying the reason Russia produces the most vodca is simply due to the efficiency of their vodca factories.

[#FF0000]

Couldn't the number of prisoners be due to the efficiency of the legal force?

Even then it's still indicative of very high crime rates which is itself indicative of some pretty severe social problems.

[LeftSideDown]

I'm sure everything anybody ever says against the United States is always complete and total falsehood.

I'm not saying it is, and I probably trust the United State's government and its statistics just as much as I'd distrust something coming from the "China Press".

[Dean]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/12/c_13208219.htm

How can the US justify such racist and sexist statistics and prisons that hold more than China's?
I see homelessness as an immense crime on human rights (especially when so many houses and apartments sit empty.
And as far as free speech goes, we have the media swallowing Pentagon fictions about liberating make-believe cities like Marjah.

A large part of that is the massive number of executions that China carries out. Not that it justifies the prison industry in the least.

[LeftSideDown]

A large part of that is the massive number of executions that China carries out. Not that it justifies the prison industry in the least.

I was just about to say that!

[gorillafuck]

I'm not saying it is, and I probably trust the United State's government and its statistics just as much as I'd distrust something coming from the "China Press".
I wouldn't trust either American or Chinese press for a second. But it is a fact that the United States imprisons an enormous amount of people.

[LeftSideDown]

I wouldn't trust either American or Chinese press for a second. But it is a fact that the United States imprisons an enormous amount of people.

I don't disagree. Another argument why the government shouldn't have a monopoly on morality.

[danielson]

I get great pleasure from reading both lists,I don't know why.

[Dean]

I don't disagree. Another argument why the government shouldn't have a monopoly on morality.

Surely you mean "monopoly on force," the standard libertarian argument?

[LeftSideDown]

Surely you mean "monopoly on force," the standard libertarian argument?

Thats another thing it has a monopoly on, but if it is also the means of determining right and wrong (what is or is not against the law) via legislation then it has a monopoly on at least the minimum of morality.

[RGacky3]

but if it is also the means of determining right and wrong (what is or is not against the law) via legislation then it has a monopoly on at least the minimum of morality.

And that right should be determined by the rich instead, right?

[LeftSideDown]

And that right should be determined by the rich instead, right?

Should be determined through a competitive system.

[Dean]

Thats another thing it has a monopoly on, but if it is also the means of determining right and wrong (what is or is not against the law) via legislation then it has a monopoly on at least the minimum of morality.

Why on earth are you conflating morality with law?

Haven't you gotten past that point yet? Legislation hasn't been about morality long before divine right ceased to be an effective mode of propaganda.

[LeftSideDown]

Why on earth are you conflating morality with law?

Haven't you gotten past that point yet? Legislation hasn't been about morality long before divine right ceased to be an effective mode of propaganda.

Really? It hasn't? Most states had laws against sodomy up until some court case (my brain is fuzzy, its the morning). Thats a moral issue. You could say the states attempts to regulate vices (drugs, alcohol, tobacco) is about morality and doesn't really have a practical purpose. Government laws against blackmail is another case of a law defining morality.

[Dean]

Really? It hasn't? Most states had laws against sodomy up until some court case (my brain is fuzzy, its the morning). Thats a moral issue. You could say the states attempts to regulate vices (drugs, alcohol, tobacco) is about morality and doesn't really have a practical purpose. Government laws against blackmail is another case of a law defining morality.

Those laws aren't really the point. The fact is that the state functions to defend the interests of those who maintain and direct it. While morality is a valuable propaganda tool for such organizations, it does not form the fundamental direction of legislation, but more importantly, states have shifted from theocratic tendencies of propaganda to broader populist ones.

To focus on things like "morality" and "force" as defining features of state structures ignores the rest of their function - that is to defend the property and interests of those who control and direct the regime.

It's nice that you think the state shouldn't be defining moralistic standards. To look at that as a defining or monopolistic characteristic of the state structure can only ever serve narrow discussions on morality itself, and citing human rights abuses as relative to monopolistic morality is incredibly obtuse.

[LeftSideDown]

"It is therefore absurd to maintain that Liberalism, Utilitarianism and Eudaemonism are "inimical to the State." They reject the idea of Etatism, which under the name State adores as God a mysterious being not comprehensible to human understanding; they dissent from Hegel, to whom the state is "divine will"; they reject the Hegelian Marx and his school who have replaced the cult of "State" with the cult of "Society"; they combat all those who want the State or "Society" to perform tasks other than those corresponding to that social order which they themselves believe the most proper to the end in view. Because they favor private ownership in the means of production they demand that the State coercive apparatus shall be directed to maintain this, and they reject all proposals intended to restrict or abolish private property. But never for a moment do they think of "abolishing the State." The liberal conception of society by no means omits the apparatus of the State; it assigns to this the task of safeguarding life and property. Anybody who calls opposition to State railways, State theaters, or State dairies "enmity to the State" must be deeply enmeshed indeed in the realistic (in the scholastic sense) conception of the State.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Should be determined through a competitive system.
Oh God.

Go on, try tell us how that would work then.

[Dean]

"It is therefore absurd to maintain that Liberalism, Utilitarianism and Eudaemonism are "inimical to the State." They reject the idea of Etatism, which under the name State adores as God a mysterious being not comprehensible to human understanding; they dissent from Hegel, to whom the state is "divine will"; they reject the Hegelian Marx and his school who have replaced the cult of "State" with the cult of "Society"; they combat all those who want the State or "Society" to perform tasks other than those corresponding to that social order which they themselves believe the most proper to the end in view.
In other words, they have some weak cheapshots at Hegel, Marx and the rest, but have the exact same viewpoint that any other political group has - that the state should function to the end they consider "most proper" (how inspiring)!




Because they favor private ownership in the means of production they demand that the State coercive apparatus shall be directed to maintain this, and they reject all proposals intended to restrict or abolish private property. But never for a moment do they think of "abolishing the State." The liberal conception of society by no means omits the apparatus of the State; it assigns to this the task of safeguarding life and property. Anybody who calls opposition to State railways, State theaters, or State dairies "enmity to the State" must be deeply enmeshed indeed in the realistic (in the scholastic sense) conception of the State.

Rather, the economic function of the state - that is the accrual of material wealth which is subsequently reinvested in projects favorable to friendly entities of capital - fundamentally defines the function of the state on grounds very firmly rooted in the capitalist mode of production, grounds which have no choice but to bear some form of security firm - state or otherwise - to maintain their hegemony.

As we have plainly demonstrated, competitive modes of economic production lead rise to competitive firms within other economic systems, especially security. Since these firms have an interest in providing favorable legal climate for their higher-paying clients, just like any rational firm in a market organization, it more closely represents the interests of firms which have great capital to invest.

This means plainly that security firms are not only a central force in the capitalist mode of production and distribution, but more importantly, by filling a necessary and natural role in a competitive market, coercive pro-wealthy security is an obvious inevitability.

We have seen this rise up time and time again, typically within the context of a state structure. But the "state" is not some mystical system which carries with it some internal system, whose presence "changes everything." Rather, the state is merely a linguistic representation of the state-of-things, the state of a society, which is historically defined by specific rules and regulations, derived both from government legislation and capitalist organization.

The state merely represents the prevalent power structure of a specific industry - that is security. Just like one would be unreasonable to blame the state of the corn industry solely on a few specific corn corporations, so too is it misleading to blame the state as an individual perpetrator of this or that problem. It is the core systemic character, driven by distinct market forces, which defines both the state and the upper corporate echelon, and their respective policies.

Freeing this "market of the state" will inevitably give rise to other functionaries to fill the void - where competing entities claim or demand the same power or wealth, there must be some arbitration and coercion to satisfy that end. And it is incredibly evident that pandering to firms with more lucrative offerings will definitely provide greater, and therefore more desirable returns.

Mises proves in his pitiful tirade most distinctly that he is obsessed with abstract ideals and erroneous conflations such as "society" and "state," rather than any serious analysis into the material developments of markets or their basis.

Take the following laughable text:

Occasionally society can prevail against the individual even without coercion. Not every social norm requires that the most extreme coercive measures shall at once be put into force. In many things, morals and custom can wring from the individual a recognition of social aims without assistance from the sword of justice. Morals and customs go further than State law in so far as they protect more extensive social aims. In this respect, there may be a difference in extent between them, but no incompatibility of principle. Essential contrasts between the legal order and moral laws occur only where the two derive from different conceptions of the social order, that is, where they appertain to different social systems. The contrast is then dynamic, not static.

In this sample, "society" is defined, in contrast all all extant state and industrial systems, as the one force which "wins out" over the individual by various means, presumably unjust. Forces such as morals and customs can be seen as "coercive functions," thought the coercively enforced industrial and distributive apparatuses are seen as somehow free from this vice.

This can only be understood as reasonable from the context of an individual about to enter society. Once one joins in the system of production and consumption, the character of their labor and consumption takes on very explicit characteristics which can be understood as the symptom of the driving forces of that order of social, economic or political economy.

Since these "society-less" never have and never will exist in an advanced human civilization (at least, not in any way we would ever want) this dichotomy is laughable.

[LeftSideDown]

In other words, they have some weak cheapshots at Hegel, Marx and the rest, but have the exact same viewpoint that any other political group has - that the state should function to the end they consider "most proper" (how inspiring)!

But, if Mises were to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that libertarianism is the most moral and rational code, than the State has an obligation to pursue
this ideal to the exclusion of all others.


Rather, the economic function of the state - that is the accrual of material wealth which is subsequently reinvested in projects favorable to friendly entities of capital - fundamentally defines the function of the state on grounds very firmly rooted in the capitalist mode of production, grounds which have no choice but to bear some form of security firm - state or otherwise - to maintain their hegemony.

If the economic function of the state is absolute highest "accrual of material wealth" than you must certainly be opposed to Socialism, as it leads to the decay of capital.


As we have plainly demonstrated, competitive modes of economic production lead rise to competitive firms within other economic systems, especially security. Since these firms have an interest in providing favorable legal climate for their higher-paying clients, just like any rational firm in a market organization, it more closely represents the interests of firms which have great capital to invest.

Where was this demonstrated? If it was only in the best interest of manufacturers/industries to only provide services for the rich there would only be rich people alive. The fact is that a company tries to absorb as much of the market base as possible not just the richest.


This means plainly that security firms are not only a central force in the capitalist mode of production and distribution, but more importantly, by filling a necessary and natural role in a competitive market, coercive pro-wealthy security is an obvious inevitability.

How is it coercive? If all its doing is defending wealth gained in market transactions there is no coercion.


We have seen this rise up time and time again, typically within the context of a state structure. But the "state" is not some mystical system which carries with it some internal system, whose presence "changes everything." Rather, the state is merely a linguistic representation of the state-of-things, the state of a society, which is historically defined by specific rules and regulations, derived both from government legislation and capitalist organization.

It does carry in itself an "internal system" that of gradual corruption.


The state merely represents the prevalent power structure of a specific industry - that is security. Just like one would be unreasonable to blame the state of the corn industry solely on a few specific corn corporations, so too is it misleading to blame the state as an individual perpetrator of this or that problem. It is the core systemic character, driven by distinct market forces, which defines both the state and the upper corporate echelon, and their respective policies.

If the corn industry always, always, every three years had a crop failure, than yes you can blame the corn industry for always being at fault every three years. Its not like only some states are corrupt... they all are and they tend ever towards more corruption and more power.


Freeing this "market of the state" will inevitably give rise to other functionaries to fill the void - where competing entities claim or demand the same power or wealth, there must be some arbitration and coercion to satisfy that end. And it is incredibly evident that pandering to firms with more lucrative offerings will definitely provide greater, and therefore more desirable returns.

Yes, functionaries that are subject to supply and demand and NOT just "democracy". I believe supply and demand to be much stronger and companies to be much more responsive to supply and demand than any government is to Democracy. How must there be arbitration? There is competition for the wealth, not coercion.


Mises proves in his pitiful tirade most distinctly that he is obsessed with abstract ideals and erroneous conflations such as "society" and "state," rather than any serious analysis into the material developments of markets or their basis.

Oh, what abstract ideals? Society is different than state, how is it a conflation? Even Marx differentiates them in an attempt to appeal to a larger crowd of intellectuals who were and still are opposed to the state apparatus. Why does there need to be analysis into the material developments of markets or their basis? To quote Mises:

By stressing the historical role of slavery it has been sought to refute the liberal view of subjection and of the institution of the estate also. Slavery was said to mark an advance in civilization, when men taken in battle were enslaved instead of being killed. Without slavery a society dividing labor, in which trades are separated from primary production could not have developed until all free soil had been disposed of; for everyone would have preferred to be free master of his own land rather than as landless worker on raw materials produced by others, let alone a propertyless laborer on someone else's land. On this view slavery has an historical justification, as higher civilization is inconceivable without the division of labor which gives part of the population a life of leisure, freed from common worries over daily bread.

It is only for those who study history with the eyes of the moralist that the question of whether an historical institution can be justified or not can arise at all. The fact that it has appeared in history shows that forces were active to bring it about. The only question that can be asked scientifically is whether the institution actually fulfilled the function ascribed to it. In this instance the answer is definitely in the negative. Slavery did not prepare the way for division of labor. On the contrary it blocked the way. Indeed modern industrial society, with its highly developed division of labor, could not begin to grow until slavery had been abolished.

So only insofar as something "fulfilled the function" ascribed to it (in this case division of labor, which according to Mises is the basis of society) can it be said that something was progress or improvement.


In this sample, "society" is defined, in contrast all all extant state and industrial systems, as the one force which "wins out" over the individual by various means, presumably unjust. Forces such as morals and customs can be seen as "coercive functions," thought the coercively enforced industrial and distributive apparatuses are seen as somehow free from this vice.

Mises did not see "society" and "the individual" as opposed because they both benefit from the division of labor, i.e. they are more productive together than they are alone. It does not "win out" or "subordinate" man or his personality, rather it places society's aims as an intermediary to an individual's own aims, so that while "morals" and "customs" can be seen as "coercive functions" they do not detract from man's ability to pursue his own ends, if they did he would leave society.

Isolated man settles all his ends according to his own law. He sees and knows nothing but himself and arranges his actions accordingly. In society, however, he must temper his actions to the fact that he lives in society and that his actions must affirm the existence and progress of society. From the basic law of social life it follows that he does not do this to achieve aims lying outside his own personal system of ends. IN making the social ends his own he does not thereby subordinate his personality and his wishes to those of a higher personality or renounce the fulfillment of any of his own desires in favor of those of a mystical universe. For, from the standpoint of his own valuation, social ends are not ultimate but intermediate in his own scale of values. He must accept society because social life helps him to fulfill his own wishes more completely. If he denied it he would be able to create only transitory advantages for himself; by destroying the social body he would in the long run injure himself.


This can only be understood as reasonable from the context of an individual about to enter society. Once one joins in the system of production and consumption, the character of their labor and consumption takes on very explicit characteristics which can be understood as the symptom of the driving forces of that order of social, economic or political economy.

Since these "society-less" never have and never will exist in an advanced human civilization (at least, not in any way we would ever want) this dichotomy is laughable.

How do you define "society-less"? What is society in your definition? Most historians speak of a time before civilization (in Mesopotamia) in which mean can be said to have been society-less. So to say that they "never have" existed seems to warrant more proof than just your say-so.

There is no contrast between moral duty and selfish interests. What the individual gives to society to preserve it as society, he gives, not for the sake of aims alien to himself, but in his own interest. The individual, who is a product of society not only as a thinking, willing, sentient man, but also simply as a living creature, cannot deny society without denying himself.

[LeftSideDown]

Oh God.

Go on, try tell us how that would work then.

The same way the rest of the free-market works? Is that really so hard for you?

[Dean]

The same way the rest of the free-market works? Is that really so hard for you?


Thats another thing it has a monopoly on, but if it is also the means of determining right and wrong (what is or is not against the law) via legislation then it has a monopoly on at least the minimum of morality.

If right and wrong are determined by competition, the only prevalent norm we will achieve is that it is 'right' to provide moral norms which materially support firms with more efficient methods of wealth acquisition.

You may think there is come grand moral directive to capitalist markets, but there isn't, unless you actually support the above, in which case you support a more compelling authoritarianism than any previous generation has seen.

[Sam Da Communist]

Great report on the real difference of democracies of china and the USA.

We must defend china against the imperialist powers i believe.

China still has it's socialist potential. Workers know their rights, workers rights are better than australia's, america's and during the GFC china attacked capitalism and nationalised businesses and massively increased housing and hospital funding. The party's leaders are very afraid about the revolutionary potential of china, for example the tianimen square riots where the Pro-communist-democracy protestors got crushed by the dengist authoritarianism.

overturn of Mao's gains must not be supported. Mao's people oriented policies still exist in the CPC constitution, so does deng's. The working class in china are abundant, the peasantry are not large(thank dengs proletarianisation, and globalisation of the PRC). China has great revolutinoary potential

china still is not a perfect socialist nation, the struggle continues comrades.

[Raúl Duke]

China still has it's socialist potential. Workers know their rights, workers rights are better than australia's, america's

I doubt that...

It's probably "similar" in a void (i.e. outside of the context of laws; since each are capitalist) and it's probably worse if you consider the enforcement of laws (i.e. many corrupt government officials turn a blind eye or are part of worker's exploitation, slavery cases, etc)

[Richard Nixon]

This is pot calling the kettle black. One of the most amusing things ever written. Perhaps next year Zimbabwe will publish a study criticizing American inflation policy.

[#FF0000]

This is pot calling the kettle black. One of the most amusing things ever written. Perhaps next year Zimbabwe will publish a study criticizing American inflation policy.

Oh, it's certainly the pot calling the kettle black. It's still completely spot on, though.

[Dean]

But, if Mises were to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that libertarianism is the most moral and rational code, than the State has an obligation to pursue
this ideal to the exclusion of all others.
Why? Who is to speak for this proof-obligation paradigm? This is nothing more than vague idealism.




If the economic function of the state is absolute highest "accrual of material wealth" than you must certainly be opposed to Socialism, as it leads to the decay of capital.
I'm not even clear as to what you're saying. Are yon conflating socialism with a state structure? Even then, its not clear. Mybe you should reword this one...



Where was this demonstrated? If it was only in the best interest of manufacturers/industries to only provide services for the rich there would only be rich people alive. The fact is that a company tries to absorb as much of the market base as possible not just the richest.
Capitalist entities seek to cut costs, which translates into lower production wherever it can be maintained while also maintaining an addicted consumer base. In the context of a free market, price fixing (also by way of supply fixing) are two evident ways in which consumers would lose out while capital actually benefits more - and it is of course in their rational self interest to achieve these higher profits.




How is it coercive? If all its doing is defending wealth gained in market transactions there is no coercion.
Who are you to say? Your definition of coercion is primarily an idealist one. So, if I was to say, as a capitalist:

"The presence of these poor people lowers my property value, so please excise them from the community"

I would both be coercive (even by your definition) and acting simply to defend private property.


It does carry in itself an "internal system" that of gradual corruption.
Sure, but what makes you think private capitalist firms aren't corrupting?


If the corn industry always, always, every three years had a crop failure, than yes you can blame the corn industry for always being at fault every three years. Its not like only some states are corrupt... they all are and they tend ever towards more corruption and more power.
No, you can't just blame the industry. You need to take a materialist approach to discover what tendencies cause these failures. You consistently fail to take an analytical approach, choosing instead to "blame" people from some childish, idealist edifice. Its not meaningful or valuable.




Yes, functionaries that are subject to supply and demand and NOT just "democracy". I believe supply and demand to be much stronger and companies to be much more responsive to supply and demand than any government is to Democracy. How must there be arbitration? There is competition for the wealth, not coercion.
Why wouldn't there be coercion?

In your libertarian society, you seriously expect us to give up our entire history of coercion by various entities because people are competing for priavate property?

That is completely fucking batshit and you know it. It's fucking insanity.


Oh, what abstract ideals? Society is different than state, how is it a conflation? Even Marx differentiates them in an attempt to appeal to a larger crowd of intellectuals who were and still are opposed to the state apparatus. Why does there need to be analysis into the material developments of markets or their basis? To quote Mises:

By stressing the historical role of slavery it has been sought to refute the liberal view of subjection and of the institution of the estate also. Slavery was said to mark an advance in civilization, when men taken in battle were enslaved instead of being killed. Without slavery a society dividing labor, in which trades are separated from primary production could not have developed until all free soil had been disposed of; for everyone would have preferred to be free master of his own land rather than as landless worker on raw materials produced by others, let alone a propertyless laborer on someone else's land. On this view slavery has an historical justification, as higher civilization is inconceivable without the division of labor which gives part of the population a life of leisure, freed from common worries over daily bread.

It is only for those who study history with the eyes of the moralist that the question of whether an historical institution can be justified or not can arise at all. The fact that it has appeared in history shows that forces were active to bring it about. The only question that can be asked scientifically is whether the institution actually fulfilled the function ascribed to it. In this instance the answer is definitely in the negative. Slavery did not prepare the way for division of labor. On the contrary it blocked the way. Indeed modern industrial society, with its highly developed division of labor, could not begin to grow until slavery had been abolished.
Are you seriously posting this to "prove" that Mises isn't idealist? Are you kidding me? We were talking about a very specific issue, that is of the state and what it represents (a coercive system which seeks self-perpetuation and the defense of private property). You saying that "Marx said this or that" means nothing to me, nor the argument at hand.


So only insofar as something "fulfilled the function" ascribed to it (in this case division of labor, which according to Mises is the basis of society) can it be said that something was progress or improvement.
WHAT? What does this even mean in terms of material, economic systems? All you're saying is that "people wanted this or that, and this system failed to achieve that, so it was not a "progress" or "improvement""! That has nothing to do with the point, that is the intensive understanding of state structures which I am trying to get at with you. I can see we're failing miserably.


Mises did not see "society" and "the individual" as opposed because they both benefit from the division of labor, i.e. they are more productive together than they are alone. It does not "win out" or "subordinate" man or his personality, rather it places society's aims as an intermediary to an individual's own aims, so that while "morals" and "customs" can be seen as "coercive functions" they do not detract from man's ability to pursue his own ends, if they did he would leave society.

Isolated man settles all his ends according to his own law. He sees and knows nothing but himself and arranges his actions accordingly. In society, however, he must temper his actions to the fact that he lives in society and that his actions must affirm the existence and progress of society. From the basic law of social life it follows that he does not do this to achieve aims lying outside his own personal system of ends. IN making the social ends his own he does not thereby subordinate his personality and his wishes to those of a higher personality or renounce the fulfillment of any of his own desires in favor of those of a mystical universe. For, from the standpoint of his own valuation, social ends are not ultimate but intermediate in his own scale of values. He must accept society because social life helps him to fulfill his own wishes more completely. If he denied it he would be able to create only transitory advantages for himself; by destroying the social body he would in the long run injure himself.
Ah, he is fundamentally self-contradictory. Its not surprising at all.


How do you define "society-less"? What is society in your definition? Most historians speak of a time before civilization (in Mesopotamia) in which mean can be said to have been society-less. So to say that they "never have" existed seems to warrant more proof than just your say-so.

There is no contrast between moral duty and selfish interests. What the individual gives to society to preserve it as society, he gives, not for the sake of aims alien to himself, but in his own interest. The individual, who is a product of society not only as a thinking, willing, sentient man, but also simply as a living creature, cannot deny society without denying himself.
For his analysis to be taken seriously, we must consider society a separate entity from the individual. It is not.

I don't know if you're proving that you or Mises are more confused about these issues. Though the quotes indicate not only that he has a lot more to offer than you, your choice of quotes indicates a complete lack of understanding either of what we are discussing here, or of what Mises is saying in your quotes.

[Dean]

This is pot calling the kettle black. One of the most amusing things ever written. Perhaps next year Zimbabwe will publish a study criticizing American inflation policy.

It has clear propagandistic value for China, just like the bulk of Chinese, Iranian and American declarations.

Of course, this materialist approach - that is actually understanding the interests of parties involved - is largely lost on the crowd, isn't it?

[Richard Nixon]

Hmm... in America you can (like you are doing right now) talk about how evil and imperialist America is as long as you don't advocate outright violence but in China you can't do that. Also in China thousands of people are executed compared to the relatively careful methods people go through in America before they're sentenced to capital punishment and there's a very strong movement to abolish it.

[Sendo]

China should be defended for what gains it still has and made a solid indictment of America using cold, hard facts. Too often America is hailed as "#1" by its citizens and it's time for a wake-up call, this does a splendid job of that.

As for all this Mises and libertarian bullshit about moral societies. Tell me how allowing the free market to put a price on clean air and a non-warming atmosphere is "just" to the workers with no control over industry, the Third World, and the future generations.

[#FF0000]

Hmm... in America you can (like you are doing right now) talk about how evil and imperialist America is as long as you don't advocate outright violence but in China you can't do that. Also in China thousands of people are executed compared to the relatively careful methods people go through in America before they're sentenced to capital punishment and there's a very strong movement to abolish it.

And absolutely none of that makes what's in the Chinese report any less true.

[Dean]

Hmm... in America you can (like you are doing right now) talk about how evil and imperialist America is as long as you don't advocate outright violence but in China you can't do that. Also in China thousands of people are executed compared to the relatively careful methods people go through in America before they're sentenced to capital punishment and there's a very strong movement to abolish it.

Wow! You've really proven something about the political interests of these states!

Why does every discussion have turn into black-and-white posturing every time your beloved regime is mentioned in a negative light? How obtuse can you be?

[Chambered Word]

Hmm... in America you can (like you are doing right now) talk about how evil and imperialist America is as long as you don't advocate outright violence but in China you can't do that.

Barely, and I expect freedom to be restricted even further in the US soon unless the workers do something about it soon.


Also in China thousands of people are executed compared to the relatively careful methods people go through in America before they're sentenced to capital punishment and there's a very strong movement to abolish it.

Does this excuse the fact that many innocent people are executed every year in the US by a government in a so-called developed country?

The anti-capital punishment movement is really a seperate entity from the American state apparatus itself.

China's human rights violations are worse I expect, but this doesn't excuse the US at all. To think we must take a side between China or the US is a false dichotomy. We should unconditionally oppose oppression wherever it occurs and it is unsurprising that apologists for such regimes, such as our own Richard Nixon, are also pro-capitalist.

[Richard Nixon]

Wow! You've really proven something about the political interests of these states!

Why does every discussion have turn into black-and-white posturing every time your beloved regime is mentioned in a negative light? How obtuse can you be?

Look, I recognize US had made many mistakes and there is still room for improvement in America.


Barely, and I expect freedom to be restricted even further in the US soon unless the workers do something about it soon.

Barely? This is the country where Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn appear on TV and have their books sold almost everywhere.



Does this excuse the fact that many innocent people are executed every year in the US by a government in a so-called developed country?

The anti-capital punishment movement is really a seperate entity from the American state apparatus itself.

Several states have banned the death penalty and there are numerous politicians opposed to it.


China's human rights violations are worse I expect, but this doesn't excuse the US at all. To think we must take a side between China or the US is a false dichotomy. We should unconditionally oppose oppression wherever it occurs and it is unsurprising that apologists for such regimes, such as our own Richard Nixon, are also pro-capitalist.

I'm not excusing the US.

[Dean]

Look, I recognize US had made many mistakes and there is still room for improvement in America.

That's not even the point. When someone tries to describe specific systems of economy and politic which represents certain interests, you fire back that the US is some haven of freedoms.

That issue wasn't the point in the first place.

[Chambered Word]

Look, I recognize US had made many mistakes and there is still room for improvement in America.

Is China just 'making mistakes' too?


Barely? This is the country where Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn appear on TV and have their books sold almost everywhere.

They're fairly high profile, do you really think most people are able to oppose America's ruling class and get away with it without being investigated extensively?


Does this excuse the fact that many innocent people are executed every year in the US by a government in a so-called developed country?

The anti-capital punishment movement is really a seperate entity from the American state apparatus itself.


Several states have banned the death penalty and there are numerous politicians opposed to it.

It's still fucked up though, right?


I'm not excusing the US.


This is pot calling the kettle black. One of the most amusing things ever written. Perhaps next year Zimbabwe will publish a study criticizing American inflation policy.

Anyone who wasn't an apologist would take the article seriously instead of responding as you have.

[Richard Nixon]

They're fairly high profile, do you really think most people are able to oppose America's ruling class and get away with it without being investigated extensively?







"Oppose" in what way? Advocate violence?

[Publius]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/12/c_13208219.htm

How can the US justify such racist and sexist statistics and prisons that hold more than China's?
I see homelessness as an immense crime on human rights (especially when so many houses and apartments sit empty.
And as far as free speech goes, we have the media swallowing Pentagon fictions about liberating make-believe cities like Marjah.

Blind leading the deaf, eh?

[RedStarOverChina]

Beijing is simply trying to show the US "two can play this game" of throwing shit at the other.

I believe last year when the US went soft on China in their annual report, China paused its annual practice of publishing shit about the US as well.

So China isn't exactly standing up for the oppressed peoples world-wide...It's more of a plea to the US to stop badmouthing China, really.

[Publius]

Really? It hasn't? Most states had laws against sodomy up until some court case (my brain is fuzzy, its the morning).

Lawrence v. Texas.


Thats a moral issue.

And it was ruled unconstitutional.

There's a clear trend of legal moralism going out of favor.



You could say the states attempts to regulate vices (drugs, alcohol, tobacco) is about morality and doesn't really have a practical purpose.

There's a mixture of both.

A lot of it is simply due to taxation, or to attempts to stop drunk driving.

Furthermore, attempting to differentiate between 'practical' and 'moral' is quite hard. Drunk driving is both impractical and immoral. It's impractical because it kills people which, of course, is immoral.

[Publius]

Great report on the real difference of democracies of china and the USA.

Arguably the US isn't a functioning democracy.

Certainly China isn't.



We must defend china against the imperialist powers i believe.

But who will defend Taiwan and Tibet from the imperialist power that is China?

Hmm?



China still has it's socialist potential.

Yeah, any minute now China is going to kick out all those companies, stop exporting goods and services at extortion wage levels to the west, and go back to collective farms.

Any minute now.


Workers know their rights, workers rights are better than australia's,

Where'd you hear that, Happy Socialist Worker Issue Number #988?

What are workers rights in those Chinese iPod camps?

If workers rights are so good, why are the vast majority of Chinese paid so poorly? Why do they live in such a polluted country? Why do they work in such unsafe conditions?



america's and during the GFC china attacked capitalism and nationalised businesses and massively increased housing and hospital funding.

China's attack on capitalism by fully embracing it, while removing its potential benefits to their citizenry, is really quite impressive.


The party's leaders are very afraid about the revolutionary potential of china, for example the tianimen square riots where the Pro-communist-democracy protestors got crushed by the dengist authoritarianism.

Yep.

And the prospects for genuine democracy are little better today.



overturn of Mao's gains must not be supported. Mao's people oriented policies still exist in the CPC constitution, so does deng's. The working class in china are abundant, the peasantry are not large(thank dengs proletarianisation, and globalisation of the PRC). China has great revolutinoary potential

china still is not a perfect socialist nation, the struggle continues comrades.

China is one of the scariest countries on earth because its ruling class has seemingly realized that it can reap the financial benefits of global capitalism without paying the price that Western countries have to pay in terms of granting the citizens at least some minimal form of power in terms of participation in the government.

At least in Australia or America or Sweden there's some form of legitimate personal and political freedom, however marginalized.

In China there's nothing.

[Publius]

As for all this Mises and libertarian bullshit about moral societies. Tell me how allowing the free market to put a price on clean air and a non-warming atmosphere is "just" to the workers with no control over industry, the Third World, and the future generations.

What an ironic point to make in a post defending China.

[Publius]

They're fairly high profile, do you really think most people are able to oppose America's ruling class and get away with it without being investigated extensively?

Wait, so the MOST important and influential socialist and communist agitators are allowed to do their business free from interference, but some random who posts in a communist message board gets "investigated extensively"?

By who?

I know you have some Orwellian delusion about how the state operates, but what person in what department of the US government is tasked with "investigating" random people who post socialist things on the internet or say it in person?

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

[Dean]

Wait, so the MOST important and influential socialist and communist agitators are allowed to do their business free from interference, but some random who posts in a communist message board gets "investigated extensively"?

By who?

I know you have some Orwellian delusion about how the state operates, but what person in what department of the US government is tasked with "investigating" random people who post socialist things on the internet or say it in person?

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

He was discussing Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Not RevLeft members.

[Publius]

He was discussing Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Not RevLeft members.


They're fairly high profile, do you really think most people are able to oppose America's ruling class and get away with it without being investigated extensively?

He was contrasting them with "most people" who oppose America's ruling class.

I took posters on this forum as an example of that.

[RedStarOverChina]

If workers rights are so good, why are the vast majority of Chinese paid so poorly? Why do they live in such a polluted country? Why do they work in such unsafe conditions?How else can Americans businesses make a profit?

It's strange to see supporters of capitalism condemn something so quintessentially capitalist. Their way of existence depends on Chinese and other third-world labourers slaving lives away, yet they condemn other countries for falling prey to they themselves.