With more than two billion residents, the world’s most spoken language and a booming economy, China is undoubtedly a rising global superpower. Suddenly America is faced with the prospect of a country whose financial and military power could soon rival its own, prompting many to wonder if China is a friend or foe. Is China really a red flag for the U.S.?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
I wonder how this arguer got verified as an expert. Surely an 'expert' discussing China and Communism would know that despite popular opinion, China is anything but Communist.
- Blue Linchpin
December 16, 2008 2:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
China is technically classified as a socialist republic ruled by the COMMUNIST Party of China. Hmm. Just because the CCP now goes by the PRC doesn't mean they're no longer communist. Hu Jintao leads China according to Marxist and Maoist ideology. Sounds like communism to me.
You may think I'm oversimplifying, but I'm not. The PRC's ideology promotes a classless, stateless society based on common ownership - very, very communistic of them. Especially since they rid their country of anyone who opposes such an ideology.
- Livvy March 27, 2009 7:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I don't know which part of your response is most reprehensible; the fact that you changed the subject from China to Zimbabwe, or that you took three months to think of a reply, or your condescending use of the word "dear."
You don't need to educate me on Africa, as I'm willing to bet big money that I have much more experience with the country and its people than you have. As for China being "anything but communist" I'm interested to know what your version of communism consists of. Maybe you and Hu Jintao should have a chat with each other.
- Livvy June 11, 2009 2:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I really do. All I have to do, all day, is sit around and debate with you. In fact, that's what I've been doing all this time--just thinking of a response! It's true.
Wow, what an arrogant, self-absorbed creep you are.
My point was that governments and politicians call themselves all sorts of things, and only an idiot like yourself believes them and takes it at face value. What politicians say should never be the first measure of what something is.
Communism is a stateless, classless society where all property is abolished/owned commonly. You're free to argue that all attempts at introducing communism (which have so far been only via Marxism, ie, introducing socialism first, which introduces a corrupt and authoritarian government) lead to something not-communist, but that doesn't change the definition of communism.
I'm really sorry, I know, it sucks not to be able to frame debates to your advantage.
- Blue Linchpin June 11, 2009 7:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Idiot? Creep? If you can't do better than that well...good luck becoming a journalist.
I get your point. I do. And I never take what someone says at face value. But that's another matter!
Ponder with me, won't you, the differences between ideologies and reality. On paper, most forms of government look absolutely functional (some, even desirable). I don't think Mao Zedong's ideologies incorporated the possibility (or probability) of anything like the Tienanmen Square massacre happening. Nevertheless, his legacy opened wide the possibility for just such an event.
All forms of government have a propensity to collapse themselves under their own ideologies - as you said, communism becoming not-communist. For instance, we are classified as a capitalist society , however, capitalism depends on competition. The great compromiser of our society is the monopoly. Once one is established and becomes completely lateral it is virtually impossible for competition to exist. Ironically, monopolies are made possible because of capitalism - the very thing that they destroy. So of course, intervention is required.
Communism (and socialism, for that matter) lend themselves more to negative, rather than positive financial incentives. This absolutely promotes greed and selfishness in a widespread fashion which is not conducive to either communism or socialism.
What I'm getting at here is that pure ideologies really don't exist anywhere. There is no completely democratic, communist, capitalist, socialist, or Marxist country in the world. Whatever state we are in at this time, it is due to the to the ideologies that the masses have adhered to up to this point. So to say that China is a Communist country isn't technically correct, but to say that it is "anything but communist" isn't quite right either.
I'm curious - what DO you want people to classify China as?
- Livvy June 11, 2009 11:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
Of course China is a threat to the US and the rest of the world. There is no nation that is not a threat to all others, because all are formed to create and sustain their own lifestyle/culture in a global competitive environment. As resources, from energy to minerals and other necessities (water, food crops, fish), are becoming more scarce, international competition continues to increase.
It is largely a matter of degree. Mexico is not a threat because it has no army of significance, no navy, and no nukes. There are a hundred other countries in the same boat. Their competitive form tends to be cheap labor, poverty, high birth rate, World Bank projects, and export of illegal substances to first-world countries who keep the prices high through prohibition (Afghanistan matches similar characteristics). While they have some resources (including oil) these are controlled by corrupt governments whose income and wealth is personal rather than national.
China, OTOH, (and India) are both nuclear powers with large populations and a need for expanded resource bases. While they have their share of oligarchy and corruption, they are raising the tide of expectations through their prosperity.
When Chinese military officials talk about wanting an aircraft carrier for "defensive" purposes (and likewise their 60 submarines, missiles, etc.) they're blowing smoke rings. China is preparing for the day that someone cuts off their access to wood from Brazil, oil from Africa, tin from Bolivia, or any other "necessity" to their economy. If the US is the agency of that cutoff, then expect another single or multiple series of proxy wars through smaller countries pitting US technology against China's production capacity (althoug China has also relentlessly copied technology and increased its engineering capacity). Taiwan is the most immediate candidate for such a proxy war but it is not capable of sustained resistance without direct US involvement - which will be the subject of a series of bluffs similar to Saddam's bluffing before invading Kuwait. In fact, the US response to the Kuwait invasion is probably the only thing giving pause to China's leadership.
Bottom line, China has not forgotten its own history from exploitation to war to occupation to revolution to commercial domination. It was always on the bottom of those events, and is now steadily turning the tables, moving to the top. We may not want (and probably should not) want war with China, but we're going to have to find strategies that contain their influence and economic power without provoking the dragon into action.
- fire1 November 19, 2008 12:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This questions falls on the thinnest of lines, and requires one to understand that China is, and is not, a threat, at the same time. The question is that broad.
But, the author here raises a great point. What is it that the international community will do? Sit back and watch a superpower rise to the top of the food chain, unchecked, and unleash hell on earth (as we have seen in the past). Or, will it get invoived, and remain involved, in guiding this waking giant into its fold?
For me, the question is this: Is the international community a threat to itself?
- stu November 20, 2008 9:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I have no proof since I am not up-to-date on foreign affairs but I have for the past four years felt our biggest threat to safety was from China.
Imagine, God forbid, China and Japan join forces, unlikely but hey, and they pay Britain off or convince Britain to not help us, and they invade through Canada, what real chances would we have? I would be pressed to say we would win that one, even though I love my country it would not be strong enough, I dont think, without Gods help against this force, and you know how much our leaders are divorcing us from God being the leader or protector of this country ie removing Under God in our salute and making that unconstititional along with prayer , even silent prayer, in schools...divorcing America from God is a very big mistake.Just my thoughts.
- Hope7 July 13, 2009 8:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
China's leadership is passionate about three essential principles; absolute authority, territorial and political sovereignty and sustained economic growth. These men and women, who are well into their 60's,70's and 80's, have known civil and world war, foreign occupation,manipulation and internal revolution/threats on a scale no other country other than Russia, can imagine. They know from firsthand experience, that a nation with more than a billion people can become a dangerous combination of conflicting causes, economic disasters in the making and social crises, in an instant. Their answer to riding this ferocious and potentially lethal Tiger is to harness it with an authority and firmness that, in and of itself, guarantees that someday they will lose control.
They also know that there are very few Communists in China, a larger minority of " rice" Communists, ie: those who will support the party as long as their stomaches are full and the vast majority who are highly nationalistic but couldn't care less about who runs China, as long as their futures look better than their pasts.
These men also remember that China had been ruled by foreign powers for almost 200 years and most recently the Japanese who had almost dismembered their homeland. They remember the disdain most foeigners had for all things Chinese and how Chinese had, until Sun-Yat-Sen liberated them from Manchu Feudalism, been passive spectators in their own land. They have each vowed never to let this happen again and so they react very badly to what they percieve as or interpret to be foreign intereference in their internal affairs and foreign hypocrisy for even trying to intervene at all. These leaders have the vast majority of their fellow Chinese behind them, and most Chinese both nationally and internationally share their sentiments.
The last of these three principles is the most crucial for China and this government's survival ,both in the short and medium term. China has to ensure that there are enough jobs and economic prosperity to satisfy the rapidly expanding urban populations in the major cities,which represent about 40% of the entire population and at the same time spread the wealth to the rural areas. Any revolution since the time of the Mongols, has begun in China's rural areas and if the peasants become disenchanted en masse with a percieved or real lack of positive prospects for improving their lives and those of their children, then serious trouble is on the horizon.
Therefore, if any of the above are threatened or become unstable, the leaders and the Party are threatened. Since they are very pragmatic and utilitarian leaders, they will quickly place the blame on one or more of their favourite demons; foreign influences (usually the US and its allies), capitalism and its inherent evils, Taiwan and /or Japan, Western imperialism etc.This is where the real danger lies. China's superpower status is, in fact, a stabilising and reassuring phenomena. This global superpower status can only help it remain balanced and responsible. The greatest danger to China AND the West is the spectre of massive and devastating unemployment, economic decline and social destabilisation which the recession promises to inflict on it and the rest of the world over the next few years.
The leadership knows that any nuclear confrontation with the West or any other power could quickly turn into a death sentence for hundreds of millions of people in China and worldwide and mean the end of their nation as we know it today. China wants desperately to be respected and aknowledged as a great people, to live in security and prosperity and be a respected member of the international community, thus the spectacle and grandeur of the Beijing Olympics. But they will not be pushed around, manipulated or bullied by anyone, friend or foe. As long as foreigners show an open-mindedness and willingness to dialogue on equal terms with China, and as long as these leaders are able to keep the lid on, there is little to fear from China.
- weedonald
December 22, 2008 12:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Too Soon to Tell
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Is China a Threat to the U.S.?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
too soon
The fact they are communist gives us the indication that they don't' respect individual rights. Any government that doesn't protect individual rights is not much of a government or a nation. They will likely rot themselves out because of communism, like Russia - or there will be some type of uprising of the people...either way China can't continue like it is if it want to be like USA. USA shouldn't have to worry, we are so far beyond China in defense technology. The only thing USA has to worry about is the economic/financial war - USA screwed themselves there.
- selfish November 21, 2008 5:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Too Soon to Tell
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
too soon dreaming on
What government respects individual rights? The US? Read about the treatment of Japenese Americans, read about the treatemenmt of Blacks, read about the treatment of Jews, read about the treatment of Mormons, read about the treatment of Catholics, read about the treatment of witches---all these abuses occurred here in the US despite a constitution , a congress, a court system. When the powere want something done they just do it. Look to Bushs waterboarding for an example just in the recent past.
Folks, individual rights is a red herring to distract the people and benefit somebody who wants power or is in power. If we want friendly relations with China the US needs to respect China and firmely agree and disagree when necessary with Chinese policy. Trade and other bilateral relations will breck down the barriers just like they broke the Soviet Union. China is becoming more like the west every day. People in China do protest conditions , and somethimes they effect change. The government of China cannot suddenly pull the plug on control or the competing forces in China would split the country into fighting feudal regions just like happened in the Soviet Union and Iraq when central control weakened. That would not be in anybodies interest.
- comensense25
April 1, 2009 3:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not only China
Since we defend individual right so much (sometimes to absurdity) all nations that are up and coming as well as those already established are a threat. Other countries can only not be a threat when we give up the "individual" as the basis for everything and start working on logical global solutions to questions of production of industrial materials and food.
A poorly questioned debate. Lets make a list all the countries that are a threat to us. France, Germany, England, Russia, Saudia Arabia, Canada... OK, I'm not going to type out every nation's name but they all threaten our individuality because we have to place ourselves above them. Let's start debating logical solutions and an attitude of solidarity.
It gets tiring listening to the contradictions presented as logical arguments. For example, our economy is faltering because American workers aren't competitive. So we allowed US businesses to go find cheap labor abroad. Then we criticize other countries for having cheaper labor and being able to undersell us. Somehow, our "stone age" unions don't understand the financial problems of the companies they work for. Give me a break. I have an argument with union politics too. But mine start from solidarity not from selfish self interest. Let automakers and any other industry open up factories in other countries but we should force them to pay those workers in other countries the same wages as our workers make.
In other words there is way to reduce the threat we feel from others but it means we have to work together and put aside our individual selfishness and stop limiting the organization of production to nations. It makes much more sense for our species to organize on a global scale.
- mangueken
November 23, 2008 5:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Too many people, too few resources.
Of course China is a threat, they have a huge population and limited local resources. And they have already shown their willingness to subvert foreign populations for their resources (ref China's Role in Africa ). Their government is corrupt from the top down and their history and view of themselves as an inevitable force means they tend towards confrontation even when negotiating. Like any country, they want what is best for themselves, this leads logically to what is less than ideal for ourselves.
- johnpwarren
November 25, 2008 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
China is not the threat...
WE are a threat to ourselves. It is our policies that have made China a "danger" to us. It is our elected officials who have sold our country to the Chinese. It is our factories that have been shipped to China with absolutely no penalty. It is the Chinese who have bought and paid for our debt. And it is the Chinese that are doing what we would be doing had we not been through it all already.
China is a threat only if we were a threat to everyone else in the throngs of our adolescence.
- SocialistBetty
December 24, 2008 10:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Economic threat in ways we don't expect.
The way the PRC leads its country is an economic threat to us.
While it's true that there are 200 million middle class people in China, those people are sitting atop an additional billion people who live in abject poverty. Lately (and by lately I mean since the Tienanmen Square Massacre in 1989) the abject poor have been starting riots more and more frequently.
As you might infer, the PRC does not deal with rioters too terribly nicely. Riots escalate, the PRC comes down hard - a year later another riot occurs. The harsher the PRC reacts to riots, the more backlash they suffer in following years. The incidence and magnitude of peasant riots has been increasing year after year for the last 20 years. It is only a matter of time before there is a large uprising that threatens to rip the county's government apart.
When this happens, we will no longer be able to rely on China as a cheap factory. Because we rely so heavily on them for imports, our economic well being is going to be negatively affected. Like, a lot.
The real threat doesn't have anything to do with warfare.
- Livvy
March 28, 2009 12:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
They allready have you
I understand that the US has a balance of payments deficit and China a surplus. Some of that surplus has been lent to the US banks and government.
This means that the US is obligated to China and therefore subservient.
- j8716
August 8, 2009 8:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not really
They are no more of threat to us than we are to ourselves.
- rkm
September 23, 2009 12:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.