China is betting on the reverse and honestly I think they’ll win. The sheer force of will needed to cut them off from the global economy is just not there.
It's already happening. China is no longer the us' #1 trading partner. Europe is deleveraging off of china. Canada is on the verge of boycotting the chinese olympics.
Even if there weren't geopolitical conflict involved, it's going to happen out of sheer economics; labor costs in china are no longer competitive with those in neighboring countries e.g. thailand, vietnam, bangladesh, and, for the US, mexico, and there is going to be a rough demographic transition as due to decades of one child, there are fewer entry-level people to take on entry-level low-skilled jobs in china (and basically no one wants to immigrate to china because the government has stoked chauvinistic nationalism way worse than trump ever did).
Whose fertility has for the last several decades taken a historically massive hit from one child, sex-selective abortion and the policy of taking young rural women to single-sex urban dorms to provide their once cheap labor. A rural region with increasingly middle aged farmers with a rapidly shrinking highly gender imbalanced youth is not a recipe for medium to long term abundant labor supply. Certainly, China’s economy is a profligate debt fueled fever, however, their biggest bill coming due is the demographics.
According to highly suspect official Chinese statistics.
> The misallocation of resources associated with the debt fueled fever is a spent cost.
It’s not a sunken cost because it’s ongoing and must be ongoing as if it ended the whole Chinese economy would sink.
> They can deal with the population pyramid by letting the old be poor.
They’re not exactly rich to begin with. Or by poor do you mean let them starve? Nor is that a recipe for staving off revolution!
They are working hard on eliminating the language barrier.
The rurals do not benefit.
Spelling with Chinese characters is a tricky business. It is not enough to write the syllables; for each of ~1200 syllables there are several characters to choose from. Which to use in each word is purely a product of history, but the rules people learn are only for Mandarin.
It is funny that Chinese people who only know Mandarin mostly don't know this; it is not safe to talk about in China. So, Cantonese speakers let them continue to believe that Cantonese is "just pronounced differently", rather than being a whole language of its own. (Are French and Spanish just dialects of Latin?)
Italian syllables/minute: 405
Spanish syllables/minute: 526
https://irisreading.com/average-reading-speed-in-various-lan...
Italian: 6.99 syllables per second
Spanish: 7.82 syllables per second
https://thelanguagenerds.com/2019/list-of-the-fastest-spoken...
But more than that, China is hard at work at ensuring that all Chinese speak Mandarin.
Edit: perhaps you mean other Chinese dialects use different words to describe something - commonly seen in Southern dialects which inherits more from ancient Chinese. However for many common esp professional sentence the written form is universal
Source: I’m native Chinese
You are confusing written language with writing system, probably due to domestic and global propaganda efforts that have been going on for 70 years. This really undermines the scientific effort of linguists and just sows confusion, as evidenced by your mislabelling languages as dialects, and forcing the rest of the world to invent new words like "topolect" for existing concepts that the communist party does not like to be true.
My writing system is the Latin alphabet. I can write the languages Danish, English, French, German, Hungarian, Italian etc. etc. with it.
Another writing system is the Cyrillic alphabet. I can write Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian etc. with it.
So the writing system is an orthogonal concept to the written language.
As an analogue, the writing system we are discussing is the Chinese characters. One can write with it for example Cantonese, classical Chinese, Hokkien, Japanese, Mandarin, Zhuang, among others.
The distinction between traditional and simplified you mentioned is minor and not a fundamental property of the language written with it. Example: Cantonese can be and is written in both simplified and traditional.
> the written form is universal
That's not true. The languages Cantonese, Hokkien, Mandarin belong to the same family (Sinitic) but have different grammar, lexicon and word order; these differences are also reflected in writing.
This is only true in a very strained sense of "the Latin alphabet". No two of the languages you mention have an alphabet in common.
The Latin alphabet has no U or J, and while Y and Z were known to Latin speakers they do not appear in any Latin words.
Compare ø, ç , ß, and ő.
Even alphabets that appear visually similar may be quite different. The Spanish alphabet I was taught went:
A B C CH D E F G H I J K L LL M N Ñ O P Q R RR S T U V W X Y Z
The Ñ is not the only difference there.
Something analogous is true for the different varieties of Chinese; there are a handful of "regional" characters with no standard use.
But here's Russian Cyrillic for "restaurant": PECTOPAH
Can you articulate a way in which Russian writing differs from Latin script, but Danish writing doesn't?
ø, ç, ß and ő are definitely part of the Latin script.¹ Any Latin letter was added to the set at some point in time; the definition makes no special distinction for this fact.
> here's Russian Cyrillic for "restaurant": PECTOPAH
That's not how scripts work. Those are Latin look-alikes (homoglyphs). These are the correct letters: РЕСТОРАН
Just because the letters have a common ancestor, it does not mean they are the same today.
> a way in which Russian writing differs from Latin script, but Danish writing doesn't?
Russian uses the Cyrillic script (specifically Cyrillic letters from the Russian alphabet), Danish uses the Latin script.² The scripts are distinct sets. It's quite tautological when I write it that way, but I don't know how else I can makeself understood.
¹ In a technical sense, we are constrained here on this Web site by communicating within the confines of Unicode. You could look up the properties of "ø" and see that it is indeed a letter in the Latin script: `\p{General_Category=Letter}` `\p{Script=Latin}` Currently, there are 1335 registered in this set product. The properties don't come from nowhere: Unicode merely codifies what was already linguistically/sociologically agreed upon beforehand. IMO the standard is not quite as expressive as e.g. me sitting next to you with pencil and paper, but good enough for most practical purposes.
² As always, there are exceptions for niche uses and because human language is a messy concept, but we can ignore that and concentrate on the broad strokes. An example for an exception would be that names mentioned in a Latin script embedding are typically transliterated/adapted instead of remaining in Cyrillic, e.g. "Puschkin"/"Puškins"; that's a Russian word, but written in Latin.
I think something is lost in translation since first reaction to normal Chinese is Mandarin == 普通话 whose direct meaning is about spoken form. As I think deeper you are mostly correct although I still think writing language, system and the dialects need a quite formal definition and the difference is subtle. Educated Chinese learns ancient Chinese, read some book written in traditional Chinese, laugh at comedy spoken with “topplect” and watch many Hongkong Movies, there aren’t many gaps in understanding.
Historically many dialects evolves from different races that has invaded China and get absorbed(including CCP). In written form it converges to Chinese system. It makes the topic more confusing - does those count as languages
One example. Drones have proven to be a strategic gamechanger in the 2020 Azeri-Armenian war. In the same league with the musket, the machine gun, the tank, the airplane, the carrier. Who is the world leader in commercial drones? DJI, a Chinese company. US market share? 76%. It's not even close.
https://dronelife.com/2021/03/05/has-the-u-s-china-trade-war...
is there anything cutting edge about DJI products aside from volume? TBH I think probably the only thing truly special about DJI is that their software interface actually works, but in the world of "all software" it's still pretty janky (the bar is low in drone-world).
I keep waiting for a model that will do something I want (image -> language with a transformer model that doesn't have a fixed token length during training). I have been waiting for about 3 years, haven't seen it yet.
You can't measure innovation by bulk flow of humans through a system. If anything if you force too many humans through a pipeline that needs innovation you risk kneecapping progress because the separation of wheat and chaff becomes quadratically harder, increasingly gamed, and the people who actually have talent and creativity inevitably burn out and fuck off to do something else.
Cutting business ties is a playable card, but not over this. China knew. If you were the president of a country, you wouldn't either. There is too much on the table already to just give it away.
I don't think the parent post is implying they'll do anything over a writer. But there is significant awareness now regarding the threat CCP poses.
Last week Lithuania recalled their ambassador to China, and they're urging EU to cut dependence on China. Post-Merkel Germany might take a stronger stance against China, going by what their leaders are saying of late.
That changing entirely depends on who wins the election in a month. If it will be Red-Green (Social Democrat + Greens) or Red-Red-Green (Socialists + Social Democrat + Greens), it might very well be that we will cutting down the influence of the automotive lobbyists... but if we end up with the free-market liberals (FDP, yellow) or, worse, the endemically corrupt Conservatives (CDU/CSU, black) we will keep on bowing to the whims of everyone who can't grow in the Western markets.
For everyone in Germany: please vote. This election is crucial.
But as so often, things are not that easy and are more grey than black and white:
The liberals (FDP) are among the biggest supports of closer contacts to Taiwan, while some parts of the Socialists (Die Linke) argue that the Tiananmen Square massacre did not happen.
Regarding the tankies in our leftie rows... you are completely correct and I hope that in an R2G coalition the foreign ministry ends up at someone from the Greens. SPD botched it the last time with Maas and we have too many questionable comrades to fill that job with someone guaranteed sane...
The focus of the 2020s and 2030s will be decoupling and decentralizing. New trading partners will be comfortably lower down the value chain, and we won't make the mistake of letting suppliers turn into adversaries again.
You wouldn't read this thirty years ago, not when the Soviet Union still have its influence. When the US is trying to have China on its side. Shared and competiing interest is, and will always the core of any diplomatic relationship. China isn't any less commie or more worker-friendly back then, but that wasn't the focus of the conversation isn't it.
Vietnam isn't less commie than China is. India doesn't have better working conditions than China is. We aren't reading them because they are not as significant. Vietnam is simply too small, and India is still struggling to find its own way.
China has never been the US' #1 trading partner. That has been Canada, because Canada imports ~300 billion, and exports ~300 billion to the US. China only imports ~100 billion from the US, but exports ~452 billion. Both numbers are growing, year over year.
If anything, maximising interoperation with non-free countries only benefits free countries, making their position more exclusive. Say: Chinese rich are likely to settle in US and Europe once they made it, just because it's too scary to stay in China, but they spend and pay taxes there.
The world will never be "free" in the Western sense of it, because even the very concept of "society" is foreign to the vast majority of people, the concept of "public good" is foreign too, damn it, in the most countries people can't even queue: they fight for their turn to be served and everyone accepts it as fair. Not just democracy, but even freedom or "rights" in the very basic sense are not understood, or actively rejected by people from all walks of life in most of the world.
Just a thought experiment: if you could "fix" those countries, why not start with Saudi Arabia, instead of China or Russia? Extent of human right abuses in the former is bigger than in either of the latter; it's a no-brainer to invade and occupy it - it's a plain desert great for tanks and they have no nukes; and they have oil. Yet this isn't done for the simple reason - no one is going to benefit from it.
On account of them being tiny, they aren't a threat to freedoms outside of their own country. China on the other hand, is busy forging alliances with North Korea and Taliban. And threatening democratic Taiwan almost every other week with invasion.
SA has been directly involved in funding terrorism(1), they're fighting a war in Yemen for their own national interest(2), they are pressuring countries in very concrete ways (e.g. Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri's resignation in 2017 was basically forced by SA)(3), they've been trying to isolate Qatar since 2017(4), they have no qualms about murdering a critic in an embassy overseas(5), they're increasing their influence in places like Bosnia(6).
________________
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saud...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention...
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Lebanon%E2%80%93Saudi_Ara...
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog...
(6) https://www.france24.com/en/20181113-focus-bosnia-herzegovin...
Lmao what. Have you followed anything at all they've been doing?
>China on the other hand, is busy forging alliances with North Korea
You know they've had those relations with north korea since forever. You might remember a bit of a war that split the country.
>and Taliban
Just like every other surrounding country and countries like the US with business interests in the nation.
Saudi Arabia was the second country to recognize their government in the past. Pakistan was bombing for and aiding the taliban before the invasion because they prefer them over pashtun nationalists and for other reasons. Iran which was fighting the Taliban has dropped their rhetoric a good bit.
Even older, it is the classic "don't pay the danegeld" situation:
https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.htm...
Combined with the fact that the Assange situation is not at all similar, I don't see it as relevant.
BTW, even the historical example of Russian "and you lynch blacks" to the US in response to human-right criticism is relevant, as exemplified by the export of BLM as a general civil rights movement. The US/UK should still be able to criticise China, but without pretending to be a laudable moral example.
No. It is meant to encourage others to never write such things in any context. This then leads to the masses not thinking such things, after which the censorship will be unnecessary as such thought patterns will not exist. This is Orwell manifest.
Or did you just mean other people?
How many millions of people are you ready to kill in this mission of opposing dictatorships? How many of them your own countrymen, and how many of them foreigners? Just looking for an order of magnitude estimate, here.
I'd like to see the ethical calculus on this, before joining in on this maximum use of force.
Or, did you mean that everyone should talk a big game about opposing dictatorships? We're already doing that. Talk is cheap, as is foreign oil and other goods.
Even if the fight IS hard and kills many people, it is worth it right? Or do you want your wife to disappear for four years and be kept in a black prison? Or do you want to watch millions of ethnic minorities being murdered in concentration camps?
It's better to fight, risk death, and be free than to cower in fear while your loved ones are tortured and murdered.
Is it?
Those governments may be distasteful and do things you don’t like, but they’re very real and have been for nearly a century now.
i.e. they weren't voted in; they ceased power by violence.
You can't vote them out.
No one has freedom of association to form an alternative political party that strongly opposes the status quo.
Without those things one party governments can't say they are legitimate, only vanguard dictatorships.
It's 2021. People claim governments are illegitimate for any number of selfish reasons, usually disconnected from reality.
Royalty existed for much longer than that in many countries, and it was never ever legitimate unless you believed in god-given power bullshit.
Just saying you don't like a form of government makes it illegitimate is a silly proposition. You get people every election in democratic countries saying the government is illegitimate. Usually they're considered crazy. Should "tyranny of the majority", as they'd say, be considered legitimate? What about tyranny of the minority, since in many countries, most people don't even vote?
You can recognize that a dictator is the legitimate ruler of a country, while also acknowledging that he's not working in favor of the people. If someone has an entire territory's military at their command and they can write and enforce laws, that's usually a sign that they have a legitimate government.
Legitimacy based on force is not legitimacy. It's just tyranny: if you never ask people how to want to govern themselves how can you meet the criteria of legitimacy, like EVER? Holding the biggest guns does not replace agreement and contractual acceptance of how things are run.
> Should "tyranny of the majority", as they'd say, be considered legitimate
It's a hell lot more legitimate since you can actually expect to change the rulers/people in power at some point through popular action. Under royalty/tyranny, you are forced to accept whoever is at the top and you have no recourse until they die.
That's kind of a huge difference.
I think it’s more like this: Governments the US doesn’t like very much are 'illegitimate' because 'not liberal democracies'; regimes the US does like are 'important allies' or otherwise not talked about.
The whole 'not democratic' thing is more like a type of post-hoc justification for what, to many, looks like blatant imperialism. It would appear it is successful at least some of the time.
As governments get more oppressive and arbitrary in their exercise of power, it becomes harder for them to make credible claims of legitimacy. I'm not saying the Saudi government is legitimate, but it is possible for it to do things that increase or decrease it's relative legitimacy. Increase consultation and individual freedoms? More legitimate. Crack down on peaceful protests or oppress minorities? Less legitimate.
Saudi Arabia does not get called illegitimate, but Cuba does.
Pinochet was 'legitimate'.
(Which is not to say CCP or monarchies are good, just that that's not the pillar I'd attack them on)
It stays in power by a combination of active repression, murder of potential opposition (great leap, but not forward), and bread & circuses (we provide economic progress, you keep quiet), and disinformation via controlled media.
To me and many others, legitimacy requires some mechanism for the people to consent to the rule.
There’s no reason for people outside of politics to pretend otherwise. It always comes off as childish, really.
Then I guess John Cena can retract his apology...
Same with South Korea. Both countries started as US-backed dictatorships, and US backed them mainly for its self-interest of halting communism (a threat to American invested political ideals).
Like it or not the majority of Chinese people fought for and aided the communists, and continue to legitimize the communist party government by engaging in orderly civil participation.
Like it or not, anything bad the Chinese government does the Chinese citizenry are culpable because they are not agent-less slaves of the party.
People in China can participate in government. Believe it or not a government which has no finger on the pulse of their constituency or acting outside of their interests can and will be overthrown. You eventually run out of bullets—and people, if you point a gun to their heads.
Sure because they weren't US backed but they still were a dictatorship...
Truman publicly signaled the US had no intention of defending Taiwan or SK, but public sentiment changed in the US after Kim il-sung invaded.
> One can easily say that China traded Taiwan (which it surely would have been able to take back without USA backing) for North Korea (which probably would have been folded into the ROK without Chinese intervention).
Korea was also the Japanese invasion point into China in WW2, which made it sensitive for the US to mobilize in.
Definitely. A lot of sentiment against mainlanders in Taiwan was created by the KMT’s rule as much as by the communists.
Truman’s hand was called as soon as North Korea invaded South Korea while UN troops were still stationed there. There would have been no way that the USA was going to stay out of that conflict.
The CCP (not it's people) are scourge to this world and should be dealt with by all countries it has brought pain too!
Not rebelling against the heavily armed PLA is a pretty low bar for legitimacy.
You've probably been fed propaganda that legitimacy comes from democracy, but it does not. Democracy has long been seen as the least worst of any system for Americans. It is only as legitimate as those of use who fight to defend it, because freedom isn't free, and neither is our system: democracy.
Ultimately legitimacy comes from whether people fight for their government and defend their way of life, regardless of however wrong you may think it is. What is the legitimate government of Vietnam, Afghanistan? Clearly the the US-backed democratic government in Afghanistan is now going the way of illegitimacy (because no one cares enough to support it), despite being fully democratic. It's illegitimate because neither the US aid, weaponry, training, was able to get its democratic supporters to care enough to fight for their way of life. If people had to fight for what government they wanted (democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy), and a foreign nation comes in and props one of these up with advanced weaponry and military force, and still fails, is it still legitimate just because it was a Democratic government?
Shum has a decision to Publish or Not Publish (P or NP). CCP has the decision to Retaliate or Not Retaliate (R or NR). In a one-time game, Shun chooses P and CCP chooses NR, because P/NR > P/R for CCP.
A one-time game may be a good model if there's only one thing you wish to keep out of the public eye (e.g. photos of Barbara Streisand's house). But CCP will play this game many times: establishing that they're able and willing to harm their critics, even at cost to themselves, has value. It encourages future critics to never publish in the first place.