China attacks US naval exercises and army spending
11th July 2011
China’s most senior military officer has criticised the United States for claiming to want peace in the South China Sea and then carrying out repeated naval war games.
Who knew the Chinese were Democrats?
Oh, wait, no … they’re Communists.
I’m sure there’s a difference. Let me think about that for a while.
July 11th, 2011 at 21:03
The mainland Chinese are not Communists, merely old-fashioned warlords in a Clever Nouveau Plastic Disguise. True Communists would not embrace the “capitalist experiment” in free markets and private control of production now taking place in that country. Those who hold power in China use the “ideology” of Communism to keep the population cowed while realizing that collectivism as previously practiced is doomed to fail. They’re just the same totalitarian asshats that China has been suffering under for millenia. Nothing to see here, folks; move along.
And what leads you to believe that Democrats are opposed to naval manouvers in the South China Sea? Another gratuitous pseudo-syllogism spun from whole cloth.
“Communists oppose naval exercises (given);
Democrats oppose naval exercises (utterly unsubstantiated);
Ergo: Democrats are Communists, or so similar that the difference is negligible.”
Really, that’s stretching even for you.
July 11th, 2011 at 22:52
Mr. Nangle a little reading would do you some good. I would encourage you read “The Forgotten Man” by Amity Shlaes. FDR was a democrat right? Many of his top advisors went to Russia (when it was communist) to study Stalin’s centrally planned economy before becoming a part of FDR’s administration. With almost every new policy, moving toward central planning, FDR made The Great Depression worse. Mr Obama (the current leader of the Democratic party) is FDR reincarnate. Neither understood, cared for or want(ed) a free market. They both were/are fans of central planning. Central planning is the main cog of a communist economy. If you can’t see the similarities between the current democratic leadership and communism I don’t think there is anything to help you (maybe Ms. Shlaes Book will help). The rest of us have been seeing the resemblance for a generation.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Forgotten-Man-ebook/dp/B000ROKXXI/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1310441080&sr=1-1
I will grant you half a point, that the Dems do want the Navy to do exercises, but only WHEN THEY ARE IN POWER. It also appears that they want so called illegal wars (Lybia), Guantanamo Bay and military tribunal trials for insurgents, WHEN THEY ARE IN POWER. This is so tiring.
As for China, we can only hope. While the Dems are tearing down the American free market the Chinese are strengthening their economic standing. Free market experiment? You contradict yourself. It is very telling that you would refer to the “old-fashioned warlords in a Clever Nouveau Plastic Disguise” and “the same totalitarian asshats that China has been suffering under for millenia” who run the Chinese economy as people who are embracing a “capitalist experiment”.
I lost track halfway through your comment. Are you defending a) communism, b) totalitarianism c) the Democratic Party d) all of the above? Seems they are hard for you to distinguish too.
It would be a good thing for you (and the rest of us) to go to China and join that “capitalist experiment” you speak of. Open your own business, say… a newspaper. Go ahead. While you are at it try to open your own church. Let me give you a little preparation. You will not be as graciously received or treated there as you are right here on this blog page.
July 12th, 2011 at 01:59
Like many a good conservative and free-market advocate, you read far too much into what I said, answering a point I did not make but which you wish I had.
I simply stated that the syllogism is far-fetched, which it is. The rest is your fevered imagination working overtime.
As for the current Chinese regime, they are no more Communist than the Mormans are Christian. They use the rhetoric of revolution to maintain a stranglehold on power while simultaneously abandoning the central tenats of Mao’s central planning, because they know that at its heart a centrally planned economy will not work in a modern industrialized nation.
In other words, they are Communist in name only. What they really are is totalitarians, pure and simple, and their experiment in free-market capitalism is calculated to mollify their populace enough that they won’t notice the boots on their necks.
July 12th, 2011 at 08:51
Forgive me if I overstated your point. Let me clarify. You responded to the host of this blog’s comparison of the democratic party to the Chinese Communist by saying that China is not communist and there is no substantiated connection between what China wants (for our military in this case) and what the Dems want. I explained the main connection to you, central planning. There is ample reason to compare the current administration (the leader of the democratic party) and communism. Central planning is the model for all communist economies. It’s what the current administration is working toward and there is nothing more chilling to a free market economy than the threat and implementation of government control. You are playing semantics regarding China:
“In other words, they are Communist in name only. What they really are is totalitarians, pure and simple, and their experiment in free-market capitalism is calculated to mollify their populace enough that they won’t notice the boots on their necks.”
Your statement again is in conlfict with itself. Are the totalitarians controling the economy or not? You deny the control but see “the boot on their necks”. The Chinese government IS centrally planning the economy of China. Totalatarianism has also been historically married to communism any way you slice it, it tastes of excrement. Stalin and Mao would certainly qualify to be called totalitarians don’t you agree?
Good Conservatives see the historical dangers in the association between central planning (or communism) and totalitarianism. We are praying that we can get enough fellow citizens to see it before it’s too late.
July 12th, 2011 at 10:20
You speciously take the conversation too far afield.
The fault in the syllogism lies in the statement that Democrats are somehow opposed to naval manouvers in the South China Sea and IN THAT REGARD are indistinguishable from the Chinese Communists.
All else is a separate conversation–though I will say that your analysis is faulty.
“FDR was in favor of central planning; Communists are in favor of central planning; ergo: FDR was a Communist.” Since central planning is not the ONLY thing which defines Communism, the conclusion is specious without demonstrating how FDR also fits all other criteria for being a Communist.
“FDR was a Democrat; FDR was a Communist (see above); ergo: all Democrats are Communists.” Leaving aside that the second statement is undemonstrated, this is facile on its face and falls into the logical fallacy of arguing from the specific to the general–rather like saying that Dumbo was an elephant, Dumbo could fly, ergo: all elephants can fly.3
Your single-issue definition of communism, i.e., that of centrally planning an economy, leads to many misleading conclusions: Ancient Egypt was a centrally planned economy, as was that of the Incas and many other nations great and small throughout the ages, yet no reasonable person would therefore conclude that Egypt was a Communist state.
Likewise, totalitarianism is not the sole province of Communists: Idi Amin was a totalitarian; Hafez Assad was a totalitarian, as is his son; the current rulers of Myanmar/Burma are without question totalitarian; the Emperors of Rome, Persia, and China were all totalitarians. None of those persons or nations are considered–or could reasonably be considered–to be Communist.
A few courses in world history and perhaps one in rhetoric and logic might help. I’m sure they’re available at your local community college.
July 13th, 2011 at 17:41
In response let me with great caution quote you. “You speciously take the conversation too far afield.” And
“Like many a good ‘Liberal’ and ‘progressive’ advocate, you read far too much into what I said, answering a point I did not make but which you wish I had”
If you continue to misrepresent me in your responses there is really no point in continuing.
Q:Did I say that communism is defined ONLY by central planning?
A:No. I simply pointed out one of the major similarities of the current democratic administration and communism is the move toward central planning which kills a free market economy.
Honestly Mr. Nagle can you not see this?
Q:Did I state that all totalitarian regimes are communist?
A: No. I simply pointed out the historical association between the two (totalitarians and communism) and we would be wise to remember the tendency. I did not generalize YOU did.
To misrepresent someone, create a strawman, then condescend to that strawman is not helpful or admirable. In your inflated response I would just like to mention you managed to completely avoid answering my points. Do you still not see the resemblance of the current democratic administration and communism even after my pointing it out? Currency manipulation, wage controls, deciding what products will be produced, government controled healthcare…
May I ask what political persuasion do you consider yourself?
July 13th, 2011 at 21:27
There is a big difference between Communism as a theory and what people who claim to be Communists actually do. This is largely because Communism is incompatible with human nature and it must be imposed [totalitarian style], thus negating the whole “we’re all in this together-ness” of it all.
During the course of the 20th century, The Democratic party, especially, embraced more and more Marxist philosophy to the point that when they speak, they really don’t sound all that different from Communists.
However, I think what Tim was driving at was the cries for “peace” and the whole anti-war airs the Democrats put on that they and their fifth column in the media put on to drive Bush and the Republicans out for their “illegal wars” (for which Bush got Congress’ permission as per the Constitution, but not the UN’s) and then turned around and attacked a country that it is still harder to rationalize “attacked” us — despite their earlier belated protests over whether Iraq had attacked us — (and then Obama got the UN’s consent, but not a peep to Congress except “deal with it, punks”) — and suddenly it’s all peachy keen.
Yup, mouth and posture peace, and conduct military operations. It’s what Democrats do. It’s what Communists do. The real kind, not the theoretical kind.
I think Tim got it spot on. As usual.
July 13th, 2011 at 21:28
Since you continue to miss the point, I shall spell it out again:
The Democrats have not been demonstrated to have opposed or denounced naval manouvers in the South China Sea, so any identification of Democrats with Communists on that basis is spurious.
Better?
The rest is interesting, but moot.
As for Democrats = Communists, let me point out that similarity does not equal congruity: A shoe is not a biscuit just because it happens to find it in the oven.
My political affiliation is Pragmatist–not that that means anything.
Have a nice day.
July 14th, 2011 at 10:33
Oh, I didn’t miss your point at all. And no, this is not “better”.
In making your point as a supposed counter-argument, it was clear that you missed Tim’s point entirely either accidentally by ignorance, or purposely through denial.
Your clarification only underscores this.
It was a more general point, having nothing to do specifically with the South China Sea. It was irony in that it was but one similarity, and similarities are not precise by nature, but general. When Tim went to explain it away he implied that he ran into too much that only added similarities (which are well documented out there). But sarcasm is wasted on people who take themselves too seriously.
It’s pretty clear that you’re a touchy fellow on the subject. Perhaps it hit a nerve?
July 15th, 2011 at 10:24
“The Democrats have not been demonstrated to have opposed or denounced naval manouvers in the South China Sea, so any identification of Democrats with Communists on that basis is spurious”
So Mr. Nagle do you see any other basis for comparing current democrats to communists and totalitarians?
I do.
And the historical animosity of democrats toward the military certainly justifies Tim’s original comment. Senator Durbin’s and the late Rep. Murtha’s characterization of the military under Bush are just a couple of examples.
Pragmatist?
July 15th, 2011 at 10:39
“As for Democrats = Communists, let me point out that similarity does not equal congruity: A shoe is not a biscuit just because it happens to find it in the oven.”
But if you put something in the oven that looks like a shoe and as it heats up it smells like a bisquit. It breaks apart like a bisquit, and if you dare, it tastes like a bisquit… it’s a bisquit… that someone tried to make look like a shoe.
If the similarities are of sufficient virility it is foolish to ignore them. If you’ve been bitten by a feral cat you’d be an idiot to think a stray dog, which has “similar” teeth and behavior would not do the same thing.