Remember that line of reasoning to the conclusion that a technologically advanced race must have solved its social problems? The Maoist version of that, expressed by Wang Li's superior, General Chou Yuan, is:
"'Some believe that the Sigman will inevitably put itself at the disposal of the people's sacred cause, when communication has become good enough for it to realize what conditions are like on Earth.'" (p. 45)
Put itself at the disposal! Of the Chinese government? We really do not know what will happen. My hope would be that a wiser and more technologically advanced alien would introduce, gradually, technological innovations that would ease the most pressing problems on Earth, thus starting to address the most immediate causes of conflict. Beyond that, it would be up to us - "the people" - how we responded to any help offered by an alien.
22 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
What Gen. Chou said was nonsense. No mere ideology can guarantee what other, non-human races will be like: either peaceful or warlike. Or, quite likely, both.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course it is nonsense and Chou is is pragmatic enough to acknowledge other possibilities such as that the imperialists might mislead the Sigman!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And Stirling has repeatedly warned us of the dangers posed by wishful thinking and motivated reasoning.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course. I hope that no one here is buying Chou's torturous reasoning.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Too many might, if something happens which does not fit into their preferred ideological mindset. I recall another Chinese Marxist-Maoist saying analogous nonsense in "A Chapter of Revelation."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I quoted Chou's remarks as examples of nonsense. You seem to be taking them seriously enough to think that they warrant a response.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because they do, because some do think like that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
How many Maoists are left in Western countries?
Paul.
Actually, the ultimate cause of conflict is the existence of human beings.
Xi is theoretically a Maoist. In point of fact, he's a chauvinistic Chinese nationalist and Han supremacist.
I think Maoism was Chinese nationalism dressed up as Marxism. I also agree Xi's China is very different from Mao's.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: the "protests"/pogroms roiling so many US universities ultimately came from academic woke leftists indoctrinating their "students" in all the fads of the left.
Before Teng's reforms discarding, de facto, Mao's brand of Marxism, China was a poor and miserable country. Unfortunately, the reforms stopped after the Tienanmen massacre, because those reforms, carried to their logical conclusion, would undermine the regime. A true free enterprise economy requires the right kind of gov't: some kind of limited state under the rule of law. Which is simply not possible in Marxism.
Mr. Stirling: Agree, what you said about human beings. And Xi is a debased Chinese nationalist/Han supremacist, with no moral scruples either Confucian or Christian.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
These protests are not "pogroms." The latter means "massacre." The protests happen because so many people are outraged by the current massacre in Gaza. The idea that "woke leftist" lecturers "indoctrinate" students (no sneer quote marks here, please) who therefore protest when they would not otherwise have done so is grotesque.
China is not "Marxist." That is one of several much abused words.
Paul.
These labels are absurd. "Woke leftist" academics (so called) are academics who can debate with conservative academics instead of just exchanging abusive adjectives.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, what's been going on at these leftist dominated universities are more and more like pogroms. Jews have been harassed, terrorized, threatened, assaulted, etc.
Again, wrong. At many universities conservatives, libertarians, Christians, etc., have been silenced, harassed, shouted down, etc., by leftists.
Not all are like that, but too many are!
Up till Mao died China had what can only be called a Marxist regime, however eccentric Soviet Marxists thought it was. The "Marxism" the regime has now is because its only claim to legitimacy it has comes from clinging to such a threadbare fig leaf.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Maoist China could not be called Marxist. Maoism was third world nationalism using "Marxism" as its ideology. The workers had not seized control and lost it. They had never seized control in the first place. They were told to continue working as usual while the Communist Party took control. Marxism is a theory of how society has developed and can develop. It is not a form of government.
Those are not pogroms. Large numbers of people have not been massacred. That is the meaning of the word.
Each of us thinks that the other is wrong. That is why we disagree.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree. The Maoists were constantly reading, quoting, interpreting, etc, the Marxist-Leninist scriptures (with Mao's "deviant" additions). I take them at their word if they called themselves Marxists.
And Mao and his henchmen were every bit as cruel and brutal as Lenin and Stalin!
Pogroms start with the nasty things I listed. The longer those pro-Hamas "demonstrations" go on without the cowardly university administrators and the hamstrung police putting a decisive stop to them the more likely killings/massacres will happen.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree. Of course they were constantly quoting Marx. Do not take anyone at their word if they claim to be Marxist, Christian, democratic etc.
Is the cruelty mentioned as a proof of "Marxism"?
Pogroms start with what you have listed? But there are not pogroms there yet nor will there be. Killings/massacres are not happening and are not remotely likely to happen. That is a complete misunderstanding. The demonstrations are about about the massacre that is happening now in Gaza. How can you ignore that? The issue is that the IDF actions have gone far beyond merely retaliating to the Hamas attack. That is the issue, not whether the student demonstrations constitute a pogrom or the beginning of a pogrom or will likely lead to a pogrom. They are not and will not and, even if they were, the issue of the current massacre in Gaza is being played down and covered up.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we are not going to agree. Everything I've read about Mao and his regime convinces me he was still a Marxist, no matter how lunatic he was.
Wrong, those disgusting "demonstrations" are antisemitic and more and more like pogroms. I deny what is going on in the Hamas/Israel war is a massacre. Hamas started the war and Hamas is responsible for all deaths in it. You persist in ignoring how Hamas could not be driven out without first destroying the cities those criminals were hiding in. Egypt and Saudi Arabia should take in all "non-combatants" while Israel annexes the Gaza Strip.
You are supporting the wrong side and a bad cause.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Calling yourself a Marxist, Christian, democrat etc does not make you one. Of course if you read texts that unreflectingly apply the word "Marxist" to Mao, then you will think he was one. You have to study what words mean, not just repeat the words.
Those demonstrations are not disgusting and are not anti-Semitic. They are against the destruction of Gaza. What is going on is not a massacre? What is the death toll so far? 34,488, mainly women and children. Hamas started this phase of the conflict and is not responsible for all the people killed by the IDF and by resultant disease. It was necessary to destroy cities? Think what that implies. Criminals hide in cities so we destroy cities? Israel should not annex anything. It has caused far too much conflict and destruction so far.
I am supporting the right side and a good cause.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then argue with Mao, who with disagree with you. Or, rather, his works.
Disagree, those sickening "demonstrations" are anti-Semitic.
Wrong, Hamas is responsible for all deaths in this war. Hamas turned those cities into military targets by hiding in them and attacking Israel from them. All casualties are Hamas' responsibility.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do argue with Maoists when I meet them. Surely you do not think that a word means whatever someone wants it to mean? There are socio-political relationships and there are the ideas with which people rationalize those relationships. Sometimes these ideas are described as "Christian." Of course national liberationists appropriated "Marxism" as a modern set of ideas to conceptualize and defend what they were doing. Marxist theory is internationalist.
Wrong. (Please stop saying that. We can both say it and it means nothing.) I do not think that it is right to destroy a city because someone is hiding in it. If I destroy a city, then I am responsible for its destruction, not the people hiding in it. You come across as washing your hands of the people living in the city. What the "disgusting" demonstrators are saying is not "Kill Jews" but "Stop killing anyone now."
Paul.
Post a Comment