Chekiddaowt - - the Chinese people are demanding a carrier

[Michael Tee]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071108/wl_mcclatchy/20071108bcchinaaircraftcarriers_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop

Usually (as far as I know) the demand for hardware comes from the brass.  This is not a good sign for anyone.  If the Chinese people are more militaristic than the brass, who's left but the Party to put the brakes on the brass?  And if the people AND the brass find that the Party is the sole obstacle in China's path to world power . . . .  ?

[Lanya]

From my reading of the article, they've just about decided to build one, and they're only waiting for the Olympics to come and be over before they start. 

[Michael Tee]

Very strange that they'd let the Olympics delay a serious project like the carrier.  A very stupid decision if in fact that's what they are doing.

[BT]

Perception is reality, no?

That is why the wait.

[Michael Tee]

In the meantime, according to your theory, the reality is that they're a bunch of schmucks without a carrier.

[BT]

Perhaps the reality is that they are an emerging economic power that is trying to raise the living conditions of the peasant class.

It's ironic that a communist nation like China embraces capitalism to reach that end.

[sirs]

It's ironic that a communist nation like China embraces capitalism to reach that end.

Truer words have yet to be spoken

[Michael Tee]

<<It's ironic that a communist nation like China embraces capitalism to reach that end. >>

What's ironic if a theory has to adapt itself to facts encountered along the way?  Why should Communist theory remain where it was in 1920 any more than American race relations theory has to remain where it was in 1920?  Ever hear of adaptability?

It might be that communism is a necessary phase on the road to national liberation or pre-capitalism or even that capitalism can be useful at a certain stage of socialist development, to be shelved further on down the road of socialism.  Even that communism itself is of limited viability and must disappear after the material and other developmental progress of a society has reached a certain point.  All of those are possible, some more remotely than others, none of them really "ironic" except to those who don't think change is possible anywhere other than in their own backyard.

[Plane]

<<It's ironic that a communist nation like China embraces capitalism to reach that end. >>

What's ironic if a theory has to adapt itself to facts encountered along the way?  Why should Communist theory remain where it was in 1920 any more than American race relations theory has to remain where it was in 1920?  Ever hear of adaptability?

It might be that communism is a necessary phase on the road to national liberation or pre-capitalism or even that capitalism can be useful at a certain stage of socialist development, to be shelved further on down the road of socialism.  Even that communism itself is of limited viability and must disappear after the material and other developmental progress of a society has reached a certain point.  All of those are possible, some more remotely than others, none of them really "ironic" except to those who don't think change is possible anywhere other than in their own backyard.

I there evidence of these vectors?

Remind me to quote you next time we are discussing the state of civil rights in the south.