On 9ÔÂ7ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç1ʱ04·Ö, "Chom Noamsky"  wrote:
>  wrote in message:
> > But you are not white trash, and white trash would not have understood
> > it is meant for the government or the form of political system in
> > China, because to do so would have required a certain amount of
> > education in economics education which they do not have.  Thus Jack
> > Cafferty either does not have the knowledge himself or would have
> > found it very difficult to explain to the low lives who constitute his
> > popular audience; he simply went ahead to bash 'Chinese'....
>
> You are tilting at windmills, poon.  China IS governed by goons and thugs
> which is obviously what Cafferty was referring to.  Your thread is based on
> the logic that the best defense is an offense, so you've come up with your
> racist 'white trash' label to deflect reasonable criticism.  In my opinion
> the Beijing Games exposed what an unjust joke Chinese society really is.

Even a 'well read' person in another post said that the Chinese
government cannot function without a compliant people.  What can you
expect from Jack Cafferty to do with those who are less well read then
you are?  You have not lived under Hilter, Stalin, or Mao and thus you
don't even know that dictatorial control means.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:12:00 GMT, "Chom Noamsky"  wrote:

> wrote in message:
>
>> Go read some books on how people live under Stalin.  I know it is
>> difficult for you to imagine.  Dictators of that sort took away
>> people's economic freedom first and then political freedom.
>
>So China ended up with the consolation prize... economic freedom but no 
>political freedom.  It's otherwise known as Free Market Stalinism.

False. It's called fee market socialism.

  I can't 
>think of a better structure under which to exploit that huge surplus of 
>Chinese labour.  People are very productive when they are kept in an 
>artificially competitive environment.  It's almost like it was designed that 
>way.

It's part of learning curve. Neo-liberalism is such a strong force
that not even the Americans themselves can handle without compromise.

>
>Just out of curiosity, have you compared the original objectives of Marxism 
>to what China is today?  Isn't it interesting how not a single Marxist state 
>has ever succeeded in achieving its goals? 

There is no such thing as a Marxist state. Karl Marx never said
anything about a Marxist state. What drug have you been taking?