Every Chinese must watch this!

[Bussard Ramjet]

Especially the question for 42:00

@AndrewJin @cnleio @cirr

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

At 31:00, he says a very good thing.

Teach your grandchildren the lessons of the grand parents.

I think it is very important. Xi Jinping hasn't made modern China. Modern China has been made by Deng Xiaoping, and the following leaders. There may have been some mistakes on the way, but Xi is inheriting the results of those people. Xi Jinping must follow the grandparents advice of rising peacefully.

 

[huzihaidao12]

We have been peaceful rise, so?
Frankly speaking, there is a war to Vietnam in deng's age, so, you may have some misunderstanding.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

We have been peaceful rise, so?
Frankly speaking, there is a war to Vietnam in deng's age, so, you may have some misunderstanding.

Your rise began in 1980, after Deng settled some issues. Also, one speculation for the reason of that war, is that PLA did very badly in that war, which gave Deng more power to implement his reforms.

Today Xi, is implementing a very forward and aggressive military posture. Just see how the whole tensions in the region have risen.

And hence, the advice of the parents. I repeat, Xi Jinping has done nothing to get China of the present age. It was given to him, a relatively strong China, like Parents pass on their children with cash, and property. Yet, the children than become complacent and have a very different view, because the children had not seen the struggle to earn the money.

Xi is somewhat like that.

 

[huzihaidao12]

Your rise began in 1980, after Deng settled some issues. Also, one speculation for the reason of that war, is that PLA did very badly in that war, which gave Deng more power to implement his reforms.

Today Xi, is implementing a very forward and aggressive military posture. Just see how the whole tensions in the region have risen.

And hence, the advice of the parents. I repeat, Xi Jinping has done nothing to get China of the present age. It was given to him, a relatively strong China, like Parents pass on their children with cash, and property. Yet, the children than become complacent and have a very different view, because the children had not seen the struggle to earn the money.

Xi is somewhat like that.

Do you really understand what I want to say?
There still have a more than ten years of war in the era of deng's,A national policy must combin etoughness and elasticity.So, it is not set in stone.
In addition, we have been peaceful rise, you worry?

 

[tranquilium]

At 31:00, he says a very good thing.

Teach your grandchildren the lessons of the grand parents.

I think it is very important. Xi Jinping hasn't made modern China. Modern China has been made by Deng Xiaoping, and the following leaders. There may have been some mistakes on the way, but Xi is inheriting the results of those people. Xi Jinping must follow the grandparents advice of rising peacefully.

China is rising peaceful. Peaceful does not mean backing down whenever someone else throw a fit.

Edit: I watched the section you mentioned. I failed to see the connection between a series of hardship experienced by Chinese in the past seven decades and peaceful rise, which the speaker defines to be wars.
The fundamental cause of hunger, starvation and the wars experience by China in the latter half of 19th century and first half of 20th century is actually the lack of ability to successfully wage war. A militarily weak nation with large amount of resources gets picked on by invaders. Nobody really outta be surprised about this. Of course, I discussed the issue with early famine in PRC history before, its main reason is the lack of industrialized infrastructure, which also contribute to the lack of ability to wage war.
In fact, a powerful military force, one strong enough to deter invaders is one of the main prerequisit to peaceful rise. If you developed the wealth before you had the guns, someone with the guns will try to take that from you by force.

 

[xunzi]

China is rising peaceful. Peaceful does not mean backing down whenever someone else throw a fit.

Exactly, we have been quite peaceful and tolerant for years of these claimant making reclamation in South China Sea. Simply, we are fed up with it. It is time we start fortifying our possession and protect our national security from unwanted harassment from a very good friend us. LOL

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

China is rising peaceful. Peaceful does not mean backing down whenever someone else throw a fit.

Edit: I watched the section you mentioned. I failed to see the connection between a series of hardship experienced by Chinese in the past seven decades and peaceful rise, which the speaker defines to be wars.
The fundamental cause of hunger, starvation and the wars experience by China in the latter half of 19th century and first half of 20th century is actually the lack of ability to successfully wage war. A militarily weak nation with large amount of resources gets picked on by invaders. Nobody really outta be surprised about this. Of course, I discussed the issue with early famine in PRC history before, its main reason is the lack of industrialized infrastructure, which also contribute to the lack of ability to wage war.
In fact, a powerful military force, one strong enough to deter invaders is one of the main prerequisit to peaceful rise. If you developed the wealth before you had the guns, someone with the guns will try to take that from you by force.

I am not remarking that China has done away with Peaceful Rise. What I am saying is that Xi likes playing as the boss on the world stage, and is rushing things up. China should have waited till it actually became the largest economy before being more assertive.

And I plead you, watch the whole thing. Especially the question after 42:00.

Quote:

"If we become corrupt we must be voted out, to deter us."

"If you don't have a system which will allow a fundamental change by consent, you will have a revolution by force."

The biggest thing for being a superpower is to remain stable, and keep growing yourself.
Democracy may have many problems, and I am by no way a big fan of democracy just for name, but there will have to be some system to change the shape of the government if people aren't satisfied. A revolution will only be costly, for everyone.

Some things can't depend on goodwill of leaders etc. Some things have to be institutionalized. You have to form good institutions which keep pace with people's aspirations. Today the Chinese aspirations are more regarding material well being, tomorrow they will be more about fairness, or even openness. Maybe less censorship.

@ChineseTiger1986
What do you think?

 

[tranquilium]

I am not remarking that China has done away with Peaceful Rise. What I am saying is that Xi likes playing as the boss on the world stage, and is rushing things up. China should have waited till it actually became the largest economy before being more assertive.

And I plead you, watch the whole thing. Especially the question after 42:00.

I will try. The speaker's voice is rather painful to hear. Sorta of the meandering, lingering sound that make you feel that something is trying to suck the air out of your lungs.

I disagree on the "waited till it actually became the largest economy before being more assertive". The very essence of peaceful rising is a slow and gradual process. The work starts long before your economy become the largest. This is because as your nation becomes more powerful, more opportunities presence itself. The recent AIIB is a good example. While China's economy isn't the largest in the world, it is large enough that it has the opportunity to organize AIIB and expand its influence. The success will farther boost China's influence, as well as helping its economic development.

It should be easy to understand. If every nation "waited till it actually became the largest economy before being more assertive", then there would be only one voice in the world. Obviously that is not the case.

I am not remarking that China has done away with Peaceful Rise. What I am saying is that Xi likes playing as the boss on the world stage, and is rushing things up. China should have waited till it actually became the largest economy before being more assertive.

And I plead you, watch the whole thing. Especially the question after 42:00.

Quote:

"If we become corrupt we must be voted out, to deter us."

"If you don't have a system which will allow a fundamental change by consent, you will have a revolution by force."

The biggest thing for being a superpower is to remain stable, and keep growing yourself.
Democracy may have many problems, and I am by no way a big fan of democracy just for name, but there will have to be some system to change the shape of the government if people aren't satisfied. A revolution will only be costly, for everyone.

Some things can't depend on goodwill of leaders etc. Some things have to be institutionalized. You have to form good institutions which keep pace with people's aspirations. Today the Chinese aspirations are more regarding material well being, tomorrow they will be more about fairness, or even openness. Maybe less censorship.

@ChineseTiger1986
What do you think?

I have been in US for many years and I have listened to a lot of presidential election debates, as well as the campaign speeches in the work. One of the main problems I observed is the conflict between common folk's personal interest and long term nation interest or the society's interest as a whole. For example, everyone knows that you can't have a society without rules, because that is just an anarchy, yet no presidential candidates will touch "freedom" with a ten feet pole. They will present round about argument like ensuring the security of the people, which is actually simply a way to tell the voters that certain freedom has to be forfeit to ensure better things down the road. It is actually the same thing with Chinese. Government official has to present round about arguments like "we must endure hardship so our children will prosper".

The center point is that individual the whims and wants of people isn't necessary the gospel and by no means should be satisfied without taking the large pictures into consideration. I mean, I would want to work only 4 hours per day and still get a fat pay check, but obviously that's not going to work. Which is why the will the leadership and the direction of the nation simply can't be dominated by whims and wants. Instead, it must take a scientific approach and considering the actual benefit and drawbacks of policies. This is especially difficult when the benefit won't be returned until very far down the road.

Though personally I am not worried about Chinese government and change, for all the supposed "rigidness" or "doesn't want to change" harped on by the western media, the Chinese government is possibility the government that is THE MOST responsive to change. Well, among the stable governments anyway. It also went through more social reforms and fundamental shifts in economic structure than any of the western government. Part of that is because the rapid social change and industrialization, but part of that is also because the leader's ability to remain in office is more dependent on their ability to manage of the country than their popularity.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

I will try. The speaker's voice is rather painful to hear. Sorta of the meandering, lingering sound that make you feel that something is trying to suck the air out of your lungs.

I disagree on the "waited till it actually became the largest economy before being more assertive". The very essence of peaceful rising is a slow and gradual process. The work starts long before your economy become the largest. This is because as your nation becomes more powerful, more opportunities presence itself. The recent AIIB is a good example. While China's economy isn't the largest in the world, it is large enough that it has the opportunity to organize AIIB and expand its influence. The success will farther boost China's influence, as well as helping its economic development.

It should be easy to understand. If every nation "waited till it actually became the largest economy before being more assertive", then there would be only one voice in the world. Obviously that is not the case.



I have been in US for many years and I have listened to a lot of presidential election debates, as well as the campaign speeches in the work. One of the main problems I observed is the conflict between common folk's personal interest and long term nation interest or the society's interest as a whole. For example, everyone knows that you can't have a society without rules, because that is just an anarchy, yet no presidential candidates will touch "freedom" with a ten feet pole. They will present round about argument like ensuring the security of the people, which is actually simply a way to tell the voters that certain freedom has to be forfeit to ensure better things down the road. It is actually the same thing with Chinese. Government official has to present round about arguments like "we must endure hardship so our children will prosper".

The center point is that individual the wimps and wants of people isn't necessary the gospel and by no means should be satisfied without taking the large pictures into consideration. I mean, I would want to work only 4 hours per day and still get a fat pay check, but obviously that's not going to work. Which is why the will the leadership and the direction of the nation simply can't be dominated by wimps and wants. Instead, it must take a scientific approach and considering the actual benefit and drawbacks of policies. This is especially difficult when the benefit won't be returned until very far down the road.

Though personally I am not worried about Chinese government and change, for all the supposed "rigidness" or "doesn't want to change" harped on by the western media, the Chinese government is possibility the government that is THE MOST responsive to change. Well, among the stable governments anyway. It also went through more social reforms and fundamental shifts in economic structure than any of the western government. Part of that is because the rapid social change and industrialization, but part of that is also because the leader's ability to remain in office is more dependent on their ability to manage of the country than their popularity.

Very good points, but I did not mean that China should be dormant. It should change the economic system, where it will get more support if it were a bit less assertive militarily.

China's strength lies in Economics. China is 60% of US economy, with very high amount of savings and capital to invest. That is its strength. China still doesn't have even 20% of the research base of the United States. China doesn't come near in military.

China chose a path of economics first. Other powers will come, but they will follow economy.

And do hear the part on Institutions, and the importance of being able to change by consent.

I will try. The speaker's voice is rather painful to hear. Sorta of the meandering, lingering sound that make you feel that something is trying to suck the air out of your lungs.

I disagree on the "waited till it actually became the largest economy before being more assertive". The very essence of peaceful rising is a slow and gradual process. The work starts long before your economy become the largest. This is because as your nation becomes more powerful, more opportunities presence itself. The recent AIIB is a good example. While China's economy isn't the largest in the world, it is large enough that it has the opportunity to organize AIIB and expand its influence. The success will farther boost China's influence, as well as helping its economic development.

It should be easy to understand. If every nation "waited till it actually became the largest economy before being more assertive", then there would be only one voice in the world. Obviously that is not the case.



I have been in US for many years and I have listened to a lot of presidential election debates, as well as the campaign speeches in the work. One of the main problems I observed is the conflict between common folk's personal interest and long term nation interest or the society's interest as a whole. For example, everyone knows that you can't have a society without rules, because that is just an anarchy, yet no presidential candidates will touch "freedom" with a ten feet pole. They will present round about argument like ensuring the security of the people, which is actually simply a way to tell the voters that certain freedom has to be forfeit to ensure better things down the road. It is actually the same thing with Chinese. Government official has to present round about arguments like "we must endure hardship so our children will prosper".

The center point is that individual the wimps and wants of people isn't necessary the gospel and by no means should be satisfied without taking the large pictures into consideration. I mean, I would want to work only 4 hours per day and still get a fat pay check, but obviously that's not going to work. Which is why the will the leadership and the direction of the nation simply can't be dominated by wimps and wants. Instead, it must take a scientific approach and considering the actual benefit and drawbacks of policies. This is especially difficult when the benefit won't be returned until very far down the road.

Though personally I am not worried about Chinese government and change, for all the supposed "rigidness" or "doesn't want to change" harped on by the western media, the Chinese government is possibility the government that is THE MOST responsive to change. Well, among the stable governments anyway. It also went through more social reforms and fundamental shifts in economic structure than any of the western government. Part of that is because the rapid social change and industrialization, but part of that is also because the leader's ability to remain in office is more dependent on their ability to manage of the country than their popularity.

Also watch this. Lee Kuan Yew considers Deng Xiaoping to be the best leader of his time.

And the sad part, during Cultural Revolution, Deng was abhored as a Capitalist, and removed and humiliated.

He further says, Deng led a massive transformation, where instead of officials being promoted on their communist and revolutionary credentials, the officials started being promoted on their merit.

 

[70U63]

Today Xi, is implementing a very forward and aggressive military posture. Just see how the whole tensions in the region have risen.

Xi is a strong leader and what the country has been doing, i think it is good for the region.

In term of military, everyone are doing the same thing, so why not. Let's talk about the South China Sea issue, they are quite late to the party if you know what i mean. Big country do big things. I'm not here to talk about the ownership of islands and reefs.

Rise of China give more opportunities for everyone. Poor countries need to upgrade themselves to compete with China. If poor country have poor leadership and backward thinking, they can only complain, and we all can ignore them.

Remember, in this modern age, a country is weak and poor for a reason(s).

 

[tranquilium]

Very good points, but I did not mean that China should be dormant. It should change the economic system, where it will get more support if it were a bit less assertive militarily.

China's strength lies in Economics. China is 60% of US economy, with very high amount of savings and capital to invest. That is its strength. China still doesn't have even 20% of the research base of the United States. China doesn't come near in military.

China chose a path of economics first. Other powers will come, but they will follow economy.

And do hear the part on Institutions, and the importance of being able to change by consent.

Also watch this. Lee Kuan Yew considers Deng Xiaoping to be the best leader of his time.

And the sad part, during Cultural Revolution, Deng was abhored as a Capitalist, and removed and humiliated.

He further says, Deng led a massive transformation, where instead of officials being promoted on their communist and revolutionary credentials, the officials started being promoted on their merit.

I don't get the "It should change the economic system, where it will get more support if it were a bit less assertive militarily" part. Just observe the Americans and Vietnamese. American presidential candidates has been screaming East Asia pivot this, tough on China that. I mean, the "who can be tougher on China" game has been going on in US presidential election for more than a decade. I honestly don't see that having any impact on Chinese economy. Similarly, given by how venomously some of the Vietnamese posters are against China, you'd think the two countries will be mortal enemies, but trade relationship between the two countries has only grown in the recent years.

Look, China asserting its influence pisses off a lot of people, ranging from simply bruised ego to actual conflict of interest, but there really hasn't been any tangible drawbacks on Chinese economic. Just look at how fast the Europeans jumped into AIIB.

This has several reasons, not the least is because the Chinese rise is actually peaceful. I mean, Vietnamese gets pissed off because their slice of pie in SCS is getting smaller because of the rise of China, but since China isn't actually threatening their mainland, the worst that could happen to them would be lost influence and bruised ego. Their lives are not in the least bit of jeopardy, so while the bitter pill is difficult to swallow, it is better than severing ties with China which is akin to getting off a hand at minimum.