Axeman wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Axeman wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I'm not sure it's a matter of either/or. Tibet's pre-CCP leadership was atrocious, but so are the CCP. There isn't a good guy in that conflict.
Correct. But the CCP was the lesser of two evils IMO. They at least attempted to bring modernity and secular reforms to that land that time forgot.
I'm not sure where I stand, I find them each abhorrent for different reasons but I will link back to this if ever I need to remind you which one of us has openly defended a Marxist dictatorship.

The Chinese are running one of the largest capitalist operations on the planet.
I'd say just like everywhere else their economy balances mercantilist, capitalist and socialist traits. It's a totalitarian state built around and off of exploitation. If prestige and GDP are one's standards for evaluating success, it can be claimed to be a success. If human rights and concern for the average person's well-being are the main measures it's harder to claim it's a success.
I'm not a Trot, but the term they like, 'state capitalist' seems fairly accurate.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.