I agree with the notion that China is not an "ideological" threat. Obviously
they follow the market principles diligently when needed and at other times bend them.
That's what states do in a capitalist setting. But to claim that China hasn't enhanced
its technological and organizational competencies is off the mark. I will be visiting
China's largest science park (Zhongguancun) in Beijing in late Nov and I will report back.
Anthony
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Professor Currently
Comparative International Development Senior Visiting Research Fellow
University of Washington Asia Research Institute
1900 Commerce Street National University of Singapore
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA 469 A Tower Block
Phone: (253) 692-4462 Bukit Timah Road #10-01
Fax : (253) 692-5718 Singapore 259770
http://tinyurl.com/yhjzrm Ph: (65) 6516 8785
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Louis Proyect wrote:
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:16:50 -0400
From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: PEN-L list <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Eavesdropping on a phone conference
Doug Henwood wrote:
> But in the case of slavery, there was a need to dehumanize the slaves,
thus the development of racism. But the people tagged as
"Islamofascists" aren't the real rivals of the U.S. now - they're
mostly marginal and weak. Why should they be demonized, and not, say,
the Chinese, who are actual rivals for resources and ultimately power?
I am not sure how much of a rival China is at this point, especially
after Marty Hart-Landsberg's posting yesterday. Frankly, there is a lot
of "ideology" about the Chinese economic threat but I think that amounts
to Freudian projection more than anything else.
