Not the North-Korea we have come to know?

You seem to refuse this but let me give you an example:
Before and during WW2 the Nazis were in control of Germany, and there were no revolts(that I can think of) However at their best they got about 40% of the votes(at the last completely free election in November 1932 they got 33%) It was never near a majority, but he still assumed power after(or during) killing off his political opponents.
I'm not comparing CCP to the Nazis, but the argument that because there haven't been an armed revolution they have the people's support is invalid.

Actually my friend, there were armed resistance movements in Germany. Along with the rest of occupied Europe as well.

Reminds me of the massive amount of stuff that the Western governments are ignoring within their own border. Last I checked, there are alot of practices in Western labor [particularly the immigration-agriculture buisness in the United States] that have been called slave labor. I'm not saying that what China is doing is good or that I agree with it, but you have to recognize the Western hypocracy.
Btw: the Falun Gong are basically to China what the Taliban is to the U.S. That is to say, the Chinese government sees them as a terrorist organization. Whether they are or not is and always will be in question, but the fact remains that the Chinese see them as enemies of the country and apparently, this is how they treat them. Again, I don't necessarily agree with what the Chinese government is doing, but this is apparently how China handles its prisoners.

One thing that bugs me about the report is that there seems to be a Western trend of accusing the entirety of the Chinese government of corrupt practices based on the actions of a few. There doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to prove that the same people within the Chinese government that set up the 'do not sell slave-labor products' law were aware of the practice being carried out. I would need to see the proof in order to make the same conclusion.

@Warburg
No, it still holds its validity. If the people of China really felt so oppressed that it interfered overtly with their lives, they could and would revolt. The fact remains that there is no such movement in existence, so far as anybody has proven. In the grand scheme of things, the less than a half million democratic supporters do not amount to a good reason to turn the country upside-down in order to instill 'democracy'. And I say 'democracy' beacuse it wouldn't be, because the majority did not support it.
While the majority has not staked itself on either side - the CCP or the Democratic parties - I see no reason why they would prefer the treaterous, dangerous, uncertain path of taking on Democracy [especially in a country with such a large population that the individual actually gets watered down to nothing] to the stable, affective, predictable CCP. The vast majority apparently see the 'vile atrocities against human rights' as little more than inconvieniences and not reasons to overthrow the establishment. They live their lives under it and, I believe, aware of the things that the Chinese government is capible of, but they don't revolt. The only ones that want 'Jamine revolutions' are in terrible, terrible minorities, overblown by the Western media. I could probably get international screen time if I desided to say that I support Democracy in China.
On the subject of revolts:
The main concentration of political dissidence is mainly in Taiwan at the moment as that is the home of the CCP's chief adversaries, the Nationalist Party of China, which the CCP overthrew to get to power over 50 years ago now.
I should probably also mention that during the Nationalist Party's control of China, they executed Communists for their beliefs.

Well, for one, slave labor is illegal in the States. The practice that you talk about in the West is, illegal. As in, it's not supported by the government and is a criminal activity. Not punishment for believing that 'GLORIOUS COMMUNIST PARTY' isn't so glorious after all.

You have got to be fucking kidding me with this. China has tortured several thousand Falun Gong practitioners to death. Why? Because Falun Gong is a religious movement that has been deemed 'evil' by the CCP. The only kind of political action that Falun Gong has ever taken is peaceful protest. To think of them as terrorists, or in any way similar to the Taliban, is just unbelievably blind.

You cannot be serious. I mean, come the fuck on, read what you wrote. No one can possibly actually believe that garbage.

AGAIN, IF YOU OPPOSE THE CCP IN CHINA, YOUR LIFE IS FORFEIT. You can be imprisoned without cause, simply killed off, or have any chance of a career destroyed simply for BELIEVING SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Add to that the vicious censorship of any kind of political literature, state controlled media, and simple lack of available information and it's easy to see why people CAN'T support democracy. As well, democracy doesn't have to be popular. There is no such thing as an undemocratic rule that is just. Even if you have the most benevolent motherfucking dictator on the block, he's still a dictator. Not wanting democracy is no excuse for not having democracy.

You're so incredibly blinded by nationalism. It's just unfathomable that anyone could say the things you're saying without an incredibly irrational support for the Chinese government. Honestly, do you read what you write before you post it? Do you actually buy into the utter BS that you're saying here?

What's your point? Communists, including those around today, routinely execute people for their beliefs. I don't think you'll find anyone who supports the Guomindang of the 1930s here, but that isn't reason to despise democracy.

Yeah I'm from Denmark so I know that... but an underground armed resistance movement is not the same as an armed revolution. My point was that the Nazi propaganda/oppressive/terror regime managed to pretty much stamp out any kind of meaningful German resistance to their regime.While I don't think the CCP are that bad they certainly are oppressive, use propaganda and imprison/kill/torture political opponents and minorities.
It's a totally different thing when you talk about the rest of Europe.

1. But the U.S. government refuses to stop it and continues to allow the products to be sold on the market.
2. Glorious? When have I ever called the CCP 'glorious'?
3. Its a matter of prespective. Some view the Falun Gong as a religious instituation, some as a terrorist one.
4. I never said that I support the Chinese government in their treatment of the Falun Gong, or even their treatment of political prisoners or prisoners in general.
5. I was simply stating the Chinese government's position on the Falun Gong, not supporting it. I would have to look more closely at the Chinese government's assessments of the Falun Gong BEFORE I make a concrete conclusion about what they are.
6. One of Democracy's finest moments is when the people go to the point that they agree with each other that the regime is corrupt and they overthrow it. It is exactly how the U.S. and a number of other Democratic countries came to be. Unless of course, you are calling the U.S.'s method of Democracy faulty. In China there appears not to be that concensus. In the great population of China, there is only a proportional handful who are in support of Democracy.
7. One case so far. I would need concrete proof of other cases to make the same conclusion. Algezera claims that the political prisons contain many that were wrongfully imprisioned. I need to see the concrete proof to accept that conclusion.
8. A Democracy created without the support of the people is an oxymoron. It simply is not a Democracy.
9. If I am blinded by something, it is not nationalism. It is understanding of the Chinese prespective and looking at the world through their eyes.
10. You are just as much blinded as you claim me to be. You would force your standards onto others when they show no interest in them, reject them even. You refuse to get off your high horse and try to understand things from the prespective of others, convinced that the West's prespective is utterly godly.
11. That was in response to someone else's post. You need not worry yourself with it.

You try to fashion me as some crazied Chinese nationalist who can see no wrong with China. That is simply not true. I see many things wrong with China.
However, I cannot abide by the constant attacks against them. I present their views more often than my own. The reason for this is that if I did not, there would be a one-sided argument on this forums based on tales that grow in the telling. I try to clear up some of the misunderstandings and outright falsehoods that are claimed by some of the members of this forums. Somethimes, alot of times, this forces me to present Chinese standards that directly conflict with those from the West. I accept the different standards, even though I believe that some should be moderated or changed.
Sometimes I get it wrong. Sometimes I present unfavored arguments [by Western standards]. Sometimes I mix my own views with those of the Chinese government because I agree with them.
This does not mean that I necessarily agree with everything that the Chinese government does. Like everyone, including the 'oppressed peoples of China', I have my own perspective and judge what happens based on it.
Above all else, I believe in China's right to its own soverignty.
Others can present their standards to China for consideration, but they should learn that sometimes their standards will never be accepted. People can lay claim to 'universal -----' all they want, it does not mean that it will EVER happen in China.
They should also aknowledge that change is something that China tends to take slowly to and the change will come at China's pace, not the West's. Mock China's traditions if you will, tarnish the idea that the Chinese still have their old culture, but remember that the Chinese still think of themselves as the Middle Kingdom.
They should also remember NEVER to think of themselves as some bastion of civilization that needs to CIVILIZE others. We ALL know what can happen, what has happened in the past, based on that reasoning.

@Imperial
A very good and at some points well tought out answer.
To be clear I don't want to "force" democracy on anyone. I was and am against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do however believe in the protection of minorities of any kind and thus I can't support the CCP.
I do think that democracy (of the west) is superior, but I also acknowlagde that different cultures need more time to come to the same conclusion. I'm not saying that those cultures are primitive etc. just that they are different.
To be clear a regime can govern without the support of a majority of the people and that was really the only thing I stated.

Fair enough.

Really, the US government refuses to stop it? Why is it, then, that businesses are routinely shut down for hiring illegal workers?

I don't even understand how you managed to make this about you.

Well, someone could view the Holocaust as a myth, but they'd be fucking WRONG. Objectively, factually, speaking, Falun Gong is NOT a terrorist organization.

You are making excuses on their behalf. The only reason Falun Gong is an issue here at all is because you brought it up and claimed that they were a terrorist organization. You're just feeding the fucking party line out here.

Why in God's name would you not raise the issue of Falun Gong in China without the intent to support or lambaste them for it?! And honestly, if you know anything about Falun Gong at all, you'd not ever once fucking think to 'look more closely at the Chinese government's assessments.' You might as well find out what Hitler has to say about the Jews.

That's not democracy. Democracy is a form of government, or decision making. Revolution is completely separate and isn't always (isn't most of the time) motivated by democracy.

This statement is so utterly ignorant that I have trouble coming up with words to describe its ignorance. Mzarkisea adwny shlkran.

...

What the hell are you talking about?

You can make an AK-47 in a bakery. It really doesn't matter where something comes from. That it exists is what matters. Democracy doesn't have to be popular to exist. Monarchies, dictators, oligarchies; these can all exist without being popular. There is no exception for democracy.

Now here you go and claim to be speaking for China, and Chinese people yet again. YOU can only speak for YOU. Your ridiculous nationalism and sense of cultural superiority are not equivalent with 'the Chinese perspective.' For someone to willfully deny obvious wrongs and willfully protest obvious goods requires a uniquely extreme point of view. Even among ideological allies, that mindset is extreme. Do not pretend to defend ANYTHING but YOUR OWN point of view.

The thing about 'universals' is that they are, UNIVERSAL. In other words, they transcend boundaries. Human rights are not a 'Western' idea. They are not an 'American' idea. They are a human idea. NO ONE can escape scrutiny for infringing upon them and NO ONE can be allowed to deny them. That you want to promulgate this archaic BS about 'cultural differences' means nothing because all cultures are made up of humans and all humans are entitled, by birth, to a number of different rights. By arguing that some are not entitled to those rights by virtue of the environment in which they were raised, you are exactly like your oh-so treasured regime.

YET AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY POINT OF VIEW THAN YOUR OWN. You are not 'them' and you are not allowed to 'speak for them.' You speak for you.

Hmm, maybe because IT IS A ONE-SIDED ARGUMENT. NO ONE AGREES WITH CHINA.

No, you don't. You apologize on China's behalf. You are not a voice of objectivity and reason.

Again, DON'T SPEAK FOR OTHERS. YOU AREN'T OTHERS.

HOLY SHIT. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHAT THE 'VIEWS OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT' ARE.

Jesus Christ, you're a real trip.

WARBURG
Don't kowtow to this obvious attempt at self-righteous indignation. He's wrong and he knows he's wrong. He'll hide behind the same old rhetoric of 'maybe this, maybe that; could be; that's your point of view; etc.' When someone says stupid shit, call them out on it.

And to all those bastards out there who are the first to jump on anything that might even be perceived as the slightest dent in liberty in the West, shame on you. All you 'commies' and 'anarchists,' does your ideology really only extend to the West? You let Imperial run rampant with this malarkey, even consider him an ally, when everything that he claims to stand for (or rather, claims other people stand for) is a mockery of human decency? Come on. Leftism, libertarianism, anarchism; it's not just a meal-ticket to the anti-American buffet. There's a whole world of injustice out there, and while you don't have to start a new thread ranting about every time a Ugandan is murdered by his government for his political beliefs or sexual orientation, the very least you can do is to trash this tacit approval you give people like Imperial.

I just kinda figured you were on top of it.

Kali is beyond saving. I propose we all ignore him from this point on.

But I like Kali.

Oh I do know(at least to some extent), that's why I said at points. I wanted to make myself and my points clear.
I said that a government could exist without the support of the (majority). He said otherwise and started talking about Western countries forcing democracy on others. That's what my post was answering.
I believe the subject you're discussing with him is about something different, in which I mostly agree with you.
And what the hell is kowtow?

What the guy on the floor is doing. It means bowing in submission.

Yeah... sure that's what I'm doing...
Listen up, It's not always about winning an discussion, but about discussing it(hence the name). I'm allowed to have a different opinion than you without you saying that I'm "bowing in submission" of Imperial.
The world isn't black and white you know...

The reason I said that you did is because your post did not combat all of the obviously wrong things he said, and that instead of arguing those points you decided to pacify him by applauding his 'effort.' Instead of pushing the issues that merited attention, you went for the agreeable, (relatively anyways) non-controversial topic. His response is evidence enough that he didn't consider you a threat or your response a rebuttal.

In essence, you submitted to his authority on the issue by not challenging him on the issue, and he recognized that.

My bet is that you did this because you were afraid of the backlash that comes with going after the self-righteous crowd. Perhaps it was because you didn't feel like responding with a wall of text. But it certainly can't be that you agree with him. And that's why I bothered calling you out on it at all. Because you didn't stand for the earlier BS.

That you later ducked out when the going (or, perhaps more accurately, indignation) got tough; well I can't have him taking that as yet another point to put on the board.

The time when you should come back most fiercely is when an opponent has delivered the kind of argument that he did, the kind that makes you out to be the bad guy for daring to even question his authority on the matter or the validity of his statements. Don't let people get away with that, even if you're feeling overwhelmed.

Well if I said I agreed with you then I'm just "bowing in submission" again right?(you're basically saying that if I acknowlagde that I was wrong in a thread* I am "bowing in submission")
I usually hate to respond with walls of text as I'm a neurotic when it comes to facts. Even if I am certain of a thing I have to double check.
He could have responded to my last statement. He didn't and thus I think he conceded that to me.
I don't think USA is the shining star in a otherwise dark universe that you seem to think...
*Which I didn't.

Acknowledgement of wrong isn't the same as accepting defeat. In fact, that's what Imperial did with his response.

I suppose you could interpret it that way. But he could stand sacrifice that tiny bit of argumentative ground (the one point you carried over) for the sake of getting you to concede all of his points that went uncontested. Getting you out of the argument altogether was preferable to defending the utterly indefensible position that he sacrificed when he said "Fair enough."

The issue I took with your post had nothing to do with substantive issues, only argumentative ones.

When I entered the discussion I said I agreed with you(page 4)
On the top of the page you can see my first argument. That a government can exist without the support of the majority. That was what I argued about. You already defended my points on the rest and I had shown that I supported it, so I didn't think I had to respond to that as well.

@ Kali
Did someone miss the 'sometimes I get stuff wrong' clause of my post? Or do you expect me to be utterly perfect and never make a mistake? I'm not the only one who constantly mixes my own ideas with those that I seek to represent or state the positions of...
And of course I am not the voice of objectivity or reason. But I try not to be the opposite of them.
I don't ignore the wrongs that China has done [which are still subjective, no matter what you say], but I demand what you should demand - proof. In the case of the Algezera clip, it appalls me what they did to the man, as he appears to be a respectable individual, but I still will not blindly accept his claims that all the people in the camps are wrongfully imprisoned. Do I believe that he is right for a significant number of them? Yes, but it still requires proof.
If they were 'human ideas', then there would be no argument against them. Clearly they are not. Therefore, they are someone's standards. Clearly not China's. Again, while I might disagree with China's view of them, I will endevor to state what China's views are and do my best to help others understand where they are coming from. In spite of the rhetoric that you insist on feeding people, the Chinese government is neither stupid nor evil. It has corruption within it and makes misteps, but that does not mean that it does not have good individuals who are actually trying to help the country. In a country so large, incidents WILL happen. In the U.S., despite all of your propoganda, there are still problems and instances in which things go wrong. China is not an exception. Should they be acknowledged and fixed? Yes, but China will do it at its own pace, not others. And they will do it when it is required.
If I am feeding the party line out here, then I am not the only one. YOU are constantly feeding Western views into this.
Call it rationalizing or making excuses if you want, but if you destroy something without understanding it, you accomplish nothing.

Nobody is obligated to do as you do, or to accept YOUR view. If Warburg chooses not to restate his position, that is his choice. And for that matter, that I said 'Fair enough' only merited that I respected his views, NOT that I submitted to them.

@ ComradeLer
Where is the fun in that? He, despite his dispicable views, is the only one who really debates with me. Sometimes, alot of times, he brings up good points and I consider them and, on occasion, add them or substitute them for things that I already have a position on. His fatal flaw is the inability to do the same, adapting and changing his views in the face of reasonable arguments. I see problems in blindly submitting to others' views, but greater problem in being so stubbornly firm in their own that there is no room for manuver. It makes the arguments grow stale after a while and him to become far too predicatable in his responces, but thats all right with me.

@ Warburg
I was out for a family gathering, so I wasn't online and couldn't respond to your post.
I responded so briefly not because I dismissed you, but because I had little more to say. Your position was one that I understand and respect. While I take the 'social evolution' part a little offensively, I don't see anything else to say. You acknowledged my points and I saw nothing to contest that I already had not.

Am I self-righteous sometimes [more times than I realize or acknowledge], yes. But I try not to be. I try to find a balence and seperate my views from those who I seek to state their postions on. Again, I am not always successful, especially when they either are agreeable or so far off from my own views that I try to rationalize it in terms that both I and whoever I think will read my post will understand and find reason to respect [within reason]. That is the nature of foreign ideas. It is fatal to believe that the people that you are trying to change see your views as reasonable as theirs. Do the West's views not look just as strange and extreme to them as theirs seem to the West? Failure to realize that they will always prefer to live under their own path is fatal.