|
I'm really sick and tired of seeing people post that China is STILL communist (it's the current status that matters people, no one is going to legitimately judge the Great Britain of today by its openly imperialist days or its days of theocracy or monarchy; yet it is still seem as a legitimate and valid claim that China is communist). I just want to set things straight and put some statistics out there okay.
It should also goes with out saying that rather or not a country is corrupt, with its officials out of touch with the general populous, and acting only on the interests of the ruling class, is completely irrelevant of the party political structure. No one, literally no one, including the current leading officials and die-hard descendants of the original leaders of the communist party, is denying that China is corrupt. China has huge logistical and administrative problems, among which complications of pollution, economical competitiveness, civil and human rights, access to food and water, and overpopulation are making life extremely competitive and self interest driven, propagating social corruption and inequality. But again these are not traits of Communism, these are traits of a nation state system which is not representative of the wills of the people. To quote myself:
"Since when does the actions of a nation state government constitute a legitimate representation of the people if not by shear coincidence of elite interests being shared by the interests of the majority? List me 1 policy in China which actually constitutes Communism right now, for added challenge, list me why it's actually wrong on principle; and if the problem is with its implementation, then it's not a moral basis for argument, simply a strategic one. I can rationalize America's economical success through the legitimizing of financial institutions and monetary and political manipulation as a tactic, but that has nothing to do with rather the action itself is moral.
If you actually have regard for human life and progress answer me this: Why do you hate those who are suppressed instead of trying to sympathize with them? Why do you hate those who are powerless instead of striving to help them? Why do you hate the ignorant and uneducated rather than trying to educate them? Why do you hate those who you've never meet instead of trying to understand them? Why do you hate the less fortunate instead of being charitable?
If you do think that you yourself, as well as the population or community you represent is better morally and socially than the Chinese, then act like it and rather than simply criticizing a problem, offer solutions and help. Nothing about hating China is constructive. I for one do not identify a person by his nationality or ethnicity at all, because I understand that it's completely outside of an individual's power to influence the situations of his/her birth - let alone prejudice someone on a changing temporary political system that's also out of the control of the vast majority of the people on the planet - instead I simply use the background knowledge to understand and rationalize the experiences that person would have had."
That intro out of the way, here's some actual facts:
Party representation by population:
http://news.cntv.cn/china/20120701/100349.shtml
A recent (today) news report just came out that China has 82.6 million registered members (out of those there are 7 million registered officials and administrative personnel) of the communist party, notice that most registered members neither contribute nor partake in any party activities, and they never un-register you once you sign up at any time in your life. For example I have family members, friends, relatives who were once part of the party who have since partaken in protests (including the infamous Tiananmen square incident), have since moved to other countries, or even joined political parties in other Countries, and are still registered as a party member. This is <6.33% of the entire population figure of china (1,336,718,015 as of mid-2011, the last consensus, which has since increased), by comparison, let's look at how small that population is compared to other Country representations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011
The party with the least votes - the green party, received 6.78% of the votes with a 61.1% turnout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2012
The 5th party in the list, the democratic movement, still received 9.13% of the votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_presidential_election,_2012#Results
Again, the fifth independent candidate still received 11.13% of the votes.
Now before you cry "oh but it has to be a neo-liberal Chinese new-source trying to misconstrue and report a lower figure of Communist party members in China to make it seem like the party is losing control, with an increase in the party members smaller than the proportional population growth", this is the "STATE MEDIA" that you often see labeled in Western news outlets which is run by the government exclusively, with every intention, resource, and motivation to inflate and create propaganda for the prosperity, power, and depth of its party.
Official Dogma of the Communist party
Even the official dogma of the party in terms of propaganda, domestic and foreign policies, and economical, industrial, and financial policies have changed. Though the communist party remains in name communist, its own official dogma and propaganda is one of socialism, with an open capitalist economy where some portions of industry are still nationalized (again, not unlike any other openly capitalist country in the world) with varying degrees of protectionist policies from foreign financial powers. These reforms were carried out through the 80s to 90s and spiked after the 90s with the help of pioneer Deng Xiaoping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping) who radically changed the country's economical and social policies, especially with the granting of special administrative regions, zones, and cities, the most notable of which is Hong Kong (among Macau, Shenzhen, etc), which still holds its administrative rights and legislative rights - which is nearly unheard of in any returned property of past imperialism or any state power with exerted sovereignty.
The actual status quo of China
The country is operating with high levels of capital investment and open capitalist policies, laws, and institutions, domestic as well as foreign bodies, individuals, and corporate entities are allowed to advertise, buy land, conduct industry, earn profits, compete, and function as any capitalist system would entail. The best example to illustrate the fact that communist economical policies are not in effect are two banks: China Guangfa Bank and Shenzhen development bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Guangfa_Bank
http://www.sdb.com.cn/website/page/files/wcms/SDB/primary/en/InvestorRelations/
Guangfa Bank being notably the first bank with foreign ownership (Citigroup, 20%), and Shenzhen development bank which was the first company to openly list an IPO in foreign stock exchanges as early as 1987. Note that these are ofcourse in complete opposition of communist economical policies. Distribution of wealth has not occurred in China since the 70s, centralized labour has not happened since the 70s, state control of free industry is almost irrelevant beyond nationalized industries like electricity (which keep in mind, it's a good idea to keep nationalized, America learned that when Enron crashed its grids in California for profit).
Highlights of stark oppositions to Communist dogma
Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.
China is extremely class driven with large inequalities in income, social class, social benefit, and political power, China is capitalist and about as monetarily driven as any other country on the planet, China is formally recognized as a State with a strong nationalist propaganda system which insists that the State is a legitimate representation of the people.
Popular arguments for China being communist:
1. The most popular argument is that China is a dictatorship and censors the media and is not up to par in human rights, and thus is communist. The huge leap in logic is so astounding that I can't even put my head around it. The ideals of a Communist party are in stark opposition of the oppression of the people.
China is as "communist" in this sense as the soviet union was "socialist", when you have the largest propaganda systems in the world bend on creating an image to engender nationalism, xenophobia, fear and superstition to propagate an elite driven agenda, it's difficult not to have that image carved into your head. The United States reported that the Soviet Union was socialist to defame socialism by associating it with this terrible regime, and the Soviet Union reported itself as socialist to link itself with some moral grounds and popular support. The same thing has been happening to China way past the cold war for the exact same logical reasons, simply differing circumstances. The west is reporting China as communist to engender fear and hatred and to defame communism by associating it with a developing country with difficult to solve problems - with the extra motivation of eliminating individual models of success beyond the controls of the Western Elites (examples: Spain 1942, Bolivia, Haiti, Cuba, free elections in Palestine / Lebanon, list goes on); and China is reporting itself as communist to stabilize and control its populous.
2. The second most popular argument that since Chinese people are X (insert derogatory term here: immoral, cheap, xenophobic, zealously patriotic, corrupt, stupid, ignorant, and so on), thus china is communist. Again the leap in logic is just ridiculous, and even more ridiculous the racial profiling. And how the logic even occurs that simply because a person is corruptible or does evil links him, and the encompassing community, to a specific political party is just beyond me, crime and immorality has existed before Nazism, before Facism, and before Communism. It's literally just a carry over from the red scare which should be dismissed with irrelevance.
3. The last argument that China is communist is the official propaganda that China is communist (which is restricted to the name of the party, and appeals to authority; again the official dogma is now socialism with open capitalist economy), this is the funniest to me because on the one hand all claims by official, unofficial, irrelevant, and international bodies involved with China can be instantly dismissed as propaganda and deceit, ESPECIALLY if it's anything progressive, constructive, and had factually improved the livelihoods of actual people. Yet THIS is the one claim which has to be taken for granted. Something tells me that if China's official propaganda had been that China was a fair democracy that it would also be dismissed with as much fervor as the former.
Closing:
Feel free to challenge facts, logic's, or definitions given in this Blog, yes I am Chinese, no I am not communist, and no I do not defend the actions of the Chinese government or any other oppressive and irresponsible system, regime, organization, or individual. I'm simply calling for an end at least in limited parts on this small internet community of bigotry and racial profiling against the ethnicity of Chinese descendants, who again, had no power or ability to control the environment and situation of their birth or ethnicity, yet are victimized by negative propaganda and open hatred against them on basis' which are illogical, fallible, out-dated, and result in actions which are immoral, irresponsible, and destructive for actual progress in China's civil rights, democratic processes, economical development, and livelihoods of actual people - and by extension the progress of collective human strives for those fundamental freedoms and equalities.
Thank you.
 
|
Someone voted me 1 star instead of writing a reply (and I assume never read it either), wonderful, wonderful.
|
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36996 Posts
On July 02 2012 00:44 Caihead wrote:
Someone voted me 1 star instead of writing a reply (and I assume never read it either), wonderful, wonderful.
Haters gonna hate. Nothing u can do about it.
No lie, some people just vote 1 star regardless of the quality of the blog. :/
|
On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic.
It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view that China is communist and attack people of Chinese descent by negative association (which is hilarious because functioning Social-democracy is often seen as the end goal of democracy) all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently.
|
On July 02 2012 00:46 SeeKeR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:44 Caihead wrote:
Someone voted me 1 star instead of writing a reply (and I assume never read it either), wonderful, wonderful. Haters gonna hate. Nothing u can do about it. No lie, some people just vote 1 star regardless of the quality of the blog. :/
It's alright, I expected, I just want them to at least glance over it and form their own opinions on it using logic and factual evidence, it's not about winning an argument.
|
China is communist the same way America is democratic; the government in charge claims that it is the case~
|
On July 02 2012 00:51 Kupon3ss wrote:
China is communist the same way America is democratic; the government in charge claims that it is the case~
Popular arguments for China being communist #3, it's been answered. Yes I know you are being satirical =3
|
On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view and attack people of Chinese descent all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently.
Your try educate a ignorant,phantom crowd about a subject and than you shoot yourself in the foot with this lol.
|
I'm going to bed, feel free to bombard me with hate speech and so forth in pms, I just want to meet the individuals who would so I can try to appeal to their sense of logic and morality.
|
On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view that China is communist and attack people of Chinese descent by negative association (which is hilarious because functioning Social-democracy is often seen as the end goal of democracy) all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently.
but it is indeed that simple. and communism is not only a political structure, but a economical too.
and i gave you 5 stars.
|
On July 02 2012 00:54 Shadowpostin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view and attack people of Chinese descent all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently. Your try educate a ignorant,phantom crowd about a subject and than you shoot yourself in the foot with this lol.
Okay, so your argument is that the strength of an economy is inherently related to political structures? Alright, is this the "free enterprise will always out-compete centralized industry" argument, or the "only specific forms of economical structures will be competitive" argument? I'm saying that they aren't tied in inherently. You can obviously find examples where tactics failed or succeeded under any structure, that's not the point.
|
On July 02 2012 00:56 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view that China is communist and attack people of Chinese descent by negative association (which is hilarious because functioning Social-democracy is often seen as the end goal of democracy) all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently. but it is indeed that simple. and communism is not only a political structure, but a economical too. and i gave you 5 stars.
In truth, no communist country was ever truly "communist."
|
On July 02 2012 00:58 jpak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:56 Paljas wrote:On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view that China is communist and attack people of Chinese descent by negative association (which is hilarious because functioning Social-democracy is often seen as the end goal of democracy) all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently. but it is indeed that simple. and communism is not only a political structure, but a economical too. and i gave you 5 stars. In truth, no communist country was ever truly "communist."
China was for around 5-10 years, under a cult of personality sure, but it was.
|
On July 02 2012 00:58 jpak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:56 Paljas wrote:On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view that China is communist and attack people of Chinese descent by negative association (which is hilarious because functioning Social-democracy is often seen as the end goal of democracy) all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently. but it is indeed that simple. and communism is not only a political structure, but a economical too. and i gave you 5 stars. In truth, no communist country was ever truly "communist."
yes
|
On July 02 2012 00:58 jpak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:56 Paljas wrote:On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view that China is communist and attack people of Chinese descent by negative association (which is hilarious because functioning Social-democracy is often seen as the end goal of democracy) all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently. but it is indeed that simple. and communism is not only a political structure, but a economical too. and i gave you 5 stars. In truth, no communist country was ever truly "communist."
In truth, no country was ever truly "democratic" outside of a few Greek city-states, and even then it was limited to rich white men
|
On July 02 2012 01:00 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:58 jpak wrote:On July 02 2012 00:56 Paljas wrote:On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view that China is communist and attack people of Chinese descent by negative association (which is hilarious because functioning Social-democracy is often seen as the end goal of democracy) all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently. but it is indeed that simple. and communism is not only a political structure, but a economical too. and i gave you 5 stars. In truth, no communist country was ever truly "communist." yes
Again maoist china in the 60s-70s constituted the basic requirements for identifying a social system as communist, there was no class (forcibly so by prosecution of the intelligensia and destruction of cultural / traditional hierarchies), there was no money (everyone did work and bring in the produce and was assigned equal shares of goods, food, housing, everything), and the ruling body was the party, not a state.
|
On July 02 2012 01:02 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:58 jpak wrote:On July 02 2012 00:56 Paljas wrote:On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view that China is communist and attack people of Chinese descent by negative association (which is hilarious because functioning Social-democracy is often seen as the end goal of democracy) all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently. but it is indeed that simple. and communism is not only a political structure, but a economical too. and i gave you 5 stars. In truth, no communist country was ever truly "communist." In truth, no country was ever truly "democratic" outside of a few Greek city-states, and even then it was limited to rich white men
Current Bolivia, 1942 Spain pre-civil war (more accurately during Spanish revolution) - before anyone tells me I'm shooting myself in the foot, I'm aware it's possible to identity Spain during this period as either direct democracy, or anarcho-syndicalist.
|
On July 02 2012 01:05 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:02 Kupon3ss wrote:On July 02 2012 00:58 jpak wrote:On July 02 2012 00:56 Paljas wrote:On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view that China is communist and attack people of Chinese descent by negative association (which is hilarious because functioning Social-democracy is often seen as the end goal of democracy) all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently. but it is indeed that simple. and communism is not only a political structure, but a economical too. and i gave you 5 stars. In truth, no communist country was ever truly "communist." In truth, no country was ever truly "democratic" outside of a few Greek city-states, and even then it was limited to rich white men Current Bolivia, 1942 Spain pre-civil war (more accurately during Spanish revolution) - before anyone tells me I'm shooting myself in the foot, I'm aware it's possible to identity Spain during this period as either direct democracy, or anarcho-syndicalist.
both limited democratic republics. The problem is that while its obvious that China, for all practical purposes, is not communist, the fact that it identifies itself that way is a fatal blow to any argument against people calling them as such. There is no "pure" idea of capitalism or communism in the real world, both are simply labels to be applied to states, and if a state claims the label for itself, who are you to argue that what China now is not the definition of successful communist with market characteristics?
|
On July 02 2012 01:04 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:00 Paljas wrote:On July 02 2012 00:58 jpak wrote:On July 02 2012 00:56 Paljas wrote:On July 02 2012 00:48 Caihead wrote:On July 02 2012 00:45 Paljas wrote:
wow china, the the country with the strongest economy in the world, isnt comunist? thanks you captian obvious, for explaning this very complex topic. It's that same pain-staking simplicity and obviousness that makes people who defend the view that China is communist and attack people of Chinese descent by negative association (which is hilarious because functioning Social-democracy is often seen as the end goal of democracy) all the more angering. And also, how strong the economy is of a country is irrelevant to its political structure inherently. but it is indeed that simple. and communism is not only a political structure, but a economical too. and i gave you 5 stars. In truth, no communist country was ever truly "communist." yes Again maoist china in the 60s-70s constituted the basic requirements for identifying a social system as communist, there was no class (forcibly so by prosecution of the intelligensia and destruction of cultural / traditional hierarchies), there was no money (everyone did work and bring in the produce and was assigned equal shares of goods, food, housing, everything), and the ruling body was the party, not a state.
But wasn't the country still headed by one Mao Zedong? Doesn't that contradict the definition of a true "communist society?" That time period also featured the Cultural Revolution during which Mao removed anyone who was deemed a threat to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
