|
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?36938 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.
|
A bit of ignorance and just plain wrongness in the responses to this blog.
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, this is misleading. They classified their societies as being in the "socialist" stage of development in Marxism-Leninism (-Maoism -Stalinism -Titoism -What-have-you-ism) and building themselves toward "Communism." They were Communists, they identified themselves as Communists, thought of themselves as Communists. In truth, no country ever can be Communist, at least not by the methods that Marx and later Marxist thinkers prescribed and by the definition Marx gave for Communism. It's been shown impossible to get past the "socialism" stage as the State becomes a corrupt, repressive class structure itself.
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
In truth, the free Greeks of the Classical era would be quite puzzled to hear themselves described as "rich white men," as:
1. The "white/non-white" dichotomy was not to come into being for another 2000 years, and
2. It varied from polis to polis but you did not necessarily have to be rich, you had to be a freeman and in some poleis you had to own property, in others all you had to do was be a freeman and have completed military service.
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.
China does not have the strongest economy in the world by any measure.
Show nested quote +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~
Cynicism of this level is no different from simple ignorance.
I voted the blog 3 stars because China is not a Communist country but the author is kind of naive about China anyway.
Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:05 Caihead wrote: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.
Current Bolivia is not truly democratic and barely has even a veneer of democracy anymore. It's an increasingly authoritarian repressive state. Spain before the Civil War was not a true democracy during the Civil War only very small areas of it under the control of local anarchists for very brief periods of time could be considered "truly democratic" in the way that is being defined here.
|
I think they are saying they are communist because the government likes the control it has. But I feel like its more of a hybrid of communist/captalist. China really just wants to be like the US, use to be I think. But interesting read.
|
You're right OP, we can't really call China communist anymore. The people still live under an authoritarian state, but no longer have access to the few benefits a communist state might provide them. Unfortunatley, you can't really call China capitalist either. Sure, there is come capitalism operating within the country, but not within the context of any kind of meaningful civil liberties, so most people have no access to the market in a way that makes capitalism meaningful. So, what is China to the people? Communist? Not really, there's a growing divide between the majority of the people and a new emerging wealthy business class (that accepts repressive authoritarianism in exchange for wealth). Capitalist? Not really, it's not really a free state where people might pursue wealth and autonomy. Totalitarian is really the only meaningful word remaining to describe China, it's just a fully centralized one party system whose top priority is to maintain power that controls every aspect of Chinese society with an iron fist.
It doesn't matter that China isn't as communist as it used to be, because it's hard to even determine whether or not that constitutes progress. And it's ridiculous to claim that the condemnations of the international community are victimizing Chinese people. The issue is that the current ruling class in China is victimizing Chinese people.
If it weren't for the economic growth in that country, China would be in a state of arrested development. As such, I personally will rag on China until pigs fly (or until China makes some important changes, whatever comes first). I am not a racist, however, and harbour no ill will toward any Chinese people. If you think an attack on China's policies constitutes an attack on you, that's your problem, not ours.
|
I appreciate this kind of blog but you can't educate people who are ignorant here and who just refuses to believe anything else other than what they think is right. Mostly they are jealous of the fact 1.China will surpass US in the future. 2. Cheap Chinese labour takes away jobs in US.
|
While you pose fairly rational arguments, I think the title and opening statements cause people to pre-judge without reading.
That said, you articulate yourself fairly well, although it's clear you have some strong resentment towards those who disparage China and it's current policies.
Personally I think that China will continue to grow in power and influence, and most Americans are resistant to being challenged as the most influential country. As far as the attitude towards Chinese people, people always fear what they don't understand, and there are some major differences between the western and eastern cultures.
|
China has betrayed the ideals of Communism and has been lured into the evil of Capitalism. We already know.
|
If anything, aren't people way more critical of the huge disparity between the poor and the rich in a country that is supposedly communist? Like there seems to be a population in China that lives fairly well, and then everyone else is working themselves to death and making no money. A problem in many countries to be sure, but everyone knows what it means when they read 'made in china' on something they bought. I don't know how much that has changed in the last five or so years and I don't claim to have educated myself much since then about issues is China.
In high school they used to show us pictures of McDonalds and stuff in China to demonstrate the irony of a supposedly communist state.
|
Well I love nitpicking, so bear with me as I do a little of it.
You are one of the few people that adhere to the official definition of communism. Many, if not all, of the "communist" nations I can recall off the top of my head have utterly failed at their goals of becoming classless, moneyless and stateless. Instead, the power is concentrated even further to often a select few.
Do you know of any nation that was every truly communist, or have they all been fakes, in your opinion?
|
Communism as a whole has never existed due to the fact that communism, from my understanding, views the system as one for everything and everything for one. There's no difference in people, ranks and alike according to my understanding. Yet every communist approach has had someone on top to steer the future of said "communist" country into "favourable" ways. How can a system that claims everyone being exactly equal exist, while there's always someone on top of the food chain that makes decisions?
But while I write this, I realise that a majority of the people in the Western world are influenced by bad propaganda, and therefore wouldn't even look outside this propaganda and seek reality.
|
On July 02 2012 02:21 sevencck wrote:
You're right OP, we can't really call China communist anymore. The people still live under an authoritarian state, but no longer have access to the few benefits a communist state might provide them. Unfortunatley, you can't really call China capitalist either. Sure, there is come capitalism operating within the country, but not within the context of any kind of meaningful civil liberties, so most people have no access to the market in a way that makes capitalism meaningful. So, what is China to the people? Communist? Not really, there's a growing divide between the majority of the people and a new emerging wealthy business class (that accepts repressive authoritarianism in exchange for wealth). Capitalist? Not really, it's not really a free state where people might pursue wealth and autonomy. Totalitarian is really the only meaningful word remaining to describe China, it's just a fully centralized one party system whose top priority is to maintain power that controls every aspect of Chinese society with an iron fist.
It doesn't matter that China isn't as communist as it used to be, because it's hard to even determine whether or not that constitutes progress. And it's ridiculous to claim that the condemnations of the international community are victimizing Chinese people. The issue is that the current ruling class in China is victimizing Chinese people.
If it weren't for the economic growth in that country, China would be in a state of arrested development. As such, I personally will rag on China until pigs fly (or until China makes some important changes, whatever comes first). I am not a racist, however, and harbour no ill will toward any Chinese people. If you think an attack on China's policies constitutes an attack on you, that's your problem, not ours.
I really wonder if you've got any experience with life in China, and the way the country works other than listening to mainstream news (which exaggerate a lot). Let me tell you one thing from my experiences after living in the country. There's plenty of things that need improvement, and they ARE indeed improving. But there's an equal if not greater amount of people who live in rural area's, which find the development isn't going quick enough and exaggerate situations to get attention. It happens all the time, and when you experience life there it turns out it's not as perfect as laowai's have, but it's very decent and improving at a steady pace.
Aside of that, please do not forget that China essentially became a country after a civil war that "ended" about 70 years ago. To quote wikipedia:
The Chinese Civil War (1927–1950, though some argue that it is ongoing)[6] was a civil war fought between the Kuomintang (KMT)-led Nationalist Government of the Republic of China, and the Communist Party of China (CPC),[7] for the control of each others' territory which eventually led to two de facto states, the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (PRC) in mainland China both claiming to be the legitimate government of China. The war began in April 1927, amidst the Northern Expedition,[8] and essentially ended when major active battles ceased in 1949–1950. However there is debate on whether the war has officially ended.[6] Cross-Strait relations have been hindered by military threats and political and economic pressure, particularly over Taiwan's political status, with both governments officially adhering to a "One-China policy." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War
A majority of people forget that China wasn't an unified country before the civil war. Most of the China region was divided in the time between 1911-1928 as anarchy raged and local warlords began to fight one another, after the Qing dynasty's demise in 1911 due to the Xinhai Revolution. After the civil war of 1928 to 1949, the Kuomintang lost the upperhand and they now control Taiwan, where as the Communist Party of China controlled the mainland.
Since the opiumwars with the Brits late 1800's, the Qing dynasty was on the decline, and then almost half a century of warlords, civil war and anarchy, before they finally were able to start to work on becoming one unified nation. Now you tell me, can a nation build itself up without outside help (as Mao Zedong eventually declined a lot of Russian aid if I remember correctly) to the standard that you're used to in the Commonwealth, in less than 70 years while the Commonwealth has been spending centuries of growth to reach where you're now?
Don't be ignorant, learn your history and don't come around throwing remarks with no substantial basis.
|
I'm really curious at the usage of the word democratic in this thread. Everybody seems to be throwing around very general statement, while using pretty restrictive definitions of the term. Given that there is a huge difference between for instance what Rousseau and Tocqueville call a democracy, I'd be interested to see what people claim is a democracy...
|
On July 02 2012 06:35 Aelonius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 02:21 sevencck wrote:
You're right OP, we can't really call China communist anymore. The people still live under an authoritarian state, but no longer have access to the few benefits a communist state might provide them. Unfortunatley, you can't really call China capitalist either. Sure, there is come capitalism operating within the country, but not within the context of any kind of meaningful civil liberties, so most people have no access to the market in a way that makes capitalism meaningful. So, what is China to the people? Communist? Not really, there's a growing divide between the majority of the people and a new emerging wealthy business class (that accepts repressive authoritarianism in exchange for wealth). Capitalist? Not really, it's not really a free state where people might pursue wealth and autonomy. Totalitarian is really the only meaningful word remaining to describe China, it's just a fully centralized one party system whose top priority is to maintain power that controls every aspect of Chinese society with an iron fist.
It doesn't matter that China isn't as communist as it used to be, because it's hard to even determine whether or not that constitutes progress. And it's ridiculous to claim that the condemnations of the international community are victimizing Chinese people. The issue is that the current ruling class in China is victimizing Chinese people.
If it weren't for the economic growth in that country, China would be in a state of arrested development. As such, I personally will rag on China until pigs fly (or until China makes some important changes, whatever comes first). I am not a racist, however, and harbour no ill will toward any Chinese people. If you think an attack on China's policies constitutes an attack on you, that's your problem, not ours. I really wonder if you've got any experience with life in China, and the way the country works other than listening to mainstream news (which exaggerate a lot). Let me tell you one thing from my experiences after living in the country. There's plenty of things that need improvement, and they ARE indeed improving. But there's an equal if not greater amount of people who live in rural area's, which find the development isn't going quick enough and exaggerate situations to get attention. It happens all the time, and when you experience life there it turns out it's not as perfect as laowai's have, but it's very decent and improving at a steady pace. Aside of that, please do not forget that China essentially became a country after a civil war that "ended" about 70 years ago. To quote wikipedia: Show nested quote +The Chinese Civil War (1927–1950, though some argue that it is ongoing)[6] was a civil war fought between the Kuomintang (KMT)-led Nationalist Government of the Republic of China, and the Communist Party of China (CPC),[7] for the control of each others' territory which eventually led to two de facto states, the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (PRC) in mainland China both claiming to be the legitimate government of China. The war began in April 1927, amidst the Northern Expedition,[8] and essentially ended when major active battles ceased in 1949–1950. However there is debate on whether the war has officially ended.[6] Cross-Strait relations have been hindered by military threats and political and economic pressure, particularly over Taiwan's political status, with both governments officially adhering to a "One-China policy." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_WarA majority of people forget that China wasn't an unified country before the civil war. Most of the China region was divided in the time between 1911-1928 as anarchy raged and local warlords began to fight one another, after the Qing dynasty's demise in 1911 due to the Xinhai Revolution. After the civil war of 1928 to 1949, the Kuomintang lost the upperhand and they now control Taiwan, where as the Communist Party of China controlled the mainland. Since the opiumwars with the Brits late 1800's, the Qing dynasty was on the decline, and then almost half a century of warlords, civil war and anarchy, before they finally were able to start to work on becoming one unified nation. Now you tell me, can a nation build itself up without outside help (as Mao Zedong eventually declined a lot of Russian aid if I remember correctly) to the standard that you're used to in the Commonwealth, in less than 70 years while the Commonwealth has been spending centuries of growth to reach where you're now? Don't be ignorant, learn your history and don't come around throwing remarks with no substantial basis.
Lol? It fascinates me that you think what I wrote is particularly ignorant or has no substantial basis. Also, why have you decided an overview of the last 200 years of Chinese history is particularly relevant to critique their current sociopolitical philosophy (particularly in the context of the current international community)? First of all OP is fundamentally arguing that since China is no longer as communist as it used to be, therefore people should stop being so critical of it, which is somewhat missing the point. People aren't particularly critical of China because they are communist, they're critical of China because of a very poor human rights record, a lack of any kind of meaningful democracy, very strict censorship of materials of all kind, substandard (but to be fair improving) plans for environmental policy, questionable (terrible) business ethics, and a defiance to the rest of the international community. Combine this with some of the heinous debacles that are reported by the Western news sources (many of which China actually goes out of its way to conceal), and there are enough to outline for pages, and yeah I would argue there is indeed a substantial basis for criticism.
Do I know everything about China? No, certainly not. Nor do I need to in order to critique many of its social, economic, or political policies. Do you know everything about China? Nope. And I suppose that in your opinion the fact that China is widely criticized on a number of very morally questionable policies just reflects bias, bigotry, and "ignorance" on the part of the international community (which is aligned against China in some kind of conspiracy)? Be realistic.
I realize there are likely many endearing qualities about such a nation and people with such a rich cultural history, and perhaps you have experienced alot of it. That doesn't somehow validate some of the things the current Chinese govt. is doing.
|
I think you missed the point I try to make.
Sure, a country does bad things, but try to look to your southern neighbour on their mighty horse of "democracy" and you'll see that, while China has a few things and it's not being denied, the USA does their best to hide EACH aspect they can of their mistakes and problems. One example is the Manning case with leaking sensitive data. While there may be a danger to soldiers itself, the information in it also has evidence that proves the USA is doing terrible things aswell.
Guantanamo Bay? CIA interfering in the Middle East in the 1960's? Just a few examples.
You're judging a country which has been in development for years from scratch on their own feet, yet you ignore that fact and base your view off Western propaganda. That's what I call ignorance. Yes, China has it's problems. No, China is no longer an authoritarian state by the definition of that word. The Chinese government is loosening the rules step by step every year, but they also know that when you're going too quick and too radical, you may end up losing everything you built up. If I remember correctly this was also a problem with the Soviet Union, under the rule of Chroetsjev (spelling).
It's ignorant that you judge a country on values which they have been changing over the past 60 years, while your country is built upon a foundation of the British Empire, which transitioned for many colonies into the Commonwealth of Nations. You had no civil war breaking your country apart as far as I know. You're judging a country that's trying to develop itself, by looking at the current situation. Wake up call: The British Empire was around since 1497, which is 515 years of development as a country, Empire and later a Commonwealth. Yet while you spent 515 years to get to an acceptable position in which you are now, you expect China to change that in less than 70 years?
My message: See it from both sides before you judge. China has a long way to go, their current development in culture, society and alike is around what we had in the 1960's (this is judged from personal experience. Take it with a grain of salt).
When I look at China and see that after the Opium Wars, they were closed for almost a century for foreign powers (with exception of N. Korea and Russia) and just around 20 years ago started to open up to the world to grow, I think they do pretty damn fine.
Canada, where you live, has approximately 34,844,000 inhabitants by a 2012 estimate (see wikipedia), where as China has 1,339,724,852 inhabitants according to the 2010 census. Add to that that Canada is about 340.000 m2 bigger in total space, and you're clearly seeing that you're in a "small" country (in terms of inhabitants) with relative easy problems, where you house 1/38th of the people China has. Yet you expect them to change that in a few meager years without completely destroying the country?
Ignorance at it's finest.
Edit: I was wrong about the fall of the Soviet Union. It wasn't Chroetsjev, it was Gorbachev as can be read here http://www.coldwar.org/articles/90s/fall_of_the_soviet_union.asp
|
On July 02 2012 01:22 DeepElemBlues 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. China does not have the strongest economy in the world by any measure.
Just to comment on this.
Lets assume that these numbers are correct, especially since Wikipedia does check pages for consistency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy
That would debunk your statement pretty hard looking at the 2010-2017 numbers, and seeing the steady growth of China. The only issue that you could use here to devalue the number is that there's a housing bubble, which may be problematic.
|
On July 02 2012 09:15 Aelonius wrote:I think you missed the point I try to make. Sure, a country does bad things, but try to look to your southern neighbour on their mighty horse of "democracy" and you'll see that, while China has a few things and it's not being denied, the USA does their best to hide EACH aspect they can of their mistakes and problems. One example is the Manning case with leaking sensitive data. While there may be a danger to soldiers itself, the information in it also has evidence that proves the USA is doing terrible things aswell. Guantanamo Bay? CIA interfering in the Middle East in the 1960's? Just a few examples. You're judging a country which has been in development for years from scratch on their own feet, yet you ignore that fact and base your view off Western propaganda. That's what I call ignorance. Yes, China has it's problems. No, China is no longer an authoritarian state by the definition of that word. The Chinese government is loosening the rules step by step every year, but they also know that when you're going too quick and too radical, you may end up losing everything you built up. If I remember correctly this was also a problem with the Soviet Union, under the rule of Chroetsjev (spelling). It's ignorant that you judge a country on values which they have been changing over the past 60 years, while your country is built upon a foundation of the British Empire, which transitioned for many colonies into the Commonwealth of Nations. You had no civil war breaking your country apart as far as I know. You're judging a country that's trying to develop itself, by looking at the current situation. Wake up call: The British Empire was around since 1497, which is 515 years of development as a country, Empire and later a Commonwealth. Yet while you spent 515 years to get to an acceptable position in which you are now, you expect China to change that in less than 70 years? My message: See it from both sides before you judge. China has a long way to go, their current development in culture, society and alike is around what we had in the 1960's (this is judged from personal experience. Take it with a grain of salt). When I look at China and see that after the Opium Wars, they were closed for almost a century for foreign powers (with exception of N. Korea and Russia) and just around 20 years ago started to open up to the world to grow, I think they do pretty damn fine. Canada, where you live, has approximately 34,844,000 inhabitants by a 2012 estimate (see wikipedia), where as China has 1,339,724,852 inhabitants according to the 2010 census. Add to that that Canada is about 340.000 m2 bigger in total space, and you're clearly seeing that you're in a "small" country (in terms of inhabitants) with relative easy problems, where you house 1/38th of the people China has. Yet you expect them to change that in a few meager years without completely destroying the country? Ignorance at it's finest. Edit: I was wrong about the fall of the Soviet Union. It wasn't Chroetsjev, it was Gorbachev as can be read here http://www.coldwar.org/articles/90s/fall_of_the_soviet_union.asp
No it isn't? It has nothing to do with my country. Yes Canada and the U.S.A. are both different from China. No, neither are perfect. I'm critical of my own country in many ways as are many Americans. What is ignorant is that you assume I haven't bothered to think about it from both sides before. Let me summarize your point. China has numerous problems, but people shouldn't be critical of them because they haven't had as much time to develop (not even true), and the size of the nation makes it difficult to enact change (not even true).
First of all, the size of the nation has very little to do with anything. Japan has one of the most densely populated areas in the world and they are an extremely highly developed nation in many ways. Secondly, China has arguably had the longest time to develop a culture of any region on earth. You can't just arbitrarily assign significance to the past 70 years in China, yet decide Canada and the U.S. have had 500+ years.
Thirdly, it is the year 2012, not the year 1497. China has access to many elements of technology and the support of the international community to help socially develop their nation, but chooses to do otherwise. Fourthly, and most importantly, China doesn't appear remotely interested in social development, they gauge success on the basis of economic development. Nobody cares about economic development if you have to undermine social progress in order to enact it (much like the USSR under Stalin). If even China was highly economically developed, they have a ruling class that is arresting the development in other regards. How does your culture view sexuality? How does it view certain meditative practices? It is basically a one party totalitarian regime that enforces often draconian regulations to maintain control of all elements of the economy/culture/law. Fifthly, if such a government was interested in instituting wide scale changes, it should be easy, they don't have to appeal to a voting public or care about popular opinion. They don't. Why? They aren't interested. Just wanna manage the country and stay in power.
|
On July 02 2012 09:33 Aelonius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:22 DeepElemBlues 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. China does not have the strongest economy in the world by any measure. Just to comment on this. Lets assume that these numbers are correct, especially since Wikipedia does check pages for consistency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economyThat would debunk your statement pretty hard looking at the 2010-2017 numbers, and seeing the steady growth of China. The only issue that you could use here to devalue the number is that there's a housing bubble, which may be problematic.
? Strongest growth =/= strongest economy. Think of it like height - if my friend is three inches taller than me but I am in the midst of a growth spurt, that doesn't mean that I am taller (yet). China will not have the strongest economy until the 2020s+ (depending upon who you ask and differing factors that can change). But as for now, it most certainly does not have the strongest economy.
|
I'm not sure what to think of this blog. What you're saying is true but I don't think you could engage a serious person in conversation and have them claim that the current Chinese state is communist.
I'd much rather see a blog like this detailing why China isn't the worlds most powerful economy since I see that misconception a lot more.
|
I'm a Chinese person living in China, and while I agree with many of the points presented by Caihead, I don't quite see the point behind this. Anyone with any sort of background knowledge pretty much knows that China isn't Communist. The people who do toss that term around like the Cold War is still ongoing are most likely ignorant and aren't worth bothering with.
Yet the current policies and problems of China cannot be entirely disassociated with the ideals of Communism, or whatever it has morphed into in post-Cultural Revolution China. Chinese leaders don't need to worry about being re-elected or being accountable to the people, which may be part of the reason why there are human rights abuses and such. State-owned companies are major factors of corruption and nepotism in the party, and contribute to housing and lending bubbles.
All told, I don't care if people criticize China. I'd be the first to admit problems with China's party, policies, or people. All I ask is that the criticism be constructive. China is at an inflection point where its growth seems to be slowing while inflation, inequality, and corruption are high. Technology is flooding in and Chinese people are increasingly on the internet. The "cheap labor" and "state-owned enterprise" model for growth is under fire for being unsustainable. I believe there needs to be some type of economic or political reform, now more than ever, if China is to keep developing.
|
"Chinese leaders don't need to worry about being re-elected or being accountable to the people, which may be part of the reason why there are human rights abuses and such. State-owned companies are major factors of corruption and nepotism in the party, and contribute to housing and lending bubbles."
So, just like the US regulatory/corporate lobbying revolving door, the human rights violations of the drug war, and the state-funded housing corporations which collapsed the economy...
Yah, I think China is about as communist as the US is capitalist. They're both fascist bureaucracies.
|
On July 02 2012 09:40 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 09:15 Aelonius wrote:I think you missed the point I try to make. Sure, a country does bad things, but try to look to your southern neighbour on their mighty horse of "democracy" and you'll see that, while China has a few things and it's not being denied, the USA does their best to hide EACH aspect they can of their mistakes and problems. One example is the Manning case with leaking sensitive data. While there may be a danger to soldiers itself, the information in it also has evidence that proves the USA is doing terrible things aswell. Guantanamo Bay? CIA interfering in the Middle East in the 1960's? Just a few examples. You're judging a country which has been in development for years from scratch on their own feet, yet you ignore that fact and base your view off Western propaganda. That's what I call ignorance. Yes, China has it's problems. No, China is no longer an authoritarian state by the definition of that word. The Chinese government is loosening the rules step by step every year, but they also know that when you're going too quick and too radical, you may end up losing everything you built up. If I remember correctly this was also a problem with the Soviet Union, under the rule of Chroetsjev (spelling). It's ignorant that you judge a country on values which they have been changing over the past 60 years, while your country is built upon a foundation of the British Empire, which transitioned for many colonies into the Commonwealth of Nations. You had no civil war breaking your country apart as far as I know. You're judging a country that's trying to develop itself, by looking at the current situation. Wake up call: The British Empire was around since 1497, which is 515 years of development as a country, Empire and later a Commonwealth. Yet while you spent 515 years to get to an acceptable position in which you are now, you expect China to change that in less than 70 years? My message: See it from both sides before you judge. China has a long way to go, their current development in culture, society and alike is around what we had in the 1960's (this is judged from personal experience. Take it with a grain of salt). When I look at China and see that after the Opium Wars, they were closed for almost a century for foreign powers (with exception of N. Korea and Russia) and just around 20 years ago started to open up to the world to grow, I think they do pretty damn fine. Canada, where you live, has approximately 34,844,000 inhabitants by a 2012 estimate (see wikipedia), where as China has 1,339,724,852 inhabitants according to the 2010 census. Add to that that Canada is about 340.000 m2 bigger in total space, and you're clearly seeing that you're in a "small" country (in terms of inhabitants) with relative easy problems, where you house 1/38th of the people China has. Yet you expect them to change that in a few meager years without completely destroying the country? Ignorance at it's finest. Edit: I was wrong about the fall of the Soviet Union. It wasn't Chroetsjev, it was Gorbachev as can be read here http://www.coldwar.org/articles/90s/fall_of_the_soviet_union.asp No it isn't? It has nothing to do with my country. Yes Canada and the U.S.A. are both different from China. No, neither are perfect. I'm critical of my own country in many ways as are many Americans. What is ignorant is that you assume I haven't bothered to think about it from both sides before. Let me summarize your point. China has numerous problems, but people shouldn't be critical of them because they haven't had as much time to develop (not even true), and the size of the nation makes it difficult to enact change (not even true).
You're dead wrong there. If you're to enforce policy that changes a country's fundamental mindset, and culture into something that's new, you're bound to run into disaster. My point is that people are TOO critical without proper information or research into the subject. My point is, that while China does have issue's, it's nowhere as bad as you portray it. If you're going to go that way, I suggest you look at your own country and history of Canada, UK, British Empire and the USA.
It took the Chinese years to get to the Maoist approach, and then years to revert it while still retaining a stable growth as a whole. To claim you can change this in an instant is saying you can dig a hole in a 20m concrete wall, with a toothbrush, within 3 minutes. Nigh-impossible.
First of all, the size of the nation has very little to do with anything. Japan has one of the most densely populated areas in the world and they are an extremely highly developed nation in many ways. Secondly, China has arguably had the longest time to develop a culture of any region on earth. You can't just arbitrarily assign significance to the past 70 years in China, yet decide Canada and the U.S. have had 500+ years.
If I look at system that is in place in these area's, I feel I can say that. You may not be the same at each point in time, but your country runs on specific principles. Please read why the Qing Dynasty fell apart, and look what the Chinese have tried to improve growth as a country. Canada, for all I know, has been unified for a longer term than China. That means they had more time to adjust changes.
Thirdly, it is the year 2012, not the year 1497. China has access to many elements of technology and the support of the international community to help socially develop their nation, but chooses to do otherwise. Fourthly, and most importantly, China doesn't appear remotely interested in social development, they gauge success on the basis of economic development. Nobody cares about economic development if you have to undermine social progress in order to enact it (much like the USSR under Stalin). If even China was highly economically developed, they have a ruling class that is arresting the development in other regards. How does your culture view sexuality? How does it view certain meditative practices? It is basically a one party totalitarian regime that enforces often draconian regulations to maintain control of all elements of the economy/culture/law. Fifthly, if such a government was interested in instituting wide scale changes, it should be easy, they don't have to appeal to a voting public or care about popular opinion. They don't. Why? They aren't interested. Just wanna manage the country and stay in power.
Ever heard of the saying "Tyrants always fear those they oppress?". Look at the Soviet Union, and the reforms made by Gorbachev from 1985-1991. He allowed free speech at once, and suddenly there was so much issue's coming up that the government, and the country as a whole couldn't handle it into a reasonably orderly manner. After Gorbachev was kidnapped, and the country went in uproar, the Soviet Union collapsed 6 months later. This is a typical example of a country changing from a totalitarian regime, towards a democratic system.
Do you think that the Chinese government looks forward to drop the democracy bombshell in one go, guaranteed to destabilize the country? No they won't. Sure, there's a few powergreedy people in the country but look at ANY country in the world, and it'll be there. It does not matter if you're American, German, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese or whatnot. Whenever there's power for grab, it corrupts people. My view on the current progress of China is that they gradually loosen the reigns, and give more power back to the people. It is a slow process, and they ain't there yet but they do it in a smart, well-prepared way to avoid anarchy.
Aside of that, you mention they deny help. Perhaps they do, but if Canada would be in the same shoes, they would do so aswell. You need to learn that Asian people in general are very honourable people. This is something they feel they want to change, and no one will be influencing them except their own people.
The British Empire (and thus indirectly Canada) has had over five hundred years of continuous development of their society, and after all those years they are at the point that we see in 2012. China has had over 2000 years of history, but never consistency as the Empire has had. The Qing Dynasty left the country broke and shattered, and in 101 years they have built something that took the English 500 years (and already is corroding). Denying that simple fact is ignorance.
|
Do note that I do think more change is required for China, however I feel the progress is gradually picking up.
Especially when more and more foreigners get into China, the country changes as fast. A year ago, the city I was in didn't put effort into safety for anyone not in a car. Now they are actively pushing to get safer roads (by pressure from the community as opposed to the government).
Progress is a slow process, and one wrong step could put you back decades.
|
On July 02 2012 10:48 Aelonius wrote:Do you think that the Chinese government looks forward to drop the democracy bombshell in one go, guaranteed to destabilize the country? No they won't. Sure, there's a few powergreedy people in the country but look at ANY country in the world, and it'll be there. It does not matter if you're American, German, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese or whatnot. Whenever there's power for grab, it corrupts people. My view on the current progress of China is that they gradually loosen the reigns, and give more power back to the people. It is a slow process, and they ain't there yet but they do it in a smart, well-prepared way to avoid anarchy.
There's alot in your post (some of which I agree with), but basically it boils down to this. You believe the Chinese govt. is validated in doing what it's doing because China as a country isn't prepared for democracy, would crumble if it tried, and thus the current totalitarian regime must enforce draconian policies to prevent social progress that might undermine the authority of the state. This is what most dictators maintain. Egypt was doing fundamentally the same thing, as was Syria, Iraq, etc. etc. etc. As long as the government of China behaves in this way, they'll be condemned for it. Certainly by me.
The British Empire (and thus indirectly Canada) has had over five hundred years of continuous development of their society, and after all those years they are at the point that we see in 2012. China has had over 2000 years of history, but never consistency as the Empire has had. The Qing Dynasty left the country broke and shattered, and in 101 years they have built something that took the English 500 years (and already is corroding). Denying that simple fact is ignorance.
To deny that China has had equal time to develop is ignorant. You think the history of Western Europe and America is that of a utopia? There have been numerous problems and power struggles in the West. China is no different. Besides, who says poor decisions on the part of those in power isn't part of a nation's development? China also hasn't had to reinvent the wheel, making it even more likely to succeed. They've had access to the knowledge and technology of the rest of the world. They get to pick and choose what they like, and condemn the political views that created it? What the "English" built is corroding? Not sure what you mean by that, but I'd say a society that observes human rights is better than one that doesn't (as a generalization), even if there are undeniably some very severe problems in the West.
|
On July 02 2012 10:48 Aelonius wrote:
The British Empire (and thus indirectly Canada) has had over five hundred years of continuous development of their society, and after all those years they are at the point that we see in 2012. China has had over 2000 years of history, but never consistency as the Empire has had. The Qing Dynasty left the country broke and shattered, and in 101 years they have built something that took the English 500 years (and already is corroding). Denying that simple fact is ignorance.
I didn't read the rest of your post, but I had to address this.
If you look at where the English were in 1500s and where the Chinese were in 1500s you would see a world of difference. The Ming Dynasty was much more influential and prosperous than some English peasantry. Throughout history, China (and also India) have been at the head of progress while the relatively insignificant (since the fall of the Roman Empire) European nations bickered among themselves. It was only until after 1700s when the Europeans were actually able to negotiate on equal grounds with the Chinese.
Of course, this all changed later on, but for most of the past 2000 years, China has been far, far ahead of Europe.
|
FragKrag and Sevencck.
First, China wasn't an united country untill the CPC won the war with the KMT. Before that it was shaky, according to history. This makes it hard to pull the same feats that a stable country like England does. So far I think we can agree, right?
In regards to my point, let me tl;dr it for you, Seven.
My problem lies with people who blindly follow the media, and do not perform personal research. I am against bashing China as I can see from sources other than FOXnews or local equivalents, that China is gradually improving. It may not be as fast as the world wants it to see, but change happens and if you're in China it actually happens quite fast from a foreign perspective. My point is that the countries where the people who are bashing China hail from, are generally countries which have been relatively stable in "design" over the past centuries, where as this is a problematic issue with the Chinese system. That's why I symphatize with the changes not being accute, but gradually. China does not want to be the Soviet Union all over again.
People need to stop judging without being informed. There's a whole world of information people. Use it.
FragKrag:
+ Show Spoiler +
FragKrag.
I agree, save for the fact that they still lived under an Imperial rule, which in essence is totalitarian aswell.
The main point I try to address through these examples is that, yes China has problems. No they are not correct but it is ignorant to judge on the moment and not look into progress made. Progression is happening, for Chinese measurements fast aswell. But it takes time.
|
The real issue in China is overpopulation. Many things are shitty because of that. Usually there are so many people that the modern logic "punish with your wallet" doesn't work. Some restaurants are bad, but you still need to queue up for an hour to eat there. Internet is slow as fuck, but when I called the company and threatened to move to their competitors they just said "oh go ahead".
Overpopulation is also what leads the government to have so much control over the people. I was in France during 2005 riots, and I took almost a month to stop people from burning cars everywhere. I can't imagine how it could be if something similar in China would happen. Imagine the whole E.U + the whole America + the whole Latin America population living in a country smaller than Canada.
Also, imagine how elections would be incredibly shitty to organize. The US model, federalism with state governments and a federal government wouldn't work at all here. China is still developing and needs huge investments at the country level (which is basically take the money from the East coast and use it to support the development of the rest of the country) And when you think that controversies like Bush vs Gore election occurred, when it took so long to count the votes again, when so few people actually voted...
On July 02 2012 12:12 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 10:48 Aelonius wrote:
The British Empire (and thus indirectly Canada) has had over five hundred years of continuous development of their society, and after all those years they are at the point that we see in 2012. China has had over 2000 years of history, but never consistency as the Empire has had. The Qing Dynasty left the country broke and shattered, and in 101 years they have built something that took the English 500 years (and already is corroding). Denying that simple fact is ignorance.
I didn't read the rest of your post, but I had to address this. If you look at where the English were in 1500s and where the Chinese were in 1500s you would see a world of difference. The Ming Dynasty was much more influential and prosperous than some English peasantry. Throughout history, China (and also India) have been at the head of progress while the relatively insignificant (since the fall of the Roman Empire) European nations bickered among themselves. It was only until after 1700s when the Europeans were actually able to negotiate on equal grounds with the Chinese. Of course, this all changed later on, but for most of the past 2000 years, China has been far, far ahead of Europe.
Yes, and if Europe could catch up during the Renaissance and after, it's with the help of slavery and resources from colonies. Then they actually colonized China and imposed a lot of treaties that weakened China a lot.
|
You mean its because ideas from Muslim thinkers shipped over after the crusades into the Italian city-states? :p
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 02 2012 12:32 Aelonius wrote:
First, China wasn't an united country untill the CPC won the war with the KMT. Before that it was shaky, according to history. This makes it hard to pull the same feats that a stable country like England does. So far I think we can agree, right?
You don't have to look farther away from China's borders than Taiwan or South Korea for an examples of nations that have stepped away from authoritarian government systems without catastrophic failure you predict. I don't understand how you think you can reasonably argue that China's failure to do so is because of some cultural reason or because they have somehow been disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world for the past 500 years.
|
China won't change until the politics change, Politics won't change until the people change.
|
On July 02 2012 13:25 CobaltBlu wrote:Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On July 02 2012 12:32 Aelonius wrote:
First, China wasn't an united country untill the CPC won the war with the KMT. Before that it was shaky, according to history. This makes it hard to pull the same feats that a stable country like England does. So far I think we can agree, right?
You don't have to look farther away from China's borders than Taiwan or South Korea for an examples of nations that have stepped away from authoritarian government systems without catastrophic failure you predict. I don't understand how you think you can reasonably argue that China's failure to do so is because of some cultural reason or because they have somehow been disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world for the past 500 years.
China is bigger. Taiwan/South Korea is about the same size as one Chinese province.
|
This is a very sensitive subject. And so I am going to only say 1 thing that I know.
Its almost IMPOSSIBLE to do business in china as a foreigner, without major local representation. The 'politics' in business is so underhanded and unpredictable. It replicates that of a communist nation. HOWEVER. China is for the most part not communist.
The thing people do not understand is that "old habits die hard". The ways of the USSR still exist in alot of the baltic states and russia. Egypt will become equally as corrupt as it previously was. So on so forth.
It takes generations to change the actual mindset and actions of people and this is not really the peoples fault its history's fault.
I am a big supporter of china, and am trying to do business in China however the powerful people there make it so very difficult when you are honest.
Nice blog by the way, its very informative.
Regards
FXOBoSs
|
On July 02 2012 13:30 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 13:25 CobaltBlu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 02 2012 12:32 Aelonius wrote:
First, China wasn't an united country untill the CPC won the war with the KMT. Before that it was shaky, according to history. This makes it hard to pull the same feats that a stable country like England does. So far I think we can agree, right?
You don't have to look farther away from China's borders than Taiwan or South Korea for an examples of nations that have stepped away from authoritarian government systems without catastrophic failure you predict. I don't understand how you think you can reasonably argue that China's failure to do so is because of some cultural reason or because they have somehow been disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world for the past 500 years. China is bigger. Taiwan/South Korea is about the same size as one Chinese province.
I'm not contending that China doesn't face issues when it comes to moving away from authoritarian government but that saying it is incapable because of the culture of the region or a past civil war isn't a good excuse.
|
On July 02 2012 14:01 CobaltBlu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 13:30 haduken wrote:On July 02 2012 13:25 CobaltBlu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 02 2012 12:32 Aelonius wrote:
First, China wasn't an united country untill the CPC won the war with the KMT. Before that it was shaky, according to history. This makes it hard to pull the same feats that a stable country like England does. So far I think we can agree, right?
You don't have to look farther away from China's borders than Taiwan or South Korea for an examples of nations that have stepped away from authoritarian government systems without catastrophic failure you predict. I don't understand how you think you can reasonably argue that China's failure to do so is because of some cultural reason or because they have somehow been disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world for the past 500 years. China is bigger. Taiwan/South Korea is about the same size as one Chinese province. I'm not contending that China doesn't face issues when it comes to moving away from authoritarian government but that saying it is incapable because of the culture of the region or a past civil war isn't a good excuse.
Nobody is saying 'culture of the region' or 'past civil war'
It's all about the fact that the vast majority of the country are still rural uneducated farmers who have no idea what is going on with politics, nor do they care for the most part. The more people you have, the harder it is to change, especially if they are mostly uneducated.
Please don't compare largely urban country (South Korea) with 50 million people or a small island (both largely influenced by the United States) to a country with over a billion.
|
I came into this blog hoping to contribute something to the discussion but most of it goes significantly over my head lol. Nice OP Caihead~ it did generate very interesting (and on the whole, civil!) discussion that I found informative ^^ As someone very open-minded regarding geopolitical affairs and the ilk, it's a strange feeling to read something and generally agree with it, and then read another post and go "hm" because the response argues against the original post and contradicts it, yet it raises some good points. Some of the posts seemed to have fundamental problems with semantics though :\
|
On July 02 2012 13:54 FXOBoSs wrote:
This is a very sensitive subject. And so I am going to only say 1 thing that I know.
Its almost IMPOSSIBLE to do business in china as a foreigner, without major local representation. The 'politics' in business is so underhanded and unpredictable. It replicates that of a communist nation. HOWEVER. China is for the most part not communist.
The thing people do not understand is that "old habits die hard". The ways of the USSR still exist in alot of the baltic states and russia. Egypt will become equally as corrupt as it previously was. So on so forth.
It takes generations to change the actual mindset and actions of people and this is not really the peoples fault its history's fault.
I am a big supporter of china, and am trying to do business in China however the powerful people there make it so very difficult when you are honest.
Nice blog by the way, its very informative.
Regards
FXOBoSs
Dear Boss, thanks for coining in!
I agree with most parts of this statement, it basicly sums up what I've tried to say in a bigger way.
However I quickly want to add that these days China is stimulating foreign investment and business by opening up regions (such as the Fujian province) to have more relaxed rules. The way you do business comes down from the culture. In China the business is much more conducted on a level of them liking you, and less on "oh we're company X and it's mutually beneficial". That's something important to keep in mind. That said, it isn't impossible anymore to do business once you understand their mindset. =)
|
On July 02 2012 13:25 CobaltBlu wrote:Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On July 02 2012 12:32 Aelonius wrote:
First, China wasn't an united country untill the CPC won the war with the KMT. Before that it was shaky, according to history. This makes it hard to pull the same feats that a stable country like England does. So far I think we can agree, right?
You don't have to look farther away from China's borders than Taiwan or South Korea for an examples of nations that have stepped away from authoritarian government systems without catastrophic failure you predict. I don't understand how you think you can reasonably argue that China's failure to do so is because of some cultural reason or because they have somehow been disadvantaged compared to the rest of the world for the past 500 years.
Taiwan isn't in a good position either in terms of government corruption. South Korea and Taiwan have recieved Western aid forever (mostly U.S.) to develop, where as China basicly did it on it's own. Also, China's population is so much bigger that there's a whole different set of things to keep in mind. Remember that China has four times the amount of inhabitants compared to the US, and almost double of the EU and USA together. (EU has approx 400m and USA 300m. according to wikipedia)
What I say is simple. While the USA and the EU member states have had reasonably stable governments and countries as a whole in the last 2 centuries, this doesn't apply to China to the slightest. If I break your leg now and you learn to run again in 10 weeks, then it's much more impressive than me who has been running for years. See what I mean? It definatly has an effect on the country, and add the problems you see in other former communist-minded countries, and you realise that there's a major chance for catastrophe in the Soviet Union (again see Gorbachev) with less people. That >will< be a major risk in China too 
|
No worries folks--in the past several decades, China has truly made progress in becoming a decadent, capitalist evil empire much like the good old US of A. You can eat carcinogenic food grown by Monsanto, wear Nike shoes made in a sweatshop, read about the details of Kim Kardiashian's personal life whether you live in New York or Shanghai, Bismarck or Chongqing.
|
On October 29 2012 03:47 reincremate wrote:
No worries folks--in the past several decades, China has truly made progress in becoming a decadent, capitalist evil empire much like the good old US of A. You can eat carcinogenic food grown by Monsanto, wear Nike shoes made in a sweatshop, read about the details of Kim Kardiashian's personal life whether you live in New York or Shanghai, Bismarck or Chongqing.
Why did you bump this?
And Caihead, I enjoyed the post that you made, lengthy as it was.
Caihead knows my ideals. I lived in China for a year. I agree with everything that was posted in his OP.
However, I can't help but state the pieces that throw me off:
Should the CCP do nothing about the vast gaps between social classes? I mean, compare a countryside farmer in China to a countryside farmer in America. If neither of them has insurance or is denied medical insurance, they're gonna die no matter what. But at the same time, which one makes more money and which one is more likely to have access to medical care if they contract, say, testicular cancer or appendicitis?
At the same time, I criticize every single American that blindly says things like, "Free Tibet! Boycott trade with China!" and so on because it just really is not that viable. Secondly, countries with economic ties are less likely to go to war. The only exception to this rule was pre-World War One Europe.
I really can't find a middle-ground.
|
I believe the following Wikipedia article addresses all the views and contradictions sufficiently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
Communist state, in popular usage, is a state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party rule of a communist party and a professed allegiance to a Leninist or Marxist–Leninist communist ideology as the guiding principle of the state. Theoretically, "communist state" is a contradictio in terminis as a communist society as defined by both Marxists and anarcho-communists is in principle stateless. From this perspective, Marxist–Leninist state is more appropriate and applicable. In practice, communist states do not refer to themselves as communist states. They do this not to disguise the fact that the ruling party is communist, but rather because they do not consider themselves to be a communist society at present. Instead, they constitutionally identify themselves as socialist states or workers' states. The primary goal of these states, which also explains their official name, is to guide their respective countries in the process of building socialism, ultimately leading to communism. In the 20th century, most communist states adopted planned economies. However, there were exceptions: The Soviet Union during the 1920s and late 1980s and Yugoslavia after World War II allowed limited markets and a degree of worker self-management, while China, Vietnam and Laos introduced far-reaching market reforms after the 1980s. In the 21st century, China and Vietnam have allowed a mixed economy to develop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
I can attest to the chosen terminology as I've grown up in a supposedly Communist country (preferred term in English, basically not used in West Germany). There it was never called Communist, but Socialist, despite the fact that there was no market or mixed economy but a planned economy. China started to transition away from a planned to a mixed economy already back in the 1980s and along with Yugoslavia had always been the odd one out in the Eastern bloc in the final stages of the Cold War.
|
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. :/
PM from Kushm4sta on my blogs lol
Original Message From kushm4sta:
i rate them all 1/5
|
On October 29 2012 06:11 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 00:46 SeeKeR wrote: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. :/ PM from Kushm4sta on my blogs lol
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
|
On October 29 2012 10:06 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 06:11 Shady Sands wrote:On July 02 2012 00:46 SeeKeR wrote: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. :/ PM from Kushm4sta on my blogs lol Original Message From kushm4sta:
i rate them all 1/5 Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Why so serious?
|
Ofc they are not communists anymore. They have become whatever the hell the west is. Which is much much worse.
How true Haxley was.
|
Is there anyone who still thinks China is communist?
It is state capitalism. That's what it is.
|
On October 29 2012 13:20 Tommie wrote:
Is there anyone who still thinks China is communist?
de jure, yes. Just like NK, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba. de facto - that is anyone's guess?
Why does it have to be so black and white? No country ever achieved "communism", but that never stopped them from claiming to hold it as their ideology.
|
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
that's why they are called republics
|
Now I know this topic is old. But do you guys even know what communism is?
Communism means equality. A society where the Government provides everything for the people.
There is no poor people and no rich people. The government owns everything and has to provide for everything.
There should be no homeless people and no private schools. The governments provides everything and there are no rich or poor people. This is original communism from Karl Marx the father of communism. Communism starts out with a dictator. And then at stage 3 the dictator must give away his power to the government. Here are the 3 steps of communism.
1. Dictatorship - The dictator rallies the people to fight the government
2. After winning over the government the Dictator has the responsibility to create a system where everyone is equal. There are no poor and rich people. Everyone is equal and the government owns everything.
3. The dictator gives his power to the government. This means a government rules the people without a leader.
China has never become communism because Chinese dictators never wanted to give their power away back to the government in the first place. Mao Zedong started out with Karl Marx ideology but then he became greedy and power blinded him. So Mao Zedong created Maoism that replace communism from Karl Marx. What China has today is NOT Communism. It is Maoism created by Mao. Where the rich rules over the poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism
There has never existed a communist state to this date. Because the dictators does not want to give away their powers.
There exist a communist ideology but never a communist state. Stalin started out with Communism and then he created stalinism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Vietnam started out with communist ideology but it was never implemented. Vietnam is a country where the rich rules over the poor and there is no equality. Remember communism is a country where everyone is equal. There is no equality in these fake so called communist countries. These countries that calls them self communist are not following communist ideology. There is no communism in modern world 2014.
China, Vietnam, Colombia, North Korea. Everything these countries has in common is that the rich and powerful people controls everything.
And now lets talk about Democracy. Democracy means the people govern the government directly. It means a government ruled by the people for the people.
USA is not a democracy. USA is a republic. So here is how the story goes.
1. Democracy in Athens killed Socrates.
2. Plato the student of Socrates hates democracy. So Plato invented the republic. A government ruled by laws and not the people. Roman republic was a the first republic to follow the Republic of Plato. In this government the people would choose their leader. Only rich people was allowed to be elected leaders. This means the elite ruled the poor. But in this republic Plato gives them liberty and women equal rights. Yes equal rights between women and men comes from Plato and not Greek democracy. The leader was called Consuls. Julius Gaius Ceasar was a consul.
The modern word for Consul is president and prime ministers.
3. So in other words. There are no democracy in today's modern world. Because we all follow ideology of Plato. The man that hated democracy and invented a system where everything is ruled by law and not the people. Semi direct and representative democracy is NOT DEMOCRACY. You have been brain washed guys. USA is a republic following Plato ideology of Republic.
The rule of Republic has a weakness. If the President gets to much power he becomes a king or dictator. Julius Gaius Caesar received to much power as a Consul and started Civil war in Rome. He wanted to become emperor of Rome.
Vladimir Putin of the Russian republic is becoming soon emperor or dictator. Vladimir Putin received to much power as a president in the Russian Republic.
President Bashar al-Assad in Syria is now king/dictator.
Every ideology of rule will always go back to the beginning. It will go back to dictators, kings and emperors. That is the weakness of every politic system today. The weakness of Republic of United States. Is that USA will soon become a dictatorship or a country ruled by kings or emperors. That is the weakness of all ideology. It will always go back to the beginning.
Kings will always rule the world but no kings rules forever. Napoleon from France knew this. Napoleon knew it will always go back to kings and dictators.
|
Well I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a guy who made an account to necro a 2+ years old blog would have such basic ideas of what democracy and communism are.
As a poli sci teacher, the first thing I have to say is that your notions of communism and democracy are the ones taught to undergrads before they actually develop their critical thinking skills. Your head is loaded with concepts like the Republic which you've probably read in your first semester, then you had a class in which you learned about capitalism, communism, socialism, and you absorbed those notions in their very raw, "pure" forms. Your professor, likely aware of your cognitive limits (not yours specifically), gave you those raw notions so that you could make sense of them later, and realize that they're actually very malleable. Communism means a broad variety of different things depending on who you ask, and Karl Marx's ideal-typed version of communism, despite being the original one, is not the only one.
Later in your studies, or perhaps you're an autodidact and you like reading (wikipedia pages...), you'll learn that social sciences are not about putting rigid schemes into little boxes in your head, but rather, you have to learn to articulate what you know in a coherent way. Certainly, China has never been a communist system in the way Marx envisaged it, and hell, even the USSR's partially communist regime didn't come about in the ways envisaged by Marx. And yet many of the principles were those of communism. Can we not say that the Soviet Union was a communist regime even though it wasn't a perfect carbon copy of Marx's thoughts? Can we not say that Mao's China was communism because it wasn't a carbon copy? Yes one core principle of communism is equality, but the fact that this principle is unattainable in reality doesn't mean that communism can't exist.
Similarly, perfect democracy is impossible. The US is not a "democracy" if you use a rigid and useless definition of democracy. And that's why we can say the US is reasonably democratic because these terms are adapted to our reality. Yes, you can definitely bring up the fact that for instance Sweden's democracy is not the "original", or "pure" concept of democracy, but nonetheless I think that people know what you mean when you talk about X country's democracy. It's inevitably an imperfect regime where the people are given a part of the power.
I could ramble about, and I could address your prediction about the inevitable doom of representative democracies, but yeah. This is an old thread. October 2012. Let it die. If you want to educate people about the formal definitions of terms, go on a linguistics forum or something.
|
Power is divided between three institutions.
1. Monarchy the reigning power [Power of military]
2. Parliament the legislative power [Power of law]
3. The Court the judiciary [Power of judge]
Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Britain are parliamentary powers!
The Prime minister administrates the power of law. Therefore making it parliament and not democracy.
In a democracy there exist no kings and powers is not shared between 3 powers.
In USA there is the reigning power and the opposition to prevent the reigning power to gain unlimited powers.
Every country in the world follows Plato ideology the rule of laws. Not democratic rule. And when a party gets to much power. It leads back to dictatorship and kings. Just look at Russia and Syria in 2015. Started out as republic in modern world and then back to dictatorships and kings. Or look at Egypt. Egypt was a Republic and now it is a dictatorship. Same thing will follow in Europe and USA. In Russia the opposition power got destroyed. And that is why Putin has unlimited powers to do whatever he wishes. In Syria the same happened. In Egypt the same happened.
And BTW. I am not multi accounting. I just saw this topic as interesting. That is all. Admins can confirm this.
|
On January 18 2015 02:42 Xuna wrote:
And BTW. I am not multi accounting.
Guilty conscience?
|
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
On January 18 2015 02:42 Xuna wrote:
Power is divided between three institutions.
1. Monarchy the reigning power [Power of military]
2. Parliament the legislative power [Power of law]
3. The Court the judiciary [Power of judge]
In USA there is the reigning power and the opposition to prevent the reigning power to gain unlimited powers.
surely it applies to the USA as well, you have the Executive Branch (the president), the Legislative (Congress) and the Judicial (SCOTUS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
