|
China doesn't have to a democracy for this not to happen. What stops it from happening in America is their Constitution. The term for constitution is literally a contract from Government to People.
CCP does in fact have a constitution, but I'm pretty sure its complete BS and not bound by any legal courts.
"The basic line of the Communist Party of China at the primary stage of socialism is to lead the people of all our ethnic groups in a concerted, self-reliant and pioneering effort to turn China into a prosperous, strong, democratic and culturally advanced modern socialist country by making economic development our central task while adhering to the Four Cardinal Principles and persevering in the reform and opening up. "
Upon reading the rest of it, it is kind of scary - it is far too broad to be useful
"To earnestly engage in criticism and self-criticism, boldly expose and correct shortcomings and mistakes in work and resolutely combat corruption and other malpractices. "
Most of it is outlining the rules and make-up of the party and not just the average citizens of the country which is where most of the ambiguity occurs.
http://www.learnworld.com/COURSES/P141/CCP-Constitution-Nov-2002.html
|
United States12607 Posts
Back to the subject of the OP: I read an interesting bit recently which talks about how successful the Chinese government has been at erasing Tiananmen from its history. Here's the gist:
I have spent a lot of time over the past three years with Chinese university students. They know a lot about the world, and about American history, and about certain periods in their own country's past. Virtually everyone can recite chapter and verse of the Japanese cruelties in China from the 1930s onward, or the 100 Years of Humiliation, or the long background of Chinese engagement with Tibet. Through their own family's experiences, many have heard of the trauma of the Cultural Revolution years and the starvation and hardship of the Great Leap Forward. But you can't assume they will ever have heard of what happened in Tiananmen Square twenty years ago. For a minority of people in China, the upcoming date of June 4 has tremendous significance. For most young people, it's just another day.
I know this is just anecdotal, but I still found it interesting, surprising, and somewhat saddening.
Here's the full post: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/lost_memory_of_tiananmen.php
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On June 06 2009 08:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
Oh wow it's the first time I actually saw videos about it. Shooting at unarmed demonstrators is fucked up but shooting on the ambulance wtf....
Yeah I know what you mean dude.. god damn..
|
On June 06 2009 11:01 JWD wrote:Back to the subject of the OP: I read an interesting bit recently which talks about how successful the Chinese government has been at erasing Tiananmen from its history. Here's the gist: Show nested quote +I have spent a lot of time over the past three years with Chinese university students. They know a lot about the world, and about American history, and about certain periods in their own country's past. Virtually everyone can recite chapter and verse of the Japanese cruelties in China from the 1930s onward, or the 100 Years of Humiliation, or the long background of Chinese engagement with Tibet. Through their own family's experiences, many have heard of the trauma of the Cultural Revolution years and the starvation and hardship of the Great Leap Forward. But you can't assume they will ever have heard of what happened in Tiananmen Square twenty years ago. For a minority of people in China, the upcoming date of June 4 has tremendous significance. For most young people, it's just another day. I know this is just anecdotal, but I still found it interesting, surprising, and somewhat saddening. Here's the full post: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/lost_memory_of_tiananmen.php
Thats pretty common. Watch Frontline's video on the tankman - the last part of it shows the frontline people showing 4 university students the picture of tankman and they have zero - zero clue what it was. Their 2 guesses were it was a drawing or a military parade..
|
On June 06 2009 11:04 Clasic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 08:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
Oh wow it's the first time I actually saw videos about it. Shooting at unarmed demonstrators is fucked up but shooting on the ambulance wtf.... Yeah I know what you mean dude.. god damn..
Actually they shot the demonstrators at night and then the morning after the parents were looking for their children (Child missing + rioting = uh oh) so the parents go to move into the square and the army fires at them numerous times. That is the scene with the ambulance - they weren't shooting at demonstrators then, they were shooting at the parents of them.
|
Sigh, did you really need to make this topic? This is just gonna be another lame discussion full of pro-China and anti-China sentiments, with the same uninformed and biased opinions as always.
|
On June 06 2009 11:01 JWD wrote:Back to the subject of the OP: I read an interesting bit recently which talks about how successful the Chinese government has been at erasing Tiananmen from its history. Here's the gist: Show nested quote +I have spent a lot of time over the past three years with Chinese university students. They know a lot about the world, and about American history, and about certain periods in their own country's past. Virtually everyone can recite chapter and verse of the Japanese cruelties in China from the 1930s onward, or the 100 Years of Humiliation, or the long background of Chinese engagement with Tibet. Through their own family's experiences, many have heard of the trauma of the Cultural Revolution years and the starvation and hardship of the Great Leap Forward. But you can't assume they will ever have heard of what happened in Tiananmen Square twenty years ago. For a minority of people in China, the upcoming date of June 4 has tremendous significance. For most young people, it's just another day. I know this is just anecdotal, but I still found it interesting, surprising, and somewhat saddening. Here's the full post: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/lost_memory_of_tiananmen.php
Standard, the Chinese government is the best in the world at controlling the spread of sensitive information.
|
On June 06 2009 11:09 foeffa wrote:
Sigh, did you really need to make this topic? This is just gonna be another lame discussion full of pro-China and anti-China sentiments, with the same uninformed and biased opinions as always.
No one is anti-China here - I'd say quite the opposite. Caring for a country means making those in charge be responsible for their decisions.
|
Couldn't of said it any better than you pyro, it's crazy how some people think democracy could work with 1.4 billion people
|
On June 06 2009 10:44 pyrogenetix wrote:
the china of that time was absolutely not ready for democracy.
yes it was a tragedy that so many people died, but imo the govt did the correct thing for the greater good.
First sentence - Yes, that is true.
Second sentence - No bloody way this will fly. People are too squeamish about taking the lives of dissenters.
The Chinese then were a disillusioned lot because of the retarded revolutions Mao put them through. After Mao died they gained some measure of freedom and were eager for more.
But Mao left his legacy, which was intent on keeping to his vision. The government clamped down on this dissension, not because it was a strong movement for democracy - it was tiny in fact; but because the event made them lose their face. A dictatorship without any face won't keep any order in the country.
But the government did act in the correct direction. I'm not saying what they did is right, but China at that time was already in deep shit. Had this gone out of hand, China might have collapsed and taken longer to reach what it is today.
I have to agree with pyro's view - they just weren't ready at that time.
While we mourn and argue over China's actions that day, what we must remember is we cannot change the past. All we can do right now is watch China closely. I am certain China will succumb to international pressure; they've got so much more to lose, then say, North Korea.
|
On June 06 2009 11:14 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 11:09 foeffa wrote:
Sigh, did you really need to make this topic? This is just gonna be another lame discussion full of pro-China and anti-China sentiments, with the same uninformed and biased opinions as always. No one is anti-China here - I'd say quite the opposite. Caring for a country means making those in charge be responsible for their decisions.
I usually read a lot of anti-China comments in these kind of threads. Moreover, these threads are usually just filled with platitudes, born from ignorance. It's just <random person 1> read a CNN or whatever article on China and immediately assumes that's the whole story, starts crying about how China should change this or that or yaddayadda. It's all fine and dandy to "care for a country" and to post your opinion from that perspective, but the ignorance in some posts just tends to make me irrate sometimes.
Exhibit A:
On June 06 2009 10:56 Railz wrote:
CCP does in fact have a constitution, but I'm pretty sure its complete BS and not bound by any legal courts.
If you actually had any knowledge on the subject you might know that while the constitution is broad, this is the generally the case in Chinese law because most of it is interpreted at the local level in a manner befitting social circumstances, as a form of pragmatism. While there are without a doubt injustices in the Chinese legislative or judicial system, there has been quite a bit of effort invested in implementing the rule of law in China (based on a European continental law system, more specifically German law). Yes the balance of powers isn't strictly enforced, yes there is a problem with corruption, conflicts of interest and pressure from e.g. LPG's on local courts etc, etc. However, just saying that "the Chinese constitution is BS and whatnot is just uninformed dribble, like a lot of things people tend to say when talking about China. They're not retarded, they know where the problems lie and sooner or later they will be addressed. After all it's still a country in transition in some ways, and they 've come a long way already.
I'm not a China-nut but I do hate people randomly spamming opinions on subjects they don't know that much about, concerning a country they don't know much about either.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 06 2009 11:15 BalliSLife wrote:
Couldn't of said it any better than you pyro, it's crazy how some people think democracy could work with 1.4 billion people
It's crazy how some people think the liberty of a group of people should be constricted because of their numbers.
What kind of democracy are you even talking about? Is a Chinese Parliament, with some form of accountability, that unthinkable? There's corruption, but every democracy started that way. It may require force, but every democracy started that way as well. Just like a lot of things in life, if you wait for the ideal conditions, you'll do nothing but wait. BTW, some small provincial elections are already starting to be won by non CCP members. It's not much, but it's difficult to stop once it gets started, and it'll be especially difficult when they face more economic slowdowns and their new middle class isn't happy about it.
It's not as if we're talking about a complete culture change like the Shah's Iran; China is already very much adapted to capitalism and "western" lifestyles, all we're talking about is a system of accountability between the populace and the government.
|
The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous. However, the militaristic crackdown against TS was completely unnecessary as it was not only a waste of lives but also a plain sign of insecurity of the Chinese government. (though understandable at the time, China was more or less preparing to take the mantle of Soviet Russia as the communistic leader of the world) As for many of the students involved in the actual protest now working as government officials, well, chances are if they were engaged in government protest they were into politics one way or another so what'd you expect. -.-
Btw sArite_nite, good points but I doubt China will succumb to international pressure any time soon simply because of the current Chinese mentality to not "lose face" to foreigners. You'd have to realize, a lot of Chinese still have the "up yours" mentality towards the West for their imperialistic policies towards China the past two hundred years. In some ways, I think Obama's admin is recognizing that given Geithner/Clinton's approach in dealing with China compared to well ... the less well picked ones of Bush's regime.
|
On June 06 2009 11:36 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 11:15 BalliSLife wrote:
Couldn't of said it any better than you pyro, it's crazy how some people think democracy could work with 1.4 billion people It's crazy how some people think the liberty of a group of people should be constricted because of their numbers. What kind of democracy are you even talking about? Is a Chinese Parliament, with some form of accountability, that unthinkable? There's corruption, but every democracy started that way. It may require force, but every democracy started that way as well. Just like a lot of things in life, if you wait for the ideal conditions, you'll do nothing but wait. It's not as if we're talking about a complete culture change like the Shah's Iran; China is already very much adapted to capitalism and "western" lifestyles, all we're talking about is a system of accountability between the populace and the government.
To be honest, at the end of the day, China's government is like you said, very similar to most of the West. However, they cling to the name of "communism" simply because admitting otherwise will be seen as giving in to foreign pressure. As for corruption, yes, it exists in China but democracy doesn't somehow change all that. If anyone even knows remotely what happened in the recent Taiwan elections, etc, they'd realize that. I'd hate to say it but post capitalism China, the average Chinese citizen is a little too opportunistic. Now it's all about money money money. =\
|
On June 06 2009 11:33 foeffa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 10:56 Railz wrote:
CCP does in fact have a constitution, but I'm pretty sure its complete BS and not bound by any legal courts. If you actually had any knowledge on the subject you might know that while the constitution is broad, this is the generally the case in Chinese law because most of it is interpreted at the local level in a manner befitting social circumstances, as a form of pragmatism. While there are without a doubt injustices in the Chinese legislative or judicial system, there has been quite a bit of effort invested in implementing the rule of law in China (based on a European continental law system, more specifically German law). Yes the balance of powers isn't strictly enforced, yes there is a problem with corruption, conflicts of interest and pressure from e.g. LPG's on local courts etc, etc. However, just saying that "the Chinese constitution is BS and whatnot is just uninformed dribble, like a lot of things people tend to say when talking about China. They're not retarded, they know where the problems lie and sooner or later they will be addressed. After all it's still a country in transition in some ways, and they 've come a long way already. I'm not a China-nut but I do hate people randomly spamming opinions on subjects they don't know that much about, concerning a country they don't know much about either.
Granted, my word usage wasn't the best but the point remains. People were stating that they'd be better off with a democracy. I was pointing out how that's not true at all - all they need is an improved constitution. So I read it and it furthered my belief that the constitution they have was made for the party, not the country. Or am I not allowed to be anti-CCP?
|
United States12607 Posts
On June 06 2009 11:36 KissBlade wrote:
The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous.
Are you at all familiar with democracy's historical track record versus other forms of government?
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 06 2009 11:39 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 11:36 Jibba wrote:On June 06 2009 11:15 BalliSLife wrote:
Couldn't of said it any better than you pyro, it's crazy how some people think democracy could work with 1.4 billion people It's crazy how some people think the liberty of a group of people should be constricted because of their numbers. What kind of democracy are you even talking about? Is a Chinese Parliament, with some form of accountability, that unthinkable? There's corruption, but every democracy started that way. It may require force, but every democracy started that way as well. Just like a lot of things in life, if you wait for the ideal conditions, you'll do nothing but wait. It's not as if we're talking about a complete culture change like the Shah's Iran; China is already very much adapted to capitalism and "western" lifestyles, all we're talking about is a system of accountability between the populace and the government. To be honest, at the end of the day, China's government is like you said, very similar to most of the West. However, they cling to the name of "communism" simply because admitting otherwise will be seen as giving in to foreign pressure. As for corruption, yes, it exists in China but democracy doesn't somehow change all that. If anyone even knows remotely what happened in the recent Taiwan elections, etc, they'd realize that. I'd hate to say it but post capitalism China, the average Chinese citizen is a little too opportunistic. Now it's all about money money money. =\
The Chinese government is not similar to most of the West. I didn't say that at all.
Corruption will always exist. In the long run, collectivism perpetuates it, capitalism and democracy do not. Capitalism is to economics what democracy is to politics. They follow from each other (and it's easier to go capitalism->democracy like China has the chance to.) Under what conditions do you suppose the Chinese populace would be "ready" for democratic elections?
|
United States12607 Posts
|
On June 06 2009 11:51 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 11:39 KissBlade wrote:On June 06 2009 11:36 Jibba wrote:On June 06 2009 11:15 BalliSLife wrote:
Couldn't of said it any better than you pyro, it's crazy how some people think democracy could work with 1.4 billion people It's crazy how some people think the liberty of a group of people should be constricted because of their numbers. What kind of democracy are you even talking about? Is a Chinese Parliament, with some form of accountability, that unthinkable? There's corruption, but every democracy started that way. It may require force, but every democracy started that way as well. Just like a lot of things in life, if you wait for the ideal conditions, you'll do nothing but wait. It's not as if we're talking about a complete culture change like the Shah's Iran; China is already very much adapted to capitalism and "western" lifestyles, all we're talking about is a system of accountability between the populace and the government. To be honest, at the end of the day, China's government is like you said, very similar to most of the West. However, they cling to the name of "communism" simply because admitting otherwise will be seen as giving in to foreign pressure. As for corruption, yes, it exists in China but democracy doesn't somehow change all that. If anyone even knows remotely what happened in the recent Taiwan elections, etc, they'd realize that. I'd hate to say it but post capitalism China, the average Chinese citizen is a little too opportunistic. Now it's all about money money money. =\ The Chinese government is not similar to most of the West. I didn't say that at all. Corruption will always exist. In the long run, collectivism perpetrates it, capitalism and democracy do not.
You should be prepared for the backlash from others about saying something about capitalism and corruption not existing together in the long run with the current state of affairs. Even still, you're right, corruption is not as bad as it once was in industrialized nations by a fair margin - but a lot of that was because of the allowance of letting people protest and form workers rights movements above all else.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 06 2009 11:53 JWD wrote:
Pardon me if I'm wrong here, but I think Jibba means "collectivism perpetuates it".
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. My brain is still kind of out there from the gym.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
