The Two Sides of China
On one hand, the Chinese are to be credited for undergoing a tremendous transformation. In less than one generation, the Chinese have changed their nation from a poor and backward communist dictatorship to a productive economic powerhouse. Where once the Chinese people endured little more than strangling poverty, today they are reaping the fruits of their hard work and enjoying a rapidly increasing standard of living. In a very real and beneficial sense, China has become the world's factory and its people have profited accordingly.
Yet on the other hand, China remains brutally authoritarian. China's refuses to acknowledge the existence of individual rights, that is, it refuses to acknowledge that every person has a sovereign right to their life, freedom of action and freedom of thought. China's government functions absent the protections of the rule of law. For all of China's much-vaunted changes, the reality is that its actions today are not all that far removed from when the Society of Right and Harmonious Fists worked to block all foreign influence at the turn of the 19th century. Philosophic and religious freedom is a fundamental right of sovereign minds, yet China's ruling clique recognizes no sovereignty other than its own.
Thus as long as China willingly violates the basic rights of its own people, it can never be trusted to respect the rights of other nations. China remains a threat and the free people of the world must continue to guard against it.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I wonder how this arguer got verified as an expert. Surely an 'expert' discussing China and Communism would know that despite popular opinion, China is anything but Communist.
China is technically classified as a socialist republic ruled by the COMMUNIST Party of China. Hmm. Just because the CCP now goes by the PRC doesn't mean they're no longer communist. Hu Jintao leads China according to Marxist and Maoist ideology. Sounds like communism to me.
You may think I'm oversimplifying, but I'm not. The PRC's ideology promotes a classless, stateless society based on common ownership - very, very communistic of them. Especially since they rid their country of anyone who opposes such an ideology.
And Zimbabwe says it's a democracy . That doesn't make it true, dear.
america also claims to be a democracy, meanwhile, wall street elects guys like obama to funnel money into goldman sachs. what is so sad about americans is that they think its ok to take "campaign contributions". i dont see how a country can be democratic when they take kick backs from corporations.
I don't know which part of your response is most reprehensible; the fact that you changed the subject from China to Zimbabwe, or that you took three months to think of a reply, or your condescending use of the word "dear."
You don't need to educate me on Africa, as I'm willing to bet big money that I have much more experience with the country and its people than you have. As for China being "anything but communist" I'm interested to know what your version of communism consists of. Maybe you and Hu Jintao should have a chat with each other.
I really do. All I have to do, all day, is sit around and debate with you. In fact, that's what I've been doing all this time--just thinking of a response! It's true.
Wow, what an arrogant, self-absorbed creep you are.
My point was that governments and politicians call themselves all sorts of things, and only an idiot like yourself believes them and takes it at face value. What politicians say should never be the first measure of what something is.
Communism is a stateless, classless society where all property is abolished/owned commonly. You're free to argue that all attempts at introducing communism (which have so far been only via Marxism, ie, introducing socialism first, which introduces a corrupt and authoritarian government) lead to something not-communist, but that doesn't change the definition of communism.
I'm really sorry, I know, it sucks not to be able to frame debates to your advantage.
Idiot? Creep? If you can't do better than that well...good luck becoming a journalist.
I get your point. I do. And I never take what someone says at face value. But that's another matter!
Ponder with me, won't you, the differences between ideologies and reality. On paper, most forms of government look absolutely functional (some, even desirable). I don't think Mao Zedong's ideologies incorporated the possibility (or probability) of anything like the Tienanmen Square massacre happening. Nevertheless, his legacy opened wide the possibility for just such an event.
All forms of government have a propensity to collapse themselves under their own ideologies - as you said, communism becoming not-communist. For instance, we are classified as a capitalist society , however, capitalism depends on competition. The great compromiser of our society is the monopoly. Once one is established and becomes completely lateral it is virtually impossible for competition to exist. Ironically, monopolies are made possible because of capitalism - the very thing that they destroy. So of course, intervention is required.
Communism (and socialism, for that matter) lend themselves more to negative, rather than positive financial incentives. This absolutely promotes greed and selfishness in a widespread fashion which is not conducive to either communism or socialism.
What I'm getting at here is that pure ideologies really don't exist anywhere. There is no completely democratic, communist, capitalist, socialist, or Marxist country in the world. Whatever state we are in at this time, it is due to the to the ideologies that the masses have adhered to up to this point. So to say that China is a Communist country isn't technically correct, but to say that it is "anything but communist" isn't quite right either.
I'm curious - what DO you want people to classify China as?
this is true. you can never become an english language journalist unless you are devoted to multi national corporations in spreading their propaganda. i go to the english media for one thing only, to see what ISNT true.