• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you consider China to be communist?

Not really, although you can consider it authoritarian and inefficient, sorta like communism run by incompetents. True communist states suck every bit of vibrancy and creativity out of their subjects. 20 years ago, yes, but not now - I think they've come to the realization that the kleptocrats will have more to skim off the top if they don't run it as a strictly socialist gig.
 
nope. add its loads of corruption, a totalitarian state, and a few dabs of capitalism because it benefits them (and provides more $$ to fuel corruption) and you have china...oh i forgot the part adding adding chinese people into it 😉
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: loki8481
never really communist to begin with.
Click to expand...

huh?
Click to expand...

I dont belive there is any country in the world that is truly communistic, none ever.
Click to expand...



ah back to the argument about nothing being truely communist.....
Click to expand...

argument? it's a fact 😉

Communism: everyone is equal. there are no leaders, no people more important than others. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Socialism: a system of social organization where the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled by the government. the government controls the factories and other forms of industry.
 
It was communist to a point. Communal aggrarian social organization , anti-elitism, to the point of the execution of the educated (smart move there, Mao).

But it was more authoritarian than anything else. If he could see the result, Marx would've rued the day he ever penned the words "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Of course, like in Russia, there was no proletariat to speak of in China. More a dictatorship of those who could manipulate the serfs. ]

But I don't think any sane person could consider China proletarian today.

I see what's happening there somewhat like what happened in Prussia under Frederick II, or Russia under Peter, or even France under Cardinal Richilieu.

Liberalization where it is most useful, and sternly guided nation-building elsewhere. All while maintaining basic social institutions, but eliminating both traditional as well as new power axis.

The Party there is sowing the seeds of it's own destruction, while at the same time building the framework for a great (but not neccessarily good) nation to be forged.

Exciting times, eh?
 
Yes because the U.S. government always told us they were "Communist China" until the "defeat" of Communism which conveniently ignored China.

And now the Communists own more U.S. notes on our debt than any "defeated" system should, IMO.



 
Originally posted by: BBond
Yes because the U.S. government always told us they were "Communist China" until the "defeat" of Communism which conveniently ignored China.

And now the Communists own more U.S. notes on our debt than any "defeated" system should, IMO.
Click to expand...

Bah, when they said they defeated communism, they only meant for white people. They count for more, don't they?

Besides, the Chineese system has little to do with Communism. A party can change its stripes. The Republican party used to be the party that stood against state's rights in favour of minority rights. Then look at the 60s. The original flip-flop, if I may dredge up a term we had all hoped had died. Just because one political institution has kept the same name does not mean that they have kept the same philosophy.
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: BBond
Yes because the U.S. government always told us they were "Communist China" until the "defeat" of Communism which conveniently ignored China.

And now the Communists own more U.S. notes on our debt than any "defeated" system should, IMO.
Click to expand...

Bah, when they said they defeated communism, they only meant for white people. They count for more, don't they?
Click to expand...

Until very recently about 2/5 more, IIRC, right here in the good old U.S.A.

Besides, the Chineese system has little to do with Communism. A party can change its stripes. The Republican party used to be the party that stood against state's rights in favour of minority rights. Then look at the 60s. The original flip-flop, if I may dredge up a term we had all hoped had died. Just because one political institution has kept the same name does not mean that they have kept the same philosophy.
Click to expand...

Parties evolve, systems evolve, the Chinese leaders are extremely sharp. They are Communists using Capitalism to defeat Capitalism, IMO.
Click to expand...
 
Nah, I think they're approaching a fork in the road with either fascism/nationalism or a more liberal democratic choice. Let's hope they choose the latter.
 
Originally posted by: BBond

Parties evolve, systems evolve, the Chinese leaders are extremely sharp. They are Communists using Capitalism to defeat Capitalism, IMO.
Click to expand...

"capitalists will compete to sell us the rope we will hang them with"
 
No, they are more dictatorial than communist. Their govt actually isn't all that intrusive economically either.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: loki8481
never really communist to begin with.
Click to expand...

huh?
Click to expand...

I dont belive there is any country in the world that is truly communistic, none ever.
Click to expand...



ah back to the argument about nothing being truely communist.....
Click to expand...

Read some marx then and stop acting like you know.
Lenin, Stalin both said their system was not communism, but leninism and stalinism.
 
It never was communist. It has some socialist measures, with a rather authoritarian government. But by the same hand, the US has some socialist measures as well.

Communist state is sort of an oxymoron. When communism is achieved, there is no state.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't true communism after socialism when society has evolved beyond the need for government? (i.e. anarchy)

I also seem to recall socialism is to the extreme left and communism is at the extreme right.
 
Originally posted by: KirbsAw
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't true communism after socialism when society has evolved beyond the need for government? (i.e. anarchy)

I also seem to recall socialism is to the extreme left and communism is at the extreme right.
Click to expand...

Communism extreme right??? What?

Socialism was meant to be a way to communism without going through the revoltion that was supposed to be the base for communism. These days socialism has evolved to a political viewpoint in itself.
 
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: KirbsAw
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't true communism after socialism when society has evolved beyond the need for government? (i.e. anarchy)

I also seem to recall socialism is to the extreme left and communism is at the extreme right.
Click to expand...

Communism extreme right??? What?

Socialism was meant to be a way to communism without going through the revoltion that was supposed to be the base for communism. These days socialism has evolved to a political viewpoint in itself.
Click to expand...

Thats what i remember from Poli Sci. Communism is the most limited government you can have, there isnt one. It was supposed to be a utopian society that didnt need a government to tell them what to do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top